Sitting of 16 November 2001

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

Public Bodies
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
9.33 am
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out the Government's policy on the important issue of public bodies, their work and composition, and the challenges that lie ahead. The debate has been initiated by the Government precisely because we are keen to report on the situation to date, enter into dialogue on developments and elaborate on our policies and intentions for the future.
We choose as a society to deliver services to meet the needs of individuals through the collective organisation of government at local, regional and national level. Ministers are ultimately accountable to Parliament and the electorate for the quality and efficiency of service delivery. Yet the processes by which services are delivered have evolved greatly in recent years, and the classic model of direct departmental implementation has been supplemented by a variety of other effective and appropriate organisational systems.
The term "public bodies" covers a wide range of organisations. The quango, or quasi-non-governmental organisation, is now known by the equally illuminating term, NDPB, or non-departmental public body, which perhaps better describes the position of those units in the overall government framework. There are four types of NDPB. Those based on the executive model, of which the Environment Agency is an example, carry out a wide variety of administrative, regulatory and commercial functions, and operate under statutory provisions. They employ their own staff and have responsibility for their own budgets. Advisory public bodies, such as the boundary commissions and the Historic Buildings Council, are generally set up by Ministers to advise on matters within their departmental sphere of interest.
Tribunal NDPBs, such as NHS or employment tribunals, are bodies with jurisdiction in a specialised field of law. Tribunals generally operate under statutory provisions and, independently of the Executive, decide the rights and obligations of private citizens towards a Government Department or other public authority. Finally, boards of visitors, such as prison visitors and visiting committees in Northern Ireland, are also classed as NDPBs.
Not all public bodies fit neatly in one of those four categories—for example, English Nature has both an executive and an advisory function—but the models provide the most comprehensive definition of the wide variety of quangos serving the nation.
1078
The Government are committed to keeping the number of public bodies to a minimum. There are now fewer in the UK than at any time in the past 20 years. As at 31 March 2000, there were 1,035 public bodies in the United Kingdom, with approximately 20 per cent. operating in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under the responsibility of the devolved Administrations. The total number of public bodies in the UK has fallen by around 10 per cent. since 1997, down from 1,128. I intend shortly to publish the updated figures setting out the position at the end of the last financial year.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I am interested in the Minister's definition because clearly there are many local public bodies, such as governing bodies of schools, which are, as far as I can see, executive bodies. They are non-departmental, public and fulfil all the criteria that he set out, but they do not appear in either of the figures that he quoted.
Mr. Leslie: There are several different classifications of statutory bodies, but the issue is which of them are defined as NDPBs, and I shall elaborate on those classifications. Certainly, there are local statutory bodies with which we all work on a constituency basis and are familiar.
NDPB expenditure was about £24 billion in the last year for which records have been compiled, so these bodies are an extremely important component of the public sector. The vast majority of that sum was programme expenditure: the awarding of grants, legal aid and funding for further and higher education. However, only £18 billion was from the Exchequer, the remainder being raised through a combination of statutory levies and other charges. I shall endeavour to publish greater detail and financial information in the next edition of "Public Bodies", which is published by the Cabinet Office annually.
Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the grant in aid given to NDPBs, and it is right that Parliament should scrutinise, on the Floor of the House and through the Select Committee system, how well that money is spent. Ministers set performance targets to drive forward improvements in the quality of services, and are keen to see policies implemented in the most effective way. The process of review and accountability undertaken by both Houses of Parliament is important and greatly valued.
The Government are keen to ensure that those who sit on the boards of public bodies are appointed on merit. It is also important that public appointments increasingly reflect the composition of the nation as a whole, and that we achieve an equal representation of men and women, and, as closely as possible, a pro rata representation of ethnic minorities and a greater proportion of disabled people. It is also a priority of mine to increase the national diversity of those appointed to public bodies, so that all parts of the country have an equal voice about the public services that they need and expect.
The Government are looking to encourage applications to public bodies from people with the skills and qualities that we seek, but who might not be aware that opportunities exist, or might not at first consider themselves suitable for a place in public life.
Gradual steps are being made in the direction of a more diverse pool of public appointments. Of the 30,000 individuals who serve as board members, 33 per cent. are

1079
women and 4.4 per cent. are from an ethnic minority. However, greater effort needs to be made to speed up progress in that respect. In particular, I want greater attention to be paid to appointing disabled people to NDPBs, so I aim for the first time to give more information on those numbers in the next edition of the snappily titled, "Public Bodies 2001". 1 hope that that will establish a baseline from which the Government's commitment to increased participation can be assessed.
It is crucial that people appointed to public bodies should be of the highest quality and the best available for the tasks required. That is why the Government take considerable care in how the posts are filled. Ultimately, appointments are made by Ministers, and Ministers are held accountable for those decisions and for the performance of the bodies concerned.
To ensure that the process is properly carried out in each case, a Commissioner for Public Appointments is now in place to ensure that appointments are made on the basis of merit and in accordance with the code of practice. I pay tribute to Dame Rennie Fritchie, the current Commissioner for Public Appointments, for all her hard work and energy in fulfilling that important role. The code of practice seeks to promote appointment on merit, equal opportunities, probity, openness, transparency and proportionality. The commissioner's efforts have helped to secure an increasingly high quality of individual on the boards of those important organisations.
Once a public body has been established, it is important that Ministers and Parliament continue to monitor and review its performance and structure, and do not regard them as set in concrete. All NDPBs are subject to regular and thorough review every five years, but where it makes sense, that formal review can be brought forward or rescheduled, especially if its results can be linked with simultaneous changes in government. Public bodies do not exist in isolation from the rest of Government, but contribute to wider departmental and governmental objectives, and consequently form a key element of our programme for reform of public services.
In seeking to increase the accountability of NDPBs, the Government are keen for Select Committees to take a more active role in scrutinising the work of larger bodies, and Departments are required to inform the relevant Select Committee when the quinquennial review begins so that its views might inform the process. Fundamentally challenging questions are asked, such as whether the public body is required at all, whether it could be abolished, or whether it should be altered to achieve its objectives more effectively. If, at the first stage of the review, a decision is taken to remain as a non-departmental public body, the review will go on to examine the scope for future improvements, such as how new technology or closer co-operation with the private sector might be incorporated into its work.
I take this opportunity to thank the thousands of individuals who, through appointment to public bodies, give their time serving the public in pursuit of better services. There are some excellent examples of good practice, and I hope that the House will have an opportunity to consider some of them today. Many of the key quangos set up by the Government, such as the Low
1080
Pay Unit, the Disability Rights Commission and the new deal taskforce, are a response to specific manifesto commitments.
In my short time at the Cabinet Office, I have worked closely with the Better Regulation Task Force, which provides the Government with independent advice to help ensure that our regulatory programme is necessary, fair and does not impose unreasonable burdens on business and the public sector. To date, it has published 20 substantive reports containing 337 recommendations. Of those, 19 are still under consideration, and all but nine of the remainder have been accepted in whole or in part. That is a classic example of an effective advisory body that makes a significant contribution to the regulatory debate. The best public bodies are those that listen to the needs of the people they serve, and respond swiftly and efficiently.
During the substantive debate on this subject last year, the House spent some time discussing the taskforces set up by the Government since 1997. Taskforces, ad hoc advisory groups and review teams provide independent, expert advice to the Government on a wide range of important issues, including health, education, transport and crime. They are an effective means of securing high-quality advice on matters of public concern.
However, taskforces are not a new phenomenon. Previous Administrations have created their own taskforces and equivalent bodies, but it was this Government who made available for the first time detailed information on the number of such bodies in existence, their remit and membership.
Today, I announce the publication of the first annual report on taskforces, advisory groups and reviews. By producing in the form of an annual report information on details of the composition, names and background of the chair and membership, and dates when those bodies have been wound up, I hope that greater transparency and accountability can be achieved.

The number of taskforces is steadily decreasing. Of the 359 bodies in existence during the last financial year, 12 taskforces have been wound up, 28 reviews have concluded their work, and 86 advisory groups have ceased to exist. A further 22 bodies are due to be terminated imminently.
The House will be familiar with the development of Government agencies, which although not quangos in the traditional sense, are clearly public service bodies that exist outside the classic departmental model. The agency concept came into being in the mid-1980s in a very different political climate, and the next steps reviews have had a major impact on the organisation of the public sector.
The Government now believe that it is a good time to review the work of the agencies at large, both to define best practice and to share it. while recognising some of the difficulties that have been faced—and in some cases still remain—in the agency model. That review is being led by Pam Alexander, the former chief executive of English Heritage, with the support of a small team in the new Office of Public Services Reform.
The review has been designed to make sure that it takes account of the perspectives not just of Departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies, but of service users. It will investigate relationships between Departments, Ministers and agencies, the extent to which

1081
operational freedoms have been devolved, and the impact on front-line delivery and innovation. The review puts a strong emphasis on consultation—so far, the review team has carried out 70 visits and meetings. I anticipate that the review will be in a position to report around the turn of the year.
While the existing system of public bodies and public appointments works well, I am keen to develop a number of improvements. First, I want to look at new methods of improving and extending the way in which appointment opportunities are publicised, and raise awareness generally about posts that arise. While specific appointment opportunities are, of course, already publicised in accordance with rules set out by the commissioner, the Government believe that more can be done to broaden the range of applications, so that not only insiders or those with privileged access are aware of potential vacancies in advance. The Cabinet Office will restructure the existing website on which information on public bodies is made available, and that should be launched next year. It must include key facts about public bodies and details of who holds what appointment at present.
Secondly, the Government believe that the development of regional governance will change the terms of debate on the accountability of regional and local quangos. Directly elected regional government would precipitate a review of how those public bodies should be held accountable to new structures, or subject to their scrutiny, and what future relationships might exist. Clearly, those matters are at a very early stage, and although it is too soon to consider specific arrangements, I am determined to promote wider awareness of the regional dimension in the formation of future public bodies. Specifically, I am keen to ensure that the membership of NDPBs increasingly reflects the regional breadth of all parts of the United Kingdom, and that boards and trusts are not dominated by any particular corner of the nation.
Thirdly, the Government must keep a close eye on the proliferation of public bodies, and check the number and growth of quangos. That is often more easily said than done, but it is important for Ministers to send to officials the message that we must always bear down on bureaucracy and layers of organisation where they are superfluous or can be replaced by more efficient and simple structures.
The topic of public bodies may seem dry and esoteric, but beneath the complexity and theory lie practical and relevant questions that are at the heart of public service delivery. Both the Government and Parliament have a duty constantly to scrutinise and improve the public sector, and I sincerely hope that today's debate will contribute to that process.
9.50 am
Mr. Tim Collins: It is my happy duty to congratulate the Minister on his promotion to his ministerial role. As a result of a recent minor reshuffle in the Cabinet Office, he is now in receipt of a ministerial salary. Some of us in opposition were, slightly more belatedly than others, converts to the doctrine of the minimum wage, and perhaps it becomes us to congratulate the Minister on the fact that he is now receiving due remuneration for the task that he has been performing. I
1082
am sure that he shares my pleasure at the fact that that change occurred as a result of British Petroleum's benevolence towards the Government. It is a mark of the triumph of new Labour that British Petroleum's happiness with the Government has resulted in not one but two pillars of the new Labour establishment enjoying an increase in their take-home pay.
I must begin with a small apology. I am afraid that a commitment outside the House will require me to be absent for about half an hour from approximately 10.30 am, and I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker and to the House, particularly if that means that I miss one or two of the speeches that follow mine. I shall of course return as soon as I can.
In his helpful and constructive introduction to the debate, the Minister set out the role of quangos—or non-departmental public bodies as we are now supposed to call them, as he rightly said, although I am not sure that that greatly illuminates matters. However, what does clarify the issue is a series of excellent reports by the Select Committee on Public Administration. I commend to all hon. Members the reports that it produced during this and the previous Parliament, because they contain much useful information.
It is important to stress, as the Minister did, that quangos or NDPBs, however we choose to call them, can fulfil a constructive and valuable role. They can bring into public service a range of independent-minded people, and they can provide greater expertise, wider experience and more flexibility than the hands-on model of Departments in central or local government.
It is important to stress at the outset that no Government are wholly virtuous in their approach to quangos. All of us in opposition mount great campaigns about the evils of quangos. We argue that they must all be put to the sword, and that public service would be advanced greatly if 99 per cent. of them were wiped away. However, when we come to office, we all suddenly find that they are rather convenient and a good model for delivering public service. Before we know where we are, a new set of Ministers is busily appointing members to quangos and creating new ones.
It is perfectly true to say—I volunteer this insight before Labour Members are tempted to challenge me on it—that all Governments are, from time to time, inclined to appoint more of their friends and supporters than their opponents. It is also important to stress that no Government are wholly sinful. All Governments, including the present one, appoint people from a range of backgrounds and political beliefs, and all Governments face the sometimes difficult consequences of appointees, once in place, turning round and biting the hand of those who feed them. That certainly occurred under the Conservative Government, and I suspect one or two people may be wondering how Tom Winsor managed to get appointed by the present Administration.
There have also been some increases in arm's length administration. I am not sure whether the Government would define the increased independence of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee as the creation of a quango, but it has been universally regarded as a success and is supported by my party. That shows that there has been a shift in the way in which we are governed, and we support that. In my view, it is not an indefensible crime for a Government who have received a mandate from the

1083
electorate to give power and responsibility to those who share a ministerial commitment to carrying out the policies on which the Government sought election. As ever, it is the detail that can cause problems. Many measures that are sensible in moderation can cause problems if they are carried to excess.
The BBC is an organisation that is listed in the Cabinet Office publication on public bodies. Many of us believe that it is perfectly acceptable for either the chairman or the director general of the BBC to be a known supporter of the governing party, but problems arise when, as now, they are both known to be supporters of the governing party, which is wholly unprecedented, as far as I know.
Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman has been frank about the Conservative Government's policy of putting Conservative party placemen and placewomen into quangos because they had a mandate from the electorate. During the 1980s, the Conservative party never had a mandate to govern Scotland. Did not its enthusiasm for putting Conservative party spokesmen on health boards and various quangos in Scotland lead to its present position, with only one Conservative MP out of 72?
Mr. Collins: I am grateful for that invitation to comment on the existence of a mandate in Scotland. I was under the impression that the Labour party at senior level, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had said that theirs is the party of the Union in Scotland. If there is a Union and a United Kingdom, it follows that the mandate applied to this place and to Ministers answerable to it is a mandate across the entire United Kingdom. That is the mandate that Conservative Governments received between 1979 and 1997, and it is the mandate that Labour Governments have received since 1997. I could point out that in Westmorland and Lonsdale the Labour party received 10 per cent. of the vote, yet I do not question its right to take decisions at Executive level that affect my constituents. I invite the hon. Gentleman to be a little more careful before arguing that the Government do not have a mandate in certain parts of the United Kingdom.
We all understand that Prime Ministers have the right to make appointments to the House of Lords, but some of us would question the present position, as almost a third of its Members have been appointed by the incumbent Prime Minister.
It is important to examine the trend of quangos. The Minister, with characteristic charm, attempted to convince the House that the number of quangos is falling. I think he said that it is the lowest number for 20 years. The impression was created that the quango state—if that is the phrase—is in retreat, that the virtuous armies of new Labour are vanquishing quangos even as we speak, and that if we give the present Administration a few more years, the role of quangos will be far smaller than ever before.
That is not the view taken by the Local Government Information Unit, which in the past 15 or 20 years has not been renowned for being a front for the Conservative party, as I suspect Labour Members recognise. It has recently produced a study called "The Advance of the
1084
Quango State", which refers to the fact that since 1997 new quangos have been created to lead, and police, national policy initiatives in almost every policy area. It says that Ministers are adding
"a wide range of indeterminate appointed and self-appointed bodies"
right across the field.
If we are to make the numbers comparison, it is important to note that even the Government's document "Public Bodies 2000" recognises that there was a sharp reduction in the number of people who work for quangos, or NDPBs, during the Conservative years. In 1979, 217,000 people worked for quangos, and that was reduced almost every year after 1979. There was a small blip in the 1980s.
Fiona Mactaggart: Jobs everywhere were being reduced.
Mr. Collins: The hon. Lady says that there were reductions across the board. Indeed, there were reductions in the numbers of bureaucrats and others working for the state. That was one of our commitments in every election from 1979 onwards, and I am delighted that, as the hon. Lady accurately points out, we kept that commitment.
As I was saying, the total number of public servants working for quangos was reduced from 217.000 in 1979 to 106,000 in 1997, a reduction of more than 50 per cent. Since 1997, the number has gone up to 112,000, which is about a 5 per cent. rise. The trend has therefore not only halted but been reversed.
Fiona Mactaggart: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my point, which was that, while his party was in government, employment of every kind reduced. Since Labour has been in government, employment in all fields has increased. Do not the figures that he has cited reflect that, rather than some ideological difference?
Mr. Collins: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who as ever makes a delightful contribution to our debates. I think that she will find that she is wrong. It would be true to say, had she wished to make the point, that unemployment was higher in 1997 than in 1979, but employment was also higher in 1997 than in 1979. Far from employment in all sectors having increased since the present Government came to power, employment in manufacturing has fallen by 112,000 and is in free fall, so I caution Labour Members not to go down that particular route.
It is important to stress that the Minister made a welcome announcement that there would now be an annual report on taskforces, but we learn from the Select Committee reports that about 303 taskforces exist. I think he said that a couple of dozen are being wound up. It would be helpful to know whether he will be able to give the House an undertaking that fewer taskforces will be set up in the second Parliament of the present Administration than in the first, when a very large number were established.
Mr. Tom Harris: I shall try to restrict my interventions. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is now the policy of the Conservative party not to set up any new taskforces if it wins the next general election?
Mr. Collins: I am always delighted to have a conversation with Labour Members about what we will

1085
do when we return to power. but in common with most Oppositions in the first six months of a Parliament—it was certainly a characteristic of the Labour party when it was in opposition for four Parliaments in a row—we do not enter into firm policy commitments this early. All those things are being considered by our policy review, but I take his submission to that policy review in the constructive spirit in which it is offered, and it will be given due consideration in time.
I wanted to put some specific questions to the Minister. He referred to the document "Public Bodies". As he knows, that was most recently published in December last year. I am sure that he will know that a number of hon. Members would have found it helpful if it had been possible for the 2001 edition to be published before, rather than after, this debate. It would be useful if, in the discussions that he has with the Government business managers, it could be suggested that it would help if such a debate took place after, rather than before, publication of the annual report.
Has the Minister a view yet on the format of that document? He will remember that some two years ago in its sixth report the Select Committee on Public Administration said:
"We recommend that the Government brings together information about the range of organisations carrying out its policy in a single directory, combining the information given at present in "Public Bodies" with other, summary information about departmental roles... Such a digest could replace "Public Bodies", and be published in tandem with the Government's annual report."
We all know what has happened to the Government's annual report. It became such an embarrassment that it appears to have been buried without trace. None the less, it would be helpful if the Minister indicated whether he thinks that, from now on, perhaps for this or next year's edition, "Public Bodies" can be modified in the way the Select Committee recommended, to become something nearer the map of the quango state for which it described the need.
It would also be helpful to learn the Minister's thinking on the Select Committee's recommendation that there should be some form of confirmation hearings, although not necessarily on exactly the model in the United States. It recommended that, for the most senior appointments to the most powerful and independent-minded of non-departmental public bodies, there should be the possibility at least for the relevant departmental Select Committee to have a hearing at which the Minister's nominee appeared before their formal appointment.
It would be helpful to know whether the Government have reached a settled view on that recommendation, just as it would he to know what the Minister makes of the Committee's recommendation, which seems quite sensible, that there may need to be clear, universally applicable guidelines on when a function should be implemented by a quango and when it should be implemented by either central or local government. We all understand that there must be some flexibility at the margin. However, there seems to be some confusion about whether a function should automatically be best implemented through an NDPB or through an elected tier of government.
I had an exchange with the Minister earlier about the number of taskforces and whether there would be fewer of them in this Parliament than in the previous one. Does he specifically accept the recommendation from the
1086
Committee on Standards in Public Life that taskforces should last for a maximum of two years? He will recall that the Committee reached that conclusion because it was said that taskforces should not be counted in the total number of NDPBs since they were temporary structures. The Committee thought that a temporary structure should by definition wind itself up within two years. Is that the Government's view? If not, many of us say that at least a number of those 300 or so taskforces should be counted as quangos and as a bit more than temporary.
On a slightly more constructive and less challenging note to the Minister, may I say how strongly I welcome what he said about wishing to see more people with disabilities appointed to public bodies of all sorts? I am a strong supporter of the creation of the Disability Rights Commission. Before Labour Members come to it, I am well aware that that was not the view of the last Conservative Government, but I think that the present Government were right to establish the commission. Their view on that has been entirely vindicated by events.
The commission has conducted itself admirably. I hope that the Minister will feel that he can take advice where appropriate from the commission on how best to take forward his strong commitment that there should be a greater number and diversity of people with disabilities on a range of public bodies.
I endorse what the Minister said about the many people who work very hard, either as board members or as employees for public bodies. We should recognise that public service can take a range of different forms, and we are very lucky in this country in the quality of many our public servants. None of them, any more us, is perfect, but they work extremely hard. Many of them do so not for a huge amount of money but with a strong commitment to their community. That should be welcomed.
As we have established, there is a valuable, long-term role for quangos, but there are a number of principles that it would be helpful to establish in relation to their running and the way they are organised. The first is greater openness about who is appointed to run them, how those people are appointed, and what and when decisions are taken.
The Minister outlined various ways in which the Government hoped to take that forward. He did not say much about the idea of having at least some meetings of the boards in public. We all understand that some discussions of commercial and other sensitivities cannot take place in public, but it would be helpful for the Government to say that, unless there are reasons to the contrary, it is useful to have meetings at least from time to time in public.
We need to know whether there will be a strong view about the auditing of those public bodies. The Select Committee recommended that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee should have a greater role in auditing them. There seems to be a strong case for that. Again, that cannot apply in all circumstances, but as the Minister said, according to the most recent available figures, about £24 billion is spent by these public bodies, of which about £18 billion comes from central Government; the other sums come from fees and other charges that they levy. A large sum of public money is involved. It would be useful if the principle were established that the National Audit Office should have a wide rather than a narrow remit.

1087
It is important that we put down a marker as a Parliament that arm's length relationships have a valuable role and that virtues can come out of them, but I am not a fan of the proposition that distancing Ministers, parliamentarians and politicians from accountability for decisions is always and invariably a good thing. Often, people will say that it is important that political considerations should be taken out of a particular decision-making process, when what they are really saying is that under no circumstances should the electorate be listened to. That is a dangerous principle.
All of us—I suspect that this is true of Labour Members too—when out of office, and sometimes when in office, may, in criticising the other side, have contributed to the creation of a climate in which the process of election has resulted in some people thinking that those who are elected are disqualified from making decisions, rather than qualified to do so. That is dangerous.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Is that not especially conspicuous when judges enter into the making of law, superseding the decisions of Members and the Government? That extends to decisions about the Home Secretary's powers in respect of sentencing.
Mr. Collins: I agree, but I will not go far down that route, as I suspect I would be rebuked by the Chair if I did. I merely say that the Home Secretary's remarks about the need for the primacy of Parliament and elected politicians in that respect are admirable, and that I hope they will be translated into action.
Consequently, I am afraid I do not agree with the recent conclusions of The Democratic Audit, a body that has conducted otherwise very useful research:
"Ministers and Parliament provide only a narrow, though valuably focused, route for accountability".
That comes dangerously close to being rather patronising about the role of the House. I feel that Ministers and Parliament should be the primary focus of accountability in the case of non-departmental public bodies. As the supreme elected body in these islands, the House should make it clear, on a collective basis, that nothing less than primacy of accountability will do. There may be other forums in which accountability can be exercised, but public bodies in the United Kingdom must be principally and primarily accountable to Ministers and, through Ministers, to Parliament.
My party has made it clear, both before and since the last election, that we are interested in the development of a range of means to strengthen the role, prestige and powers of this place. I very much hope that greater control of NDPBs, and a greater sense of their accountability to the House and its Committees, will form part of that agenda. I also hope that it will be possible to build some cross-party consensus on that.
I agree with the Minister about the role of public bodies, although I would tweak him slightly for one or two of the appointments that the Government have made. I hope that many of those involved in such bodies will interpret what is said today as both a strong indication of parliamentary support for their hard work and public service, and as a demonstration of the strong feeling on—
1088
I hope—both sides of the House that they should regard themselves principally and primarily as being accountable to this place.
10.13 am
Mr. David Heyes: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), and noted particularly his acknowledgement of the work of the Public Administration Committee. I shall return to that later.
This is my first opportunity to speak in the House, and I am especially pleased to be able to do so on a subject in which I claim a special interest, dry though some may think it.
Before I came to the House, much of my working life was spent with public bodies. I spent more than 25 years in local government, for example. I want to make some comments about the Minister's speech, which I welcomed, but first—according to the tradition of maiden speakers—I want to pay tribute to my predecessors in Ashton-under-Lyne.
That is not as straightforward as it may appear, because the constituency boundaries have been revised in every review that has taken place in modern times. From time to time, parts of the constituency have lain in the former constituencies of Manchester, Openshaw and Oldham, West. Among my illustrious predecessors are Charles Morris and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who represented a third of my constituency for many years.
Since a by-election immediately after the war, however, the core of the Ashton-under-Lyne constituency has been served by just two Members—two men who, while being very different characters, had in common a passionate dedication to their constituents and the communities that they represented. Hervey Rhodes, later Lord Rhodes of Saddleworth, is still remembered with great affection and gratitude by many of my elderly constituents. His political work at local, regional and national level continued for many years after his retirement from the House.
I want to pay special tribute to my immediate predecessor, Robert Sheldon, now Lord Sheldon of Ashton-under-Lyne. Bob Sheldon achieved that distinction so rare among politicians: he was acknowledged as a true statesman. Although he achieved ministerial rank in the 1970s, his true potential, which was to rise to the highest ministerial office, was not to be realised as his prime years were spent in opposition. Nevertheless, his contribution has been enormous, most notably his chairmanship for many years of the Public Accounts Committee. Under his wise leadership, the Committee came to be the most powerful and respected in the House. I understand that in his day a summons from the Committee was enough to strike fear in to the heart of the wiliest Sir Humphrey. Indeed, it still is.
In more recent times, Bob's leadership and wisdom found another valued outlet in the work of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which he led through some difficult encounters. His resilience and determination were proved again only last year. when he brushed aside the effects of a serious heart attack to make an amazing and rapid recovery after his life was saved in a famous incident. Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation was provided by none other than Olympic champion Duncan Goodhew. If

1089
you are going to collapse in the street with a heart attack, you need a very powerful pair of lungs to resuscitate you. Bob was certainly extremely lucky that day.
My fondest memories of Bob, however, will always be memories of his role as a hard-working constituency Member. The support and wise counsel that he has offered me in recent times has stood me in good stead as I have tackled the massive task of trying to emulate his achievements for his constituents.
I still receive letters from my constituents addressed to Bob, usually thanking him for the solving of some past problem and seeking his help with a new one—and, embarrassingly for me, confirming their undying support for him as their Member of Parliament, reassuring him that they voted for him in the last election, and promising to vote for him again in the next. Too often, I have had the unenviable task of explaining that Bob is no longer the MP, and that I am the unworthy replacement. The usual response, in the honest but dour Ashton style, is "Well, lad, if you do half as well as Bob Sheldon you'll do for me."
The fact that he commanded the undying and universal respect of his former constituents is the best tribute that could be paid to Lord Sheldon. He will indeed be a hard act to follow.
The Ashton-under-Lyne constituency has existed in its present form only since 1997, and Ashton-under-Lyne itself does not in fact lie at the heart of my constituency. The core of it, four to six miles from inner-city Manchester, is—surprisingly—open countryside, farmland and country parkland built around the Medlock valley. Historic Daisy Nook was made famous by local dialect poet Ben Brierley, and immortalised by L. S. Lowry in one of his finest paintings, depicting the Easter fair—which is still going strong after many generations.
Daisy Nook is part of Failsworth, my home town where I am proud to have lived for more than 30 years and brought up my family. The town is having something of an identity crisis. For nearly 100 years, it was a proudly independent urban district; then local government reorganisation placed it in the new metropolitan borough of Oldham. Despite that, the GPO has steadfastly refused to change Failsworth's postal address from Manchester. The boundary commission's decision to place Failsworth in the Ashton-under-Lyne constituency added to the confusion, and has caused much consternation locally.
Change is on the way, however. Thanks to a millennium lottery grant, the trans-Pennine Rochdale canal is being restored to full navigation, more than 50 years after falling into disuse. It has the potential to turn Failsworth, with its long-awaited new district centre, into a tourist mecca.
There are many fine schools in my constituency, but I am particularly proud to be associated with Failsworth school, nowadays a sports college and a magnificent community asset. A huge and growing range of sporting facilities are available there, not just for the students but for the benefit of the whole community. In fact, my first public duty as a newly elected MP was to open the college's new tennis courts.
The adjacent township of Hollinwood has suffered greatly in the past 20 years from the effects of blight, as the community awaited the go-ahead for the construction of the Manchester outer ring road. Despite that, Hollinwood has seen much innovation, with the huge
1090
Limehurst estate being one of the first in the country to be placed in the hands of a tenant-led management team. Investment in refurbishing homes and the rest of the built environment has transformed the quality of people's lives.
Limehurst school, re-built on a new site thanks to an imaginative local authority initiative, has been transformed and has now achieved beacon status. It is giving local youngsters a sound start in life. The area is also benefiting from a thriving sure start scheme, and the single regeneration budget has enabled the building of a new district centre. Hopes are high that a new community centre is on the way, too.
A metrolink—a light rapid transit line—is due to pass through Failsworth and Hollinwood, and construction should get under way in the next couple of years. That will boost the quality of our public transport and holds the promise of our achieving a truly integrated local transport network.
Above all else, we have the M60—the Manchester outer ring road—which was completed just over a year ago. Completion was at least 20 years behind schedule, but the motorway for the first time links disparate parts of my constituency. Failsworth and Hollinwood are now within easy reach of Droylsden and Ashton-under-Lyne. Although there has been a slow start, hopes are high locally that that vital link to the national motorway network will bring with it the industry, jobs and economic prosperity for which local people have waited for far too long. Local authorities, the business community and development agencies are making a tremendous effort to ensure that we seize such opportunities.
Droylsden, too, is to benefit from a metrolink line, which will run from Manchester to Ashton-under-Lyne. Droylsden is another proudly independent community, sitting astride the Ashton canal, with a bustling shopping centre and market. The township is to benefit soon from a new sports and leisure centre, which should give a new focus for youth activity. Droylsden is blessed with many excellent voluntary youth organisations. For example, only last week, I was privileged to attend the annual meeting of the Droylsden branch of the Air Cadets to present awards to some high-achieving young people. Such representatives of that generation give me great hope for the future.
This Cook's tour of my constituency ends with Ashton-under-Lyne itself. The heart of the town surrounds the famous traditional marketplace, with its daily indoor and outdoor markets drawing visitors from across the north-west. The newly extended shopping precinct makes Ashton the key retail destination in Tameside and east Manchester.
Ashton has also felt the benefits of canal restoration. Ashton canal, with its link to the Peak forest, has formed a section of the Cheshire ring for many years. With the restored Huddersfield narrow canal and one of the finest and most successful museums at the Portland basin where the canals converge, we have a fine resource, where young people can learn about a proud but often harsh industrial history and older folk can enjoy a nostalgic day out.
Some tremendous work is being carried out by the Ashton renewal team—a fine example of partnership that is helping to revitalise the urban core of the town. At one extreme, there is some ambitious house clearance and rebuilding, although some of the most impressive work is on a much smaller scale. For example, the alley gating

1091
scheme is transforming the quality of people's lives by creating a secure environment around their homes. Such work has revived a once flagging community spirit.
As a Member whose constituency straddles the adjacent boroughs of Oldham and Tameside, I cannot avoid mention of the violent events that have troubled us in recent times. I do not want to go into detail, but the outcome of the independent review is awaited with interest. It will be vital that its recommendations are given serious consideration by local, regional and national agencies and Government. Above all else, it is vital that all people of good will give a clear lead in rejecting and countering the malignant efforts of extremist groups and individuals wherever they try to stoke the fires of race hatred.
My constituency has a rich ethnic mix. For many generations, people from all over the world have put down roots in Oldham and Tameside. The Muslim people of Ashton are here to stay, and their contribution to a culturally and socially diverse community is to be celebrated and valued. Those in the Indian community of Ashton have worked hard to play an active and constructive role in civic life. It was a great pleasure to play a small part in opening their magnificent new community centre recently.

I hope that it is apparent that I am very proud of my constituency. We stand on the brink of real opportunities to boost the life chances of local people. Much has been done in recent years, but we still need better housing, better education, better health care, better transport and less crime and disorder. The people of my constituency need good-quality, well-paid jobs and a decent income in retirement. Working towards those goals will be my priority in the years ahead.
I should like to turn briefly to the subject under debate. In the spirit of a maiden speech, I shall avoid controversial comment. I should declare an interest as a new and still greenhorn member of the Public Administration Committee. I am a member by choice; public administration is something I know a little of, if only as a result of many years' employment and active trade unionism in the public sector.
I know that the matter of quangos and public bodies has occupied the Committee greatly in recent years, and has resulted in comprehensive recommendations on their composition, scrutiny and accountability. I am pleased that reference has been made to the work of the Committee and its important role and contribution. I particularly look forward to reading the report on the work of the taskforces. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will share my wish and that of the Chairman and members of the Select Committee that its recommendations should continue to inform and help to shape Government policy in this important area.
10.26 am
Mr. Mark Oaten: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) on his maiden speech. He spoke passionately about his predecessor. I was amused by his comments; I am sure that letters will be addressed to him in the years ahead. He also spoke passionately about his constituency. It seems an enormously diverse area and I am deeply
1092
envious of its leisure and transport initiatives. Many things are happening in the hon. Gentleman's area. I only hope that he breaks the tradition and avoids a boundary review.
I welcome the fact that we are debating public bodies, because there is genuine concern about their role. We have heard from the Minister and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), the Conservative spokesman, about debates on the increase in their number, although there is no doubt that they represent a large part of the work of government. A considerable amount of money is spent by public bodies—£24 million—but mystery surrounds much of their work.
All Governments want to demonstrate that they are controlling the growth of public bodies, and we heard an interesting exchange between Conservative and Labour spokesmen each trying to demonstrate that they are more determined than the other to control such growth. We should put it on record, however, that the present Government have gone some way in tackling the issue. Although there are still many weaknesses in the system, posts such as the Commissioner for Public Appointments are helping to provide more information about what goes on in public bodies and to oversee some of the appointments and the concerns that many of us share.
I shall set aside some of the detail to raise a general concern about public bodies and the way in which the Government are able to engage the public and explain the work done. More than ever before, there is apathy about the Government and public bodies, a misunderstanding of their activities and a disengagement of the public from Government and the mechanisms by which they deliver services to ordinary people. The election saw the lowest turnout for many years. Although I am pleased to say that the highest turnout was in my constituency, the figure was down there, too.
As a result of such disengagement and misunderstanding, the public do not seem to want to get involved in either the process of electing politicians to take decisions on expenditure or the various local or national organisations in which they could have a direct say about how public money is spent.
In many cases, the honest truth is that all three parties have a battle in finding individuals to stand for local elections. There is a similar battle in many public bodies, particularly local ones. On most of the occasions on which I have seen the work of public bodies at meetings in the regions and communities, just a handful of members of the public have been present in the village hall, and not all that engaged in the process. I am not suggesting that the way in which public bodies operate is completely to blame, but I should like the Minister to step back from the detailed initiatives that he has talked about today and let us know the Government's thinking about our use of public bodies. We should think about them in a radical way and reform them so that they can bridge the disengagement between Westminster and local communities. They have an important role to play.
I spent last night and last Thursday night in discussion with my constituents. Last Thursday, 350 people turned up to discuss noise on a motorway and last night about 200 people turned up to discuss the impact of mobile phone masts. We know that when people get involved in issues, they want to join the debate and have a say in what

1093
affects them. We need to bridge the gap so that people recognise the need to get involved in the public bodies and organisations that set the agenda that affects how much noise there is on motorways and where mobile phone masts are sited. There is a gap between people's interest in issues that affect them and their willingness to get involved in the agencies that may help them address those issues. The Government need to tackle that problem.
Having engaged people in some of those bodies, we need to consider the lack of representation. I was pleased to hear that the Minister is determined that people on public bodies should reflect the make-up of society, but it is hard to find good people to get involved in the process. Of course, some positions are sought after and there have been concerns about certain political appointments.
I welcome the work of the Public Administration Committee, of which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is a member. I was a member of that Committee previously and its Chairman is passionately committed to tackling these issues. I also welcome the work of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in trying to make sure that sought-after appointments are made on merit rather than on the basis of favouritism. However, in her most recent report, the commissioner said that there had been an increase of 4.2 per cent. in the number of those appointed who had declared some form of political activity. I would welcome the Minister's view on that. It may be a blip; it may not mean that there has been an increase in political appointments, but I am concerned that the figure has increased from 14.8 per cent. to 19 per cent.
Mr. Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, rather than suspecting some evil conspiracy behind the figures, we should consider whether the Government have not done what all Governments do and simply appointed people who are willing to serve on these bodies? More often than not, those people already have an interest in public service, which usually means that they are engaged in some form of political activity. Perhaps what happens has more to do with playing to people's strengths and interests than with some kind of political conspiracy.
Mr. Oaten: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We need to expand the process so that it does not always involve the same group of people but includes individuals who are not necessarily involved in politics. The hon. Gentleman's point has held good for a number of years, but I am concerned with the increase in the past year. It is a small increase, but it is worth the Minister commenting on it.
I am also concerned about the role of women in public bodies. The Minister rightly said that 33 per cent. of public bodies include women, but that figure has not changed since the Labour Government were elected. It is a pity that progress has not been as fast as we all would have liked it to be. In fact, some Departments which are involved in nominations have seen a decrease in the number of women appointed. The Treasury and the former Department of Social Security have reported such decreases. The latter has had to reduce its targets, and that is disappointing. I would welcome the Minister's view on how we can turn things around.
The Minister and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned the inclusion of disabled people. The Select Committee reported a slight dip in the number
1094
of disabled people appointed to public bodies. Similarly there has been a dip in the appointment of people from ethnic minorities.
Two other barriers to achieving the Minister's aim of getting a broad range of individuals on to these bodies have not been mentioned this morning. The first is the lack of involvement of young people. The Minister is a shining example, as he has achieved a great deal at a young age. I think I am correct in saying that he is the youngest Minister in the Government. However, young people are not getting involved in public bodies. It is difficult to make that a target and I accept that it is not one of the Government's indicators, but I hope that the Minister will give some thought to how we can encourage more people under 40 to get involved. Perhaps because of the time commitment involved or the times at which public bodies meet, the tendency is for individuals to become involved when they are in their 50s and 60s, have already brought up their families and do not have pressing commitments. If public bodies are to be representative, particularly given the decisions that some of them take, it would be good to get some younger people involved.
Perhaps it is more controversial to say that most public bodies involve middle-class professional people. If we really want to include a more diverse range of people, we should encourage people from different professional networks. In a sense this picks up on the point that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) made in his intervention. We have to look at how people get involved in these organisations. We are part of a cosy network. That may be because we are politicians or because of our professional lives. That is where the chats take place and people say, "There is a position coming up. Would you be interested?" As long as that is how appointments are made, we will continue to exclude people from other parts of society. I do not know whether we can change that by looking at how positions are advertised. If the proposed solution is to advertise in The Guardian, it will not be good enough. We need to go out and seek good people who are getting involved in issues on estates and in communities and persuade them to step up their activities. We need to give them financial support so that they can get involved in public bodies.
My next concern relates to the lack of accountability in public bodies. The Public Administration Committee reported that 95 per cent. of non-departmental public bodies were under no requirement to produce an annual report. I find that as bizarre as the fact that Members of Parliament are not required to produce annual reports. Perhaps it is hypocritical of us to criticise other organisations. I produce an annual report and I believe that there should be a requirement for all hon. Members to do the same. However, the fact that 95 per cent. of public bodies do not produce an annual report cannot be contributing to accountability or explaining the work that they do.
Only 1.8 per cent. of advisory quangos release the minutes of their meetings. Although I quite understand why some of them may not want to do that, what is stopping such organisations as the Sustainable Development Education Panel, the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development, the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee making the minutes of their meetings accessible? Perhaps the Minister could comment, as I believe that there is a need for action and for a requirement on those organisations.

1095
My final concern relates to the Government's ability to slow down the increase in the number of public bodies. I have no doubt that nearly all of them are set up with good intentions. When an issue needs tackling, the Government nearly always respond by setting something up. The Government and the nanny state rarely step back and do nothing. That is the nature of politics. It is also the nature of politics that responding to a situation often involves bringing expert advisers in to help. There is nothing wrong with that, but we need to make more progress in trying to analyse whether we need all the bodies that exist. With so many bodies in place, how can they co-ordinate among themselves? There must be crossover, and the more non-government bodies there are, the more likely it is that the Government's ability to achieve joined-up government will be hampered.
Worse still, there has been a growth in the number of bodies being set up which fall outside the remit of this debate—organisations that are not described as public bodies or quangos. Appointments are being made, particularly by the Cabinet Office, to taskforces, ad hoc advisory groups and internal reviews. My concern is that these bodies fall outside our remit. They are described as temporary bodies, which means that they do not have to fall within the commissioner's remit. Of the 300 or so that exist, 52 have been in operation for more than the two-year limit that is recommended for a body to be regarded as temporary.
The Neill Committee said that after two years the Government should decide whether a temporary body is to be abolished or turned into a permanent organisation that would fall under the commissioner's remit and be included in the figures that the Minister gave. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can specifically address that concern and give a commitment to review the status of those 52 organisations so that they can either be abolished or can fall within the remit of the Neill Committee.
I welcome the debate. The Minister has been open about his ideas for making progress on this issue. I have raised specific concerns about the ability to include quangos in the figures and the importance of accountability. We can tweak the figures, but unless we tackle the problem of apathy in public engagement and find a way in which public bodies can engage with the public, the subject will remain mysterious, which does nothing to make the Government more accountable to the people whom we represent.
10.41 am
Fiona Mactaggart: I begin with an apology. I may have to leave before the final speeches because of constituency commitments, some of which I have cancelled because I am keen to participate in the debate.
Much can be said about the work of public bodies, but I intend to address a narrow point. Sport is a classic example of British administration in which independent public bodies are charged with implementing policy. What exercises me is how Ministers can deliver what is expected of them. We have not yet squared that circle.
I am concerned about appointments to public bodies. I want to consider whether the system of appointments is satisfactory and whether all sections of the community are properly included. The answer, as the Minister admitted,
1096
is not yet. Things are not improving, which is of great public concern. Although it is clear from his welcome remarks that efforts are being made to improve the system, my report on the work that is being done is that things are not good enough yet. I hope that we do better.
The Minister said that 33 per cent. of appointments to public bodies have been women, but Dame Rennie Fritchie's report makes it clear that this year there has been a decrease—admittedly marginal—in the number of female appointments, from 39 to 38 per cent. Although there has been a marginal increase in the number of women who chair bodies, there has also been a slight decrease in the number of appointments of people from ethnic minorities and a small decrease in the number of appointments of young people and disabled people. The record reflects a marginal backwards movement in our attempts to ensure that people are properly represented on public bodies. I expect better under a Labour Government. There is a will to do better, and we need to focus on how we can deliver on it in practice.
There are lessons to be learned. It will not surprise anyone who is interested in equal opportunities that although there has been a marginal increase in women chairs, the bodies with the most impact are dominated by men. For example, those executive non-departmental public bodies that pay more than £50,000 have a ratio of men to women of 6:1; for those that pay between £20,000 and £50,000, it is 4.5:1; and for those that pay between £10,000 and £19,000, it is 4:1. It is only in the lowest paid bodies that women are in a majority.
There is a problem with the level of authority and appointments, but what can we do about it? We need to address how people navigate their way into such appointments at any level, from local governing bodies—many people start on school governing bodies—to a dynamic executive NDPB. Finding a road in—the initial navigation—confuses most people. There are welcome initiatives, such as mentoring and shadowing schemes and the public service week, but I have the strong impression that the main route in for most people is via a network of which they are a part.
We know that such networks reproduce themselves. That is their nature. There is an urgent need to construct different types of networks. Public appointments reproduce a middle-aged-plus, middle-class, white male network. The Government's first job is to put substantial energy into creating different networks. We do not want one network to provide the motorway into public appointments. In addition to alleyways, byways and country lanes, we need to create different networks in every Department, to link and plug into voluntary action in communities and in those networks that are led by people who do not represent the classic appointees.
The network may provide a route to a system, but we need to confront the criteria that are used to determine many appointments. Every Department should be required to conduct an equality audit of the criteria that they use for public appointment. In my experience, such an audit can radically transform the types of people who are appointed. For example, a proper criterion for making an appointment to a body that deals with health or education should be experience of using those services. A person

1097
may not have extensive boardroom experience, but extensive experience at the school gate should allow him or her to match the criteria and be appointed.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I sympathise with the hon. Lady's argument, especially in relation to people who are not used to sitting on committees and have not absorbed the committee culture. What concerns me is that having got on to the committee, they find the culture so hostile that it is impossible for them to make their point.
Fiona Mactaggart: That is an admission of failure on the part of our public bodies. We also need to audit properly the practices of those bodies that silence voices. I remember vividly being a very young member—it was a long time ago—of the governing body of a further education college. In those days, I did not have the confidence to call any of the other members by their first names. I called them Mr. So-and-so and Mrs. So-and-so, but they all called each other by their first names. Because I was so much younger, I did not feel that I had the authority to do that. It took courage—hon. Members will know that I am not short of that—to bust through that feeling and challenge a culture that, accidentally, had excluded me by its way of working.
As well as experience of public services, another appropriate addition to the appointment criteria might be commitment to a public service ethos. Many women and members of the ethnic minorities are or have been employed in the public service, but that is not counted as relevant experience for appointment. We also undervalue voluntary activity, especially if it is informal, when appointments to public bodies are considered. Many people have, for example, voluntarily organised school runs and child care circles, but those activities do not significantly contribute to their CVs, unless they have had clever training in how to present them. As a result, a set of major management skills are simply not recognised in appointment criteria.
The first task is to perform an equality audit of the criteria. The second is to make it easier for people who would like to know how to put themselves forward for public appointments. One problem that inhibits the under-represented groups in even applying is a form of self-censorship. I vividly remember a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) about how the discrimination that she had faced in life because she is a woman was often self-created, but that the discrimination that she had faced because she is in a wheelchair was often physically in front of her. We need to make it easier for people to see their way in. I recommend the creation of a single website—it would improve access only for people with access to the web, but more people will have such access in future—that explains what bodies exist and gives information about appointments.
Mr. Tom Harris: My hon. Friend's points about accessibility to quangos have a parallel in the debate about encouraging women to enter Parliament, and I know that she has been involved in efforts to encourage women to stand as candidates. Those efforts have failed to the extent that we have had to change the law to make all-women shortlists legal. Is not what she suggests simply the same old method that has failed in our party?
Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend anticipates the final point of my remarks. It has always been my view
1098
that when trying to make a horse drink, we should offer encouragement before dunking its head in. We need single gateways and simpler sources of information. When I have encouraged constituents who are appropriate candidates for appointment to public bodies, I have found it difficult to give them sensible information about what opportunities exist in suitable areas. For example, I know someone who works in public service, has much experience in building up ethnic minority businesses and is fanatical about cricket. He could contribute substantially in several areas—such as sport and business—but I could not direct him to a single website or publication that would give him information about what opportunities might exist. We need to simplify such information.
The third task is to form a clear policy for advertisements for jobs. I remember when the Greater London council took a policy decision to advertise posts in ethnic minority newspapers. Just that decision changed the nature of the people who were appointed to posts at all levels in that public authority. We are not as rigorous in public appointments now, and it is wrong that the main ethnic minority newspapers and publications aimed at women who are seeking employment are not used as a matter of course for advertising public appointments. Those who look in The Guardian, The Times and The Daily Telegraph are a peculiar minority bunch, and we need to ensure that those who are not in that class of people can find out about public appointments that might give them an opportunity to serve.
More work needs to be done to build on the shadowing and training initiatives. Dame Rennie Fritchie's report describes some impressive work in that area, but individual public bodies need to mount their own efforts to build on that. I also recommend that those who make appointments to public bodies take some risks, especially with young people. In many ways, it was a risk appointing me as a teenager to the board of an FE college, but I was a good governor and stayed on the governing body for a long time. Those who appoint people to public bodies should be given an opportunity to take a risk with one appointment—a wild card—and perhaps appoint a young person. Some of those appointments will fail, inevitably, and I do not suggest that risks are taken with appointments to chairs or with people who lack a broad enough range of experience. However, unless we take some risks, we will continue to reproduce the old pattern. There are places that we can look for appropriate young people, such as those who are attempting the Duke of Edinburgh award or who are involved in their student unions. They are not considered by those looking to recruit to our public bodies, but such young people have much to offer.
We must also consider using force to deal with the problem. We should consider imposing a quota on appointments to public bodies that have an especially poor record of appointing women, members of the ethnic minorities and disabled people. Let us be honest and admit that there are some constant recidivists. Unless we target them, they will not change. I asked for an information sheet from the Cabinet Office on appointment statistics, and I received some figures for 1999.
Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that 92 per cent. of those appointed—more than 1,000—by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were men.

1099
However, we all know how involved women are in food and food preparation in the family, and in managing and coping with the farm when the husband is out on his tractor. The second-worst was the Ministry of Defence, where the figure was 84 per cent., followed by financial institutions such as the Inland Revenue, the Royal Mint, the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Treasury. They were in relative contrast to the Department of Health and the Home Office, but not one Department had a majority of women appointees.
The best was the Department of Health, where 44 per cent. of the appointments were women. However, we all know that the largest group of employees in the health service are women and that, very often, it is women who negotiate entry into the service. Within the family, women often manage the connection between the family and the health service. However, not even in the Department of Health were the majority of appointees women.
We have had enough of the voluntary approach. The Minister should force those Departments with the worst inclusivity records to become more interested. Until we use some stick, the carrot will continue to fail. This is not just a mad feminist ranting from the Back Benches. I have looked carefully at our public service and it is not serving people like me properly. Until the voice of women is heard in the Treasury, the Bank of England and other financial institutions, we will miss out on a different perspective and, as a result, we will do the job worse.
Women need representation. Without it, institutions fail because they ignore not half of the population, but more than half. My remarks about women apply also to disabled people, who are physically excluded from many of the services provided or supervised by public bodies, and who are not counted in policy making. They apply also to those in ethnic minorities who, in many ways, have been the worst victims of the kind of networks that I have described.
Our record on this is just not good enough. I want to praise the Minister for calling the debate and for having the courage to admit that not enough progress has been made. But those of us who support him might start not only to encourage him, but to shove him forward, because it is not enough to make good statements or to have good intentions. We must have a strategic plan that delivers.
Labour has been in power for five years and has not made a sufficiently substantial impact on appointments to public bodies. There has been good will, but there have not been enough powerful instruments to ensure that that good will is implemented. I suspect that, in many cases, the usual channels and the usual networks have produced lists of chaps for Ministers to approve. Ministers have been busy and have had neither the energy nor the time to say, "Let's have some chapesses. We are bored with this." So the chaps have carried on getting through, and many of them are very good chaps. However, they cannot do all the work on their own. Until we get proper representation of currently excluded groups, we will fail our communities.
Non-departmental public bodies have huge responsibilities in terms of public service. They cannot properly serve the public unless they include all sections of the public in decision making. At present, they are failing to do that.
11.5 am
Mr. Andrew Turner: I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) on his election and on his maiden speech. I was particularly interested to hear about the frequent boundary changes that seem to have afflicted his constituency. I am pleased to say that the boundaries of my constituency have not changed since 1832, except where the sea has eaten bits away: something that is not a danger to the hon. Gentleman.
The Minister adopted a narrow definition of public bodies and never got beyond it. Obviously, we recognise the importance of the non-departmental public bodies to which he referred, and I recognise among them some local examples, such as the boards of visitors which do such sterling work in the three prisons on the island.
By definition, if there are non-departmental public bodies, there are also departmental public bodies. The Government need to adopt a rational definition that looks at all public bodies and all appointments to those public bodies, not simply those that happen to be non-departmental. These include the governing bodies of schools, harbour authorities, primary care trusts, learning and skills councils—both national and local—and the many local bodies that build up and sustain the fabric of our communities. Many of these are voluntary and wholly extra-statutory, although some are public bodies in the sense that they are publicly appointed and statutory in origin.
The biggest public body of all in this country is the one of which this House is a part; the body that makes the legislation by which all our citizens live. The other place is an important component of this Parliament, and I would like to refer to the reforms to the other place introduced by the Government. I should start by saying that if I were going to reform the House of Lords, I would not be starting from here. Indeed, were I back in 1997, I am not sure that I would have reformed the House of Lords in the first place. It did a good job under past Governments of all political complexions. and it has continued to do a very good job under the current Government in both the manifestations that the Government have introduced.
Mr. Tom Harris: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that, at the beginning of the 21st century, his preference would be for a wholly or largely hereditary second Chamber? I find that an amazing statement.
Mr. Turner: I was saying merely that, until 1997, the House of Lords—on a hereditary basis—had done an excellent job. As Gilbert and Sullivan put it, the House of Lords
"Did nothing in particular,
And did it very well."
I am not talking about where we go from here, because we no longer have that fortunate composition of the House of Lords which the Government inherited and then decided to destroy.

1101
As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) pointed out, the Government have substituted a House of Lords with a significant composition made up of Tony's cronies.
Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman's words are carefully chosen and very significant, although I reject the label "Tony's cronies". Does he accept that, even with life peers, a minority are Labour?
Mr. Turner: I accept that the Prime Minister does not always nominate for ennoblement people who will accept the Labour Whip in the other place. More to the point, the right hon. Gentleman has nominated for ennoblement more people in the four and a half years he has held office than Baroness Thatcher did in the 11 years we were fortunate enough to have her as Prime Minister.
Labour Members need to understand how much patronage the Prime Minister has exercised. It has been exercised not to improve the representation of Labour Members or Labour ideas, let alone socialist ideas, in the House of Lords, but to improve the representation of a certain small metropolitan class, of which the Prime Minister is the greatest exponent and advocate. If Labour Members want evidence for that statement, I will provide it.
The Prime Minister said earlier this year that 267 people had been elevated to the peerage on his recommendation. Of those, 20 per cent. live in London, within the M25. Not even the constituency of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is included. Of course, fewer than 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population live in London. Significantly more than 1.5 per cent. live in the east midlands, but the Prime Minister has felt it necessary to nominate for ennoblement only three people who live there. The Prime Minister's nominations are "Tony's cronies" in terms of composition, friendship and networks as well as being a highly unrepresentative, metropolitan, chattering-class elite.
Mr. Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how a more fair distribution of seats in the other place could be achieved through the hereditary principle?
Mr. Harris: It is a fact that more hereditary peers live outside London, in proportionate terms, than those whom the Prime Minister has recommended for ennoblement in the past four years. The President of the Council, in bringing forward the Government's proposals for reform of the House of Lords, has looked for regional representation, by election as well as nomination, and I congratulate him on that. He is aiming for proper representation of the regions. For far too long, as I think the hon. Member for Slough might have said, our public bodies have been dominated by people nominated from and living in London. That is no way to represent a country as diverse as the United Kingdom.
The President of the Council confirmed that it was his intention that future nominations to the other place should be regionally balanced. He also recommended a certain balance in terms of gender, and hoped for balance in representation of the ethnic minorities. I do not recall him mentioning disabled people, but I am prepared to be corrected. He felt that 30 per cent. was the minimum appropriate representation of women in the other place,
1102
and that 30 per cent. was the minimum appropriate representation of men. However, the right hon. Gentleman was unable to say whether the Government were expecting a rebalancing exercise to take place in the early stages of the life of his proposed new House. In my view, and I am sure that many people outside London would agree, it is appropriate to have a rebalancing exercise among the nominated Members of the reformed upper House at a very early stage, if that reform should ever come to fruition.
I wish to consider some of the other proposals that the President of the Council made for the reform of one of the most important public bodies in the country. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who is on the Front Bench, to close his ears for a moment. The Conservative party has not yet come to a final view on the future of the House of Lords, but I would like to put forward some suggestions in a friendly way.
The most obvious and representative way to appoint people to the other place is by lot. That method has been used in other legislatures in the past but I do not propose using it at the moment, not least because I fear that many people would not wish to accept nomination by lot. Being willing to accept nomination by lot would in itself make people unrepresentative.
I welcome the Government's proposal that the number of elected Members of the House of Lords should be severely restricted. Again, it is a curious kind of person who is willing to put himself up for election at any level in society. One has only to look around the House to be clear about that. We achieve more effective representation if we allow the nominated element to be larger than the elected element. The quality of those putting themselves forward for election to the new National Assemblies for Wales and for Northern Ireland and for the Scottish Parliament appears, from the point of view of someone representing a southern English constituency, not to be as high as that of those putting themselves forward for election to this place. However, the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish can have their say on that—I should be tactful and remain silent.
I welcome the Government's proposal to make the office fairly long term. A period of seven to 15 years—although, ideally, it would be for life—is much more appropriate than a short one. Then those people retain independence from the nominating body. One of the great virtues of the life peers, not to mention the hereditary peers, whose nominating body is rather higher than ours, is that they are independent once appointed. Their strings cannot be pulled by No. 10 or by Ministers. So a long period of office makes for greater independence.
I also welcome the suggestion that the nominations should be proportionate to the votes cast at the preceding election. That seems a sensible way of reaching a compromise between a proportional representation election, which I think none of us would seriously welcome, and a system in which the Government nominate as many people of their complexion as they wish.
I have an additional change to suggest. The proportion of those not voting in the most recent general election should also be represented. The best way to do that is by giving those nominations to the appointing body. If 45 per cent. of the electorate choose not to vote for any of the political parties that have put themselves forward for

1103
election, clearly they are looking for a more independent form of representation. I believe that if 45 per cent. abstained in the 2001 general election, 45 per cent. of nominees to the upper House should be appointed by the independent appointing body and should be expected to take an independent, Cross-Bench position when they sit in the House of Lords. The number of nominations would vary with the electors' confidence in the programmes that the various political parties put forward at the election.
Fiona Mactaggart: Earlier in his speech, the hon. Gentleman welcomed the proposal for longer appointments. Although I disagree with him on the issue of proportional appointments, I agree with him that longer-term appointments would encourage independence. However, may I invite him to read carefully paragraph 57 of the White Paper—which suggests that the options for appointment length are five, 10 and 15 years, and that the Government are tempted to opt for five or 10 years? Perhaps he would like to encourage them to accept the longer-term option, to obtain the type of independence that he seeks.
Mr. Turner: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. In the light of it, perhaps I should say that the word "welcome" was overgenerous. I should have said that I note the Government's proposals and urge them to move in the direction of appointments for seven to 15 years or possibly for life.
I also believe the letters ML—Member of the Lords—are wholly inappropriate because there will be many Lords outside Parliament, and we are not even clear that the other place will be called the House of Lords. I was thinking of PPs, for Peers of Parliament, but then I thought that that might result in people being called "Peeps". I think that LPs, for Lords of Parliament, would be appropriate post-nominal initials for those appointed or elected to the other place.
The general point on public bodies is that their job is to implement policies made by those who are elected by the people. It is for elected government, at whatever level, to determine policy. One practice that I rather deprecate is the tendency to hand over to public bodies policy-making responsibilities rather than merely policy-implementation responsibilities.
There is also a danger of our passing policy-making responsibility to supranational bodies such as the European Community, in treaties, and into the realm of judge-made law. It is fine of course for judges to determine specifically what the law was intended to mean, but I deprecate the current tendency for judges to enter into pre-legislative debate on what the law ought to be. If judges set down what the law ought to be, there is danger that, once the House has made law that does not conform with what the judges think it should be, they will go on to make it what they had said it should be in the first place. Consequently, we would lose confidence in the judiciary's independence.
I also deprecate the type of job creation scheme for human rights lawyers that we have seen with the incorporation of the European convention on human rights in British law.
The question is whether we as Members of Parliament—I speak for both hon. Members and Members of the other place—have the power to put right the wrongs
1104
that are felt by our constituents. I have absolutely no doubt that the House and the other place are the greatest public bodies in our land. We should as far as possible seize back the policy-making power, and certainly the legislative power, from the onward march of judge-made and foreign law, not for ourselves but for those whom we represent.
Local government is another important category of public body, although we have failed so far to recognise it in this debate. I am speaking of local councils at county, district and town level. I should also like briefly to illustrate the possibility, indeed the actuality in my own constituency, of achieving greater representation of young people and ethnic minorities than ever before. In the past four years the Conservative party has achieved that goal in my constituency. Although I do not claim that my party is alone in achieving it, I nevertheless congratulate Drew Mellor, 21, on being recently elected to the Isle of Wight county council. He not only sits on the education committee, most unusually for a student, but has won a ward that was held by another party for more years than most of us can remember.
I also congratulate Cliff Huggins on being elected to the county council in 1998. He is the first non-white member of the Isle of Wight county council. I congratulate, too, Abdul Mateen on his election, in 1999, to Cowes town council. He is the first non-white member of that council. It is possible for local government to encourage the membership of ethnic minorities, women and young people. However, we have to encourage that to happen, and I do not think that we will do it through the appointments process.
I also do not think that we will encourage the representation of a wider cross-section of people by establishing more regional bodies, which by their very nature are distant. Unless one is unfortunate enough to live in Guildford, one will not think that the south-eastern regional assembly is very close. My electors find it difficult enough to have their police authority run from Winchester; they certainly do not want to be run from Guildford. Nor do we wish to see a greater range of regional bodies. Indeed, some of us would ask about the boundaries on which the Government are relying to create the regional bodies. There is no rhyme or reason to connect Hampshire with Milton Keynes and Kent rather than with Dorset, and there is certainly little rhyme or reason to connect the Isle of Wight with any authority on the mainland besides, perhaps, Hampshire.
Southern Arts and SouthEastern Arts are public bodies that do a very good job in their respective areas, but the Government are proposing to amalgamate them for no better reason than to achieve coterminosity with the wholly artificial south-east region. As I said, it is the truly local bodies, both public and private, that constitute the warp and weft of the fabric of our local society.
Earlier, I mentioned the danger of the Isle of Wight being run from Winchester. Brading is a town with a population of about 1,200, and St. Helens is a village with a slightly smaller population. They have not seen eye to eye since the Napoleonic wars, when a French raiding party came to St. Helens and the townspeople of Brading quite generously left them to get on with it. Although they feel it very unfortunate that they have the same county councillor, I am pleased to say that he is a Conservative councillor and manages to represent both disparate

1105
communities very well. Nevertheless, if two adjoining places on the Isle of Wight do not see eye to eye, it is hard to see how we can have regional government.
We want bodies, both public and private, that have an agenda that attracts the interest and involvement of local people, rather than asking how on earth we can get people involved in those bodies. The bodies have to do what the people want—give them the power and let them get on with it. Governing bodies of grant-maintained schools are a perfect example of that. I had a small part in creating many of those bodies, and they did such an excellent job that the Government, in "abolishing" them, have done their best to adapt the experiences of grant-maintained schools to Government education policy by giving as many schools as possible the same type of powers and responsibilities. The Government have of course not achieved that as well as the Conservative Government did, but they have sought to give as many schools as possible the same types of powers and responsibilities.
Mr. Oaten: There is a contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's argument. At the start of his speech he said that he disapproved of power and money being devolved to organisations and felt that Westminster should have more power; now he is arguing that those bodies will be effective only if they can take policy decisions, for which they will require money.
Mr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman misheard me. I did not say that I disapprove of devolving power and money. I said that it was fine to devolve power over policy implementation, but that the power to make policy should he held in this place. It is the duty of the elected representatives of the people to determine policy.
I welcome and I recognise, as I hope that the Government recognise—I am sure they do—the very important role of the many men and women who serve on governing bodies, town and parish councils, health authorities, primary care trusts and NHS trusts, harbour authorities and the whole host of local public bodies to which I fear the Minister hardly referred in his introductory remarks.
We must realise that not everything can or should be done by the Government or by the council. In his introductory remarks, the Minister said that we choose to meet through collective organisation, locally, regionally and nationally, many of the needs of our society. However, those local, regional and national organisations do not all need to be Government-inspired. For example, the Cowes Combined Clubs is a private association of three or four yacht clubs which organise Cowes week. In one week of the year alone, those who come to the island by yacht bring £60 million to the island's economy. That is a huge contribution, made with minimal Government interference, I am pleased to say, and certainly with little Government involvement either locally or nationally. That has been achieved by a private arrangement between private organisations.
I do not question the motives of the hon. Member for Slough in complaining about the unfair male, middle-age—although sometimes that applies to people of all ages and both sexes—dominated appointment process. I acknowledge that the people she described—the mums who can organise school runs and child care circles—need to be represented. I do not believe that we should have to
1106
adapt to a committee culture when we are appointed to public bodies; many of us have been able to do that, but many others find it difficult. However, I question whether any system—however detailed or robust—will ever represent people effectively through the nomination process to public bodies.
Perhaps the hon. Lady is an optimist and I am a pessimist; perhaps we approach the matter by different routes. I believe that the fewer public bodies that act between people and the services they require, the better; because then those bodies, however good, will not—sometimes inadvertently, sometimes intentionally—form an obstacle to access to those services.
Do we really need all these public bodies? We should give as much power as possible back to the individual voter and the individual consumer of public services. We should always be on the lookout for ways to reduce—although we shall never eliminate—the number of public bodies.
11.33 am
Mr. Tom Harris: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) on his maiden speech. He referred, in a self-effacing way, to not being a worthy successor to Bob Sheldon. I assure him that any of his constituents who heard his speech will consider him a very worthy successor. Without wishing to sound complacent, may I express the belief that, unlike his predecessor, my hon. Friend will spend most of his prime years in the House on the Government rather than the Opposition Benches?
I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for broadening the debate beyond the definition of a quango to discuss public bodies as a whole. Later in my speech, I shall refer to my experiences working with public bodies that might not be strictly defined as quangos but would fall within the bounds of this debate.
When we talk about quangos, we usually focus on whether they are a good or a bad thing. In the past, the debate became quite sterile and polarised. People were either for quangos or against them. That is not helpful. Some of us may remember that in the 1980s such a debate was held in the Labour party. People came down on one side or the other—for or against health boards being directly elected or accountable to local councils. That is no longer helpful, as I shall explain later.
There is an element of public ignorance regarding what a quango is: it is not a soft drink. In Scotland, when people are appointed to public bodies, especially if the person has a record of political service, the call goes up, "You've been quangoed". That says something about the low esteem in which many of those organisations are held.
Before the 1997 general election, the then shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, now Lord Robertson, promised a bonfire of the quangos if Labour won the election. Much to the consternation of the chattering classes, that bonfire has not happened—certainly not in Scotland. I am not convinced that that is a bad thing. In retrospect, the "bonfire of the quangos" phrase was a hostage to fortune.
It is significant that the Labour Opposition were not the first Opposition to promise a dismantling of quangos. I note the comments of the hon. Member for Westmorland

1107
and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) about the reduction in the number of people employed by quangos after the 1997 general election. However, despite a reduction in the number of people employed by quangos, there was a very modest reduction in the number of quangos. I accept that fewer people worked for them. In opposition, parties tend to count numbers and say that there will be a reduction when they are in government, but often it does not work out like that.
Criticism of the Government for creating extra quangos is misguided. As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, the number of NDPBs—a term that I shall not use again during this debate: quango is a much more friendly term—fell by 10 per cent. between 1997 and 2000. That spikes the gun of those Opposition Members who say that we are setting up taskforces instead of implementing policy. That is not the case.
However, it may be missing the point to focus on that statistic. Instead of counting quangos and worrying about how many there are and about how many people are appointed by them, we should be considering whether those organisations are doing the job for which they were established. Are they providing the services that we need to offer ordinary people? Are the services of a high quality? Are the members of the quangos accountable to Ministers?
To return to Labour party history, this debate is rather like the one we held on nationalisation. It was only when John Smith became the leader that we realised that ownership itself was not the point: regulation and control were what mattered. There is a similar point to be made about quangos. It is not the numbers that matter—they mean nothing to anyone—but the services they offer and their effect on the lives of ordinary people.
I do not conform to the view that quangos are by their nature unaccountable to the public. In my experience, I can think of a few quangos that have been more responsive to the public than certain Departments, although if I were pressed to give an example, those cases would all be before 1997.
In a debate in Westminster Hall, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) pointed out that the term "quango" is a bad word. He compared quangos to theme parks, call centres and breakfast television. That is rather unfair—especially to call centres, which provide many jobs in my constituency. Indeed, it is about time that the term "call centre" went through a rehabilitation. The point is that people may not be able to tell the difference between a quango and an elected local body. Perhaps we should not expect them to do so.
There was some discussion earlier of the difficulty of persuading people to stand for appointment to quangos. I take what may be a cynical view. When people elect Governments, they want us to get on with the job and leave them alone. Voters in Scotland went to the polls five times between May 1997 and June 2001. They completed seven ballot papers and we ended up with a total of 18 politicians representing every individual Scot. That is no doubt something to be celebrated. I rejoice at the expansion of democracy, but we have the prospect of even more elections. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight talked about putting a limit on the number of elected peers in any future reform. If only 55 per cent. of people turn
1108
out to vote in elections to the House of Commons, there is not a strong argument for expecting people to turn out and vote in an election to the House of Lords, which the hon. Gentleman said might be described as the greatest quango ever. I am not sure that that is an accurate description.
Mr. Oaten: Does the hon. Gentleman think that members of the public would be more likely to turn out and vote if they felt that they were voting for the whole House of Lords rather than just 20 per cent of it?
Mr. Harris: The simple answer is no. I accept, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we do not want to stray too far from the core issue, but the simple fact is that the statistics show that turnout at general elections, which are the most important elections, has steadily declined over the past 20 years. I am sceptical about how easy it will be to reverse that trend. The turnout at elections to the House of Lords on the same day as or, even worse, half way between general elections, could be so derisory that it would negate any beneficial effect. Time will tell. I do not believe that the public are straining at the leash for another election.
I have mentioned my time working for public bodies that are not quangos. We can take the House of Lords as one example, and local authorities as another. I worked for East Ayrshire council. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said how difficult it was to motivate local voters to become involved in a general way. If the water commissioner for Scotland holds a public meeting on a broad issue such as the standard of water services, the same half dozen people will come out every time. It is only when there is a specific problem that people come out in numbers.
I was public relations manager for East Ayrshire council between 1996 and 1998, during which period the council held quarterly community forums. I understand that that practice continues. A huge amount of effort and resources goes into organising those meetings so that members of the public can come and listen to their councillors spout forth about cleaning the streets, emptying bins or local education services. At every single meeting, the same six people turned up. Perhaps the public simply want politicians to get on with the job. Bizarrely enough, if turnout is very low at consultation meetings, there is an argument for saying that it shows that people are not unhappy with the service. They may not be enthusiastic about it, but if they were unhappy, they would turn out.
Mr. Oaten: I do not wish to extend the debate, but it may be that local communities should take ownership of some of the services. That would be a much better model, in which people would be engaged rather than going to meetings to hear individuals who run services on their behalf.
Mr. Harris: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a certain extent. The point goes back to the debate that we had about encouraging people to stand for election to public bodies. The average person on the street is not like us in the House. They could not care less about politics except once every four years at general elections. I have a similar view of football; I am not interested until it comes to the World cup. The average voter wants to stay in at night and watch television, to go out for a meal or

1109
go to the cinema. They do not want to sit in a dusty, cold hall listening to a lecture about democratic accountability in the local council.
I agree with the comments that have been made about the system of appointments to quangos. It is one of the strengths of the system. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Isle of Wight express concern that the geographical representation of the future House of Lords might not be equal. I accept that it is not equal now, but the hon. Gentleman did not mention the importance of balancing the sexes in the new House of Lords. He was more concerned about equal representation of Yorkshire, Wales, Scotland and Tyneside than about representation of ethnic minorities, disabled people and women. That is unfortunate. The system for appointing people to quangos has the potential—it may not always be used in this way—to redress the imbalance that exists in the House of Commons and almost every other elected body. That is a good thing. For that alone, quangos have performed a vital service to our country and its political culture.
When I express general support for quangos, I do not say that the principle of accountability is not important. It is extremely important. Apart from anything else, quangos have a huge amount of money to spend. Executive quangos—those concerned with administrative, regulatory and commercial functions—spent £24 billion in 1999–2000, although only 77 per cent. of that came from the Government. I am not sure where the rest of it came from, but perhaps charges and fees accounted for the balance.
The Government deserve some credit for opening up the culture of quangos, but an incredibly small proportion of quangos produce annual reports, allow the public into their meetings and produce reports of their meetings. They will not do so until the Government tell them to. That is a huge failing in public accountability. That attitude has led to the low esteem in which the public hold most quangos. The danger is that, if the public have a low opinion of quangos, publicly elected servants will suffer from that negative attitude, so it is in our interests to ensure that quangos are accountable and get their act together in terms of public accountability.
There is a crucial weakness which is becoming more obvious in Scotland but is not confined to Scotland. There is ignorance or perhaps apathy among the public as regards how they are governed. I have mentioned the number of elected representatives for each Scot, and that has not stopped the spread of confusion. Let me give the House an illustration of where we are going in Glasgow. We have nine parliamentary constituencies. I will not get on the wrong side of my hon. Friend the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household by including his constituency in Glasgow. Much to my disappointment, that number will go down shortly. If it does, it is likely that the number of constituencies returning Members of the Scottish Parliament will stay the same. So we already have a difference in the coterminosity—a dreadful word—of constituencies. That alone will cause confusion.
The Greater Glasgow health boards cover not only the city but the surrounding area, including Milngavie and Bearsden in the north, Eastwood in the south and Clydebank. In addition, we have the local NHS trusts. Glasgow and Clyde Valley tourist board covers a completely different geographical area. Then there are all the residual bodies left over from Strathclyde regional council—another body that I used to work for. When I
1110
left the employment of the Labour party in Scotland in 1992 to join Strathclyde regional council, one wag quipped, "You are going from one sinking ship to another." In the long term, however, that judgment was proved to be incorrect as regards the former.
The residual bodies from Strathclyde regional council are technically not quangos but executive bodies, and they add to the complicated pattern of public bodies. Although the Strathclyde passenger transport executive, by which I was employed until June this year, is a non-elected body, it is accountable to the Strathclyde passenger transport authority, and its remit is huge. It is responsible for funding the public transport system for 2 million people in west central Scotland, and its geographical boundary is completely different from those of any of the other bodies that I mentioned, as well as those of the West of Scotland water authority, the Strathclyde police board and the Strathclyde fire board.
I am sorry to see that the Conservative Benches are now almost vacant because I want to make a party political point. The previous Conservative Government contributed substantially to people's cynicism about public bodies because they played such an obviously partisan game with public bodies in Scotland. They got rid of Strathclyde regional council because they saw that as the only way to change the fact that people in west central Scotland had the cheek to keep electing Labour councillors. Even as they got rid of it, they confounded their own arguments for doing so by accepting that there had to be strategic authorities to provide water, fire, police and transport services.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale took exception to my suggestion that the Conservatives had misused their power in the 1980s by appointing many Conservative placemen to quangos in Scotland. I totally accept that, politically and legally, there was nothing to stop them doing that, and I have no objection to it. However, the Conservatives made a political misjudgment because of arrogance resulting from their strong electoral position in the UK. In the long term, that led to their complete elimination at the 1997 general election. We could have warned them that that would happen.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that we are a unionist party, and, unlike his party, we think that MPs from all parts of the country should have equal rights in this House. That is why we, rather than the Conservatives, are the unionist party. Arrogance in the use of appointments to quangos works against the party in government, and I am delighted to note that this Government are not guilty of making the same mistakes.
There are 82 national quangos in Scotland—a fact that I found out only last night—including the children's panel and the Scottish Qualifications Authority. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Scottish Minister for Education, Jack McConnell, on using his powers to sort out the dreadful mess that the SQA was in last year, which resulted in a great deal of confusion and personal distress for many parents and students in Scotland. The SQA is a good example of a quango accountable to a devolved Parliament which got out of control during the year of change-over from the Scottish Office to the Scottish Parliament and has now been brought back within the scope of ministerial accountability. It shows how a quango can work to the benefit of the people of Scotland now that it is being called to account by democratically elected Ministers.

1111
I list all those examples merely to point out a great weakness in the structures of quangos. There is a dreadful misunderstanding by the public about how services are provided. It is difficult for members of the public to know who to contact when something goes wrong. As we all know, if they do not know who to approach, they come to us. I have no objection because that is our job, but the Government's impressive efforts to make quangos more open and accountable may come to nothing if they cannot sort out the structure of quangos on a UK-wide basis and, where appropriate, on a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland basis.
Three of the quangos listed in "Public Bodies 2000" are nationalised industries: CalMac, the Scottish Transport Group and Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. I did not know that we still had nationalised industries in Scotland. The third of those quangos reminds me of the story of an American woman in Glasgow who went to visit the Western isles. She reported that as she was getting the bus from the Glasgow terminus out to the aeroplane, she was surprised and not a little panic-stricken to realise that the bus was taking off. I am always concerned when the crew start clapping after those planes have taken off. Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. is obviously an important body in Scotland.
I came across a question and answer note prepared by the Cabinet Office. One question is:
"What is the Government's policy on quangos?"
The answer is:
"The Government is committed to keeping the number of quangos to an absolute minimum and to ensuring that those which remain are open, accountable and effective."
I agree with the last part, and I do not think that we should get too hung up on the number of quangos. We should concentrate far more on the quality of service and the quality of the people who serve on quangos.
11.57 am
Mr. Laurence Robertson: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. As someone whose day job is in the Opposition Whips Office, I do not know whether I should say this, but the House is at its best when there is, if not full cross-party agreement, agreement on so many issues. We certainly agree on what we want from public bodies, how they should be run, how accountable they should be and how people should be appointed to them.
I do not intend to summarise the debate; that is a task for my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), when he returns to the Chamber. We have heard excellent contributions not only from Front-Bench Members, but from everyone who has spoken, including the hon. Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes), for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner).
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne on his election and his maiden speech. I well remember when I made my maiden speech, and although I spoke on a Wednesday afternoon, when one might have expected more Members to be present than are here today, that was not the case. I look forward to hearing from him an awful lot more.
1112
I do not think that I have to declare an interest for receiving hospitality from a public body, the Horserace Totalisator Board, but I mention it because I shall return to that organisation later.
The Minister made an excellent presentation, explaining what public bodies are and the categories into which they fall, but I was surprised to hear exactly how much money is spent on them—£24 billion, or perhaps £18 billion is a more relevant figure as that is what comes from the public purse. When such huge sums are spent, we must ask whether it is worth while and whether the public get from those public bodies the service that they have a right to expect.
What else could that money buy? Would it be better spent on more direct public services, such as the health service? Should it be left in taxpayers' pockets? Governments should always ask that question when taking money from the taxpayer. Do public bodies provide the quality of service that people need? Do they provide the constitutional administration on which the country depends?
The answer to those questions depends on which public body is concerned. The House was again at its best when it was discussing stem cell research, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is an extremely important public body. Indeed, it is probably one of the most important in existence, given the issues that it regulates. Before I entered the House, I dealt with homeless people and the Housing Corporation is an important public body that provides money to tackle homelessness. Thus some public bodies are very important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight spoke about grant-maintained schools. He played down his role in creating the system of grant-maintained schools, which has been a huge success. I pay tribute to his work. If grant-maintained schools can be described as public bodies, they are another example of bodies that can affect the communities in which they operate and the lives of so many people.
I wonder, however, whether the Apple and Pear Research Council is important. It may well be, and I stand corrected if it is. Some public bodies sound serious but I wonder whether they do the work that we want them to do. I know from my time on the Select Committee on Social Security that the benefits tribunal caused us great concern. Indeed, it was the subject of an inquiry at that time.
What about the National Lottery Charities Board? I have always defended the national lottery, but there have been problems in its operation. Organisations in Tewkesbury have made about 15 per cent. of the applications made from Gloucestershire, a proportion appropriate to its population, yet until recently Tewkesbury had received only 3 per cent. of the money that has come to the county.
I looked at a number of those applications and they were of good quality and very sensible, but they did not attract money. What can I, as a Member of Parliament, do about that? I went to see the then Minister, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who was extremely helpful, but she could do nothing either. It was obvious that my constituents were being treated unfairly. That is an example of a public body operating unfairly. I admit

1113
that it had its criteria, but I suggest that it was not operating fairly in the interests of everybody across the country.
Although there are some good and important public bodies, such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which has perhaps a frightening amount of power given the scale of its task, other public bodies are less important. Indeed, some public bodies should not exist at all.
I have already mentioned the Tote, which has been a public body since 1927. Three years ago, the then Home Secretary announced that the Tote was to be released from Government control, yet nothing has happened. I began by declaring an interest in the Tote, but I do not speak in its favour; I simply say that the Government have a clear opportunity to lose that quango. Linked to it is the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which distributes money through the horseracing industry. It is another body that could be returned to the private sector.
The Government have no need to be involved in either of those public bodies. They have recognised that, yet those of us who take an interest in the industry cannot get the Government to do something about it, despite the fact that little parliamentary time would be required.
I mentioned that I could not make any progress with lottery applications for Tewkesbury, and did not seem to make an impression on the National Lottery Charities Board or Sport England. In spite of having had long, boring meetings with them, there was no way forward. That leads me to accountability.
Many public bodies have a lot of power and responsibility but are not accountable to anyone. I suppose that they are ultimately accountable to Parliament and to Ministers, but what happens if things go wrong and they do not carry out their administrative role as we would expect? There can be recourse to the ombudsman, but he will investigate only if there is a clear case of maladministration and there can be direct redress for the person who has lost out. There may be serious maladministration, but it may not be possible to provide redress to an individual or a group of individuals, so there is a gap in the system.
It is important that public bodies are accountable. There is a growing lack of faith in politics, Parliament, public servants, public bodies and the democratic process itself. The hon. Member for Winchester made a thoughtful, interesting speech, and gave some figures. It worries me that the turnout at the general election was less than 60 per cent.
I used to tell people to look at what happens in America—a country that I greatly admire—where only 50 per cent. of the electorate vote, and only 50 per cent. of that 50 per cent. vote for the elected president. That is terrible, and I ask them to consider what happens in this country, where 78 per cent. turn out to vote, which is marvellous—or which was marvellous, because all of a sudden something went wrong at the last election. People may argue that there was not enough obvious difference between the two parties—[Interruption.]—between the three parties, I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. That perception is real, and in politics perception is all important, because people vote not according to reality, but according to their perceptions. When it comes to the ballot box, if people feel that something is the case, then it is the case.
1114
I am not sure what the average turnout is for local and European elections, but it is very low. Why is that?
Mr. Andrew Turner: Could there not be an alternative and perhaps much more attractive explanation? Electors have rightly lost faith in politicians. They do not trust them to do what politicians in the past have given the impression they are able to do. Frankly, what was untrue then, is still untrue now. Society is becoming depoliticised, and that is a good thing.
Mr. Robertson: As usual, my hon. Friend makes a good intellectual point. There are many reasons for the low turnout, and I shall explore some of them. One reason why people do not vote in local and European elections is that they do not think voting matters. I have never been a fan of the European Union, and even less of the European Parliament, so I can well understand people who think that voting in those elections will not make a difference. Having sat on the Select Committee on European Scrutiny for two years, I sympathise with that view. Endless directives come through the House literally every day, and people are powerless to stop them. I can well understand people not wanting to vote in European elections. There is a strong constitutional argument for that.
However, it is worth voting in local elections. My wife was a county councillor for four years, and I often said to her that she had far more power and influence than I have. That is true. Proud though I am to be a Member of the House, that role is somewhat different. What happens in local government is important, but people are not persuaded of that and will not vote in local government elections. They cannot understand why planning applications that no one wants are accepted, either locally or at inspector level. They see a huge democratic deficit. We must deal with that. The creation of public bodies just for the sake of it does not deal with that problem but adds to it.
I have a constituency example that illustrates fully what I mean. It was the subject of my Adjournment debate last week, so I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for repeating it. Just over a year ago, a chemical reprocessing plant in my constituency was, for reasons best known to the county council at the time, built on a flood plain. Planning permission was given in 1978. It was a very dangerous plant that gave off lots of bad odours. Heavy lorries went into it at all times of night and day. It was a bad neighbour with scant regard for the environment or amenities. No one wanted to live near it.
For years, people not only complained about that site, but gave warnings about it to a number of agencies and public bodies: the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the county council. There was a lack of response from those bodies.
Just over 12 months ago, there was a very serious explosion at the site. Fortunately, it happened at night so no one was there. Two days later, the River Severn flooded the entire site. The fire and rescue service said that, if the explosion and the flood had coincided, it could not have accessed the site to tackle the fire. One can imagine the dangers inherent in that statement. People had to be evacuated. People from nearby villages were ill. People had to go into hospital. They are still complaining about feeling ill 12 months on.

1115
The agencies and public bodies were warned that that was going to happen, yet took no action. They could have closed the site. The Environment Agency, the county council and indeed the Minister have powers under various legislation to close it. They have chosen not to do so, not because they do not recognise that it is dangerous—it is; we all recognise that—but because they are frightened of being taken to court by the company. That is an exercise not in democracy but in bullying and fear. People in Sandhurst, Gloucestershire have to live under the threat of that site reopening—it is on the brink of being reopened—and further dangers arising.
Furthermore, the Environment Agency, which was supposed to have been monitoring the site, is being allowed to produce reports on what happened on the site and on its monitoring of it. The agency has a distinct disincentive to investigate the site fully because the more it finds out about what happened, the worse it looks as the waste licensing authority.
I have pressed for the public inquiry that must be held into not only the explosion and the company but the performance of the agencies in monitoring the site. The Health and Safety Executive was well aware that an employee was sacked by the company for failing to carry out what he considered to be dangerous duties. He took his case to the industrial tribunal and won, yet the Health and Safety Executive, fully aware of that, took no further action.
The county council gave planning permission for the site in 1978 to treat oily wastes and waste oils, yet very dangerous chemicals were treated on the site, including carcinogenic chemicals and BSE drums, which were ordered by the Government from an agricultural area—the Government said, "Send them to Cleansing Services Group in Sandhurst." The company did not have planning permission for any of that.
The county council had discovered that huge breach of planning laws two years before the explosion. However—I have this in writing from the council—it did nothing to correct the position. The Environment Agency nevertheless issued operating licences to the company, which was so stupid as to be unbelievable. Earlier, someone—possibly the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart—mentioned agencies not speaking to each other, and not tying in their activities. That certainly applied in this instance.
I hope that the House will forgive me for taking so long to make a constituency point, but it shows why people are losing faith in public servants, whether elected or appointed.
I do not want to be party political, but I suppose that I am going to be when I talk about local councils. I regret the creation of cabinet or executive-style councils. Thanks to the good sense of the Gloucestershire electorate, the Conservatives form the largest group on the county council but are excluded from the executive, because in a post-election pact—not a pre-election pact, of course—Labour and the Liberal Democrats got together to exclude them. That is not illegal, but it is not terribly democratic, and it certainly does not serve the best interests of the electorate. It could happen only because the Government had changed local government rules, and I think it regrettable.
1116
Many back-bench councillors across the country have received increases in their allowances but, along with those, large decreases in responsibility. They now consider council membership worthless. I mentioned that my wife was a county councillor. One of the reasons for her failure to stand in the most recent elections was the fact that she had to make a decision. Either she would join the executive and work almost as a full-time councillor, which is what is now required—in fact, she could not have, for the reasons I gave, but the facts were not known then—or she would become a back bencher, and not be involved at all.
My wife did not want to be a full-time councillor, for two reasons. First, she did not have time to commit herself to that; secondly, that is not what council work is supposed to be about. Council work is supposed to be about living in the community, whether as a housewife or an executive, and bringing that experience to the council a couple of nights a week. That is how things used to be when local government operated far better than it does now.
We seem to have created a two-tier system in local councils rather like that in the House of Commons, in which the executive—or, perhaps, one, two or three members of the executive—are all-powerful, while the rest are almost impotent unless they are determined to do something different. Moreover, the executive-and-back-bench style will not encourage people to stand for council membership. It is all very well for MPs to say they want to encourage better candidates, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said, we must show that these organisations are doing a good job and that it is worthwhile joining them. That would be far more likely to attract candidates of the kind that we want—women, members of ethnic minorities and people with disabilities, for instance—than a search for candidates from different backgrounds. In that respect, I depart slightly from the otherwise excellent speech of the hon. Member for Slough.
What kind of people can we hope to attract to serve on councils when we create a set-up where it is all or nothing and one is either a back bencher with no influence or a member of the executive and required almost full-time? We can attract either people who rather like the idea of the word "councillor" before their name even though it does not entail much, or those who have an interest in dragging out meetings all day because they have nothing else to do, when we do not want to attract either. The Government have made it almost impossible to attract the sort of people we want, which is regrettable.
I have never served in local government; I do not have a vested interest in it. However, from experience in Gloucestershire and Tewkesbury, I can see what has happened. It bothers me that we shall miss out on many good people serving not only on councils but on other public bodies. I shall not go into the matter of appointments to public bodies; suffice it to say that we are not reaching out to the sort of people to whom we need to reach out.
I mentioned that I had a slight difference of opinion with the hon. Member for Slough on such appointments, although she pointed out that all the Government's efforts and determination to be politically correct have failed to change things for the better. She said that more women,

1117
people with disabilities and people from ethnic communities had not been attracted to undertake such roles. If that is so, we must ask why.
Mr. Tom Harris: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), I would point out that she simply stated that in the past year the number of women and of people from ethnic minorities appointed to quangos had reduced very slightly. Under this Government generally, far more women and members of ethnic minorities have been appointed to quangos.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening. If that is so, I fully accept it. I recognise that the hon. Lady made a good speech, and I agreed with virtually all of it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said, we should make public bodies appear relevant to ordinary people. That would attract them to serve. People always follow success and do not normally jump on a sinking ship. They see success and are led by it. They will be led by the relevance of public bodies and whether they are worth while. We should seek out not somebody from one group or another—it is demeaning to those groups to do so—but the right people, who will of course include women, people from ethnic backgrounds and those with disabilities.
I say that as somebody who argued strongly in favour of women priests during the debate in the General Synod some years ago—1992, I think. Although I might be considered to be from a more traditional background, I did so because I thought it right that people should be allowed to do whatever job they want regardless of their sex, marital status, background or whatever. However, I do not believe that it is advantageous to go down the route of positive discrimination. I was therefore concerned this week—I am stretching beyond my pay grade by suggesting this—about the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill. It is inconsistent with other legislation because it legalises discrimination. It suggests that it is all right for politicians to discriminate but that nobody else in society can do so. The Bill is very curious, but as my party did not oppose it, and given my day job as a Whip, I better move on swiftly.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said about the House of Lords. There has been a transfer of power from the House of Commons to the Executive and to other anonymous bodies that most people have not heard of. Although this may contradict what I have said already, I would not welcome changes in the make-up of the House of Lords. I shall make some brief comments now because my party has not yet determined its policy and I would like to make this point before it is too late.
I can live with the undemocratic nature of the House of Lords as long as it has no power. That relates to what I said about quangos, although some hon. Members may find it contradictory. The fact that the House of Lords is not democratic adds to its quality as its members can say what they feel is right and, unless they are Ministers, nobody can sack them or reduce their pay. That is a useful addition to Parliament.
I would always defend parliamentary democracy and the power of the House of Commons because it is democratically elected and that is why I am concerned by
1118
the Government's proposals for the House of Lords. Other people have gone much further and proposed an elected element. I would not want the House of Commons to be replicated as it would be a waste of resources and because it would pose a challenge to the House of Commons that would weaken rather than strengthen parliamentary democracy. It could also result in gridlock, as has happened in the United States. The system of government there produces a presidential election turnout of about 50 per cent. so it has not done them much good.
Some people would say that a Government as powerful as ours with a majority of more than 170 should be challenged by a stronger Chamber that could produce gridlock. I understand that point, but the most damaging and irreversible measures put through by the present Government have been constitutional ones, such as the changes to the House of Lords, devolution and the introduction of alien voting systems in European and regional elections. Those measures were passed by the House of Lords because its members felt unable to resist them. I understand those who say that gridlock might be better, but I do not agree.
If we take the wrong decisions in respect of the House of Lords, we shall lose the tremendous wisdom that exists among its members, who include people who have served in the House, on other public bodies and succeeded in other walks of life, including business. Inviting such people to sit in a Chamber that does not necessarily reward them for that service, but allows the country to draw on their experience is an excellent system and I do not want to lose it.
Anyone who reads the House of Lords Hansard, as I occasionally do when I am researching an issue, will be startled by the quality of debate there. The upper House also provides quality legal services. Some hon. Members would describe it as the worst public body, but I think that it is the best.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said that if he were to come up with a new system for the House of Lords, he would not start from the same place. If one were to design a brand new constitution for a country, one perhaps would not have started by drawing up a system in which some peers inherit their titles and others gain theirs through appointment, but we do not live in an ideal world. The fact that the House of Lords worked is good enough reason to keep it, and the fact that many of the public bodies to which I referred do not, is good enough reason to get rid of them.
12.30 pm
Mr. Collins: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the debate.
I begin with an apology: unforeseen circumstances meant that I was away from the Chamber for longer than I had hoped or anticipated. I was able to be present for a wholly admirable maiden speech by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes). It was filled with knowledge of and love for his constituency. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House remember his predecessor, Bob Sheldon, with affection. Should the hon. Gentleman meet Duncan Goodhew, I trust that he will do so in less dramatic circumstances than those he described. I congratulate him on making a good maiden speech and look forward to debating with him for years to come, certainly throughout this Parliament.

1119
I am sorry to have missed what I gather was a good speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), with whom I had an interesting exchange earlier. I believe that he made an important point, which I hope the Minister will address, on the importance of public bodies co-operating with each other, having the same agenda and moving in the same direction.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) spoke wisely about the mystery surrounding much of the work of NDPBs. He talked about the need for ever-greater openness and said that progress had been made on that in recent years. I am sure he would agree, however, that there is scope for further progress. He also mentioned the battle that any Government would have in present circumstances of finding appropriate people to serve on public bodies who have enough spare time and are committed to that role. That concerns everyone; we see the problem in our constituencies and at a national level.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the need to re-engage the public, which sparked a good debate on the problems related to low turnout. I am sure he is right to say that if we are able collectively to crack the problems of getting more members of the public actively involved in public life, that would be part of the solution to increase turnout in all elections to this place, the European Parliament, and local government. That is clearly important. I know that the Minister does not have sole responsibility for delivering higher turnout at elections—he will be delighted to hear that I am not attributing to him the responsibility for that yet, although who knows what will happen later in his career?—but it would be helpful if he addressed how we manage to engage more people of the highest quality in public life.
I am sure that part of the solution is to make it clear that we are interested in ensuring that women, members of ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and a range of other groups that have felt less than fully included, play a full role. However, that is not the complete answer, and I am interested to hear what the Government have to say on that either now or later.
I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for many years and he has extensive experience in education. In a telling intervention, he referred to the lack of clarity. I shall be candid: it was unclear under the last Conservative Government and it is unclear under this Government whether schools that have a great amount of financial autonomy—grant-maintained schools, foundation schools or whatever—should be counted as part of the total of NDPBs. There are arguments both for and against that, but it reinforces the need, as the Select Committee reported, for there to be clarity in the rules that define what is and is not a public body. For example, it is not clear why the cereal marketing board is a non-departmental public body whereas the wool marketing board is not. There are still elements of uncertainty. There is a clear need for clarification. The rules have not changed since 1997, I admit, but we should try to ensure that people can understand why a body is categorised in one way rather than another.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), in a thoughtful contribution, made some powerful constituency points about the difficulties of
1120
accessing lottery funding. I suspect that that concern is shared by many hon. Members, because obtaining access to lottery money for genuinely good causes can be a little frustrating. He also made a powerful constituency case about an explosion at a local chemical plant, and I hope that his characteristic diligence and persistence in pursuing that issue will result in greater certainty and clarification on the part of the various agencies that he mentioned.
My hon. Friend also addressed concerns about reductions in turnout and he had an interesting exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight about whether low turnout was good or bad and whether a depoliticised society was a healthier society. It is true to say that by comparison with the situation in Afghanistan, politics in this country is less important to our fellow citizens. and that is probably desirable. A society in which politics means life and death, such as Afghanistan. is probably not entirely healthy. On the other hand, a higher turnout is desirable and we would like to hear the Government's proposals—in due course, not necessarily in this debate—for achieving that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury also rightly mentioned his concern about public bodies that need not exist at all, and cited the Tote as an example. I am not sure that I agree with that example, but it is true that public bodies may be set up in certain circumstances at a certain time to perform a particular function and, some years or even decades later, it is not clear why they still exist. I am sure that the Minister will wish to reassure us that the Government keep existing public bodies under review at all times. The various reporting mechanisms that already exist and the welcome commitment to a new series of annual reports on taskforces will, I hope, keep the feet of Cabinet Office officials to the flame. There is a consensus in the Chamber in favour of keeping some non-departmental public bodies, but we do not want an unlimited number. That should be the loud and clear message from our debate to all those concerned.
I remind the Minister of one or two questions that I posed at the beginning of the debate, relating to the timing and content of the public bodies document. Will it be possible in future to have this debate after, rather than before, the publication of that annual report? Will the Government consider amending it along the lines recommended by the Select Committee? Will we have a commitment that taskforces should last only two years, as the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended? Does the Minister have anything to say about the accountability issues that were raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, specifically including the extension of the remit and role of the National Audit Office?
We have had a constructive debate and I look forward to the Minister's response.
12.38 pm
Mr. Leslie: Today's debate has been constructive and friendly. It has also been enormously useful in the process of scrutinising the whole question of public bodies, and the Cabinet Office and other Departments will be able to incorporate many of the thoughts and ideas that have been voiced today in the policies that we pursue. take the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) about the timing of the debate and

1121
the publication of the public bodies report. If we could align those events in future years, it would be preferable. I am also grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome to my post. This is the first time we have crossed swords, but today's debate was not violent and I look forward to working with him in the future.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale acknowledged that reforms had been necessary. Any Government carrying out policy must make a careful check to ensure that they always pursue probity and merit as the key criteria at all times in making appointments to public bodies. The hon. Gentleman referred to the numbers of non-departmental public bodies and taskforces. The Government want to keep numbers to a minimum, and the five-year review process examines all the fundamental questions, including the existence of those public bodies. But we have to make sure that the functions that those bodies undertake are met somehow, and it is a difficult balance to strike.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the next edition of "Public Bodies" in 2001 and whether it will widen information in line with the Select Committee's recommendations. We are trying our best to endeavour to broaden the scope of the report. Compiling these documents is not always easy given the vast number of quangos and NDPBs involved. but we are trying to make improvements as quickly as possible. On the question of confirmation hearings—raised by the Select Committee—for the chairs of some of the larger bodies, I am afraid that I cannot offer an enormous amount of hope. The principle of ministerial appointment must remain. We should engage with Select Committees in the scrutiny of public bodies, but the Commissioner for Public Appointments is the better and more appropriate safeguard for a lot of the concerns that the Committee voiced. In terms of the allocation of functions as between public bodies and Departments, this is a judgment for Ministers and for Parliament to make in how best to scrutinise the work of the public sector.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), as well as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, asked how we defined taskforces and whether we were looking to bring that definition into line with that of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I agree with the general definition and we are trying to stick to the two-year rule. However, we are reviewing those bodies that are more than two years old.
Mr. Oaten: Will the Minister give a commitment that the 52 bodies that are over the two-year rule will be reviewed?
Mr. Leslie: All taskforces, ad hoc advisory groups and review groups are examined and monitored at all times and we are in regular discussions with Departments about those issues. Obviously, there will be certain circumstances in which it is not appropriate to conclude a taskforce just because a two-year period has elapsed. We must retain a degree of flexibility.
I appreciate the shift in the position of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale on the Disability Rights Commission. That is welcome. I believe that that body is proving to be very important and we will watch its work develop over future months and years.
The hon. Members for Winchester and for Westmorland and Lonsdale asked whether the boards of NDPBs will meet in public. We are trying to promote the
1122
code of practice in which this question is raised. Similarly, in terms of the role of the National Audit Office, best practice suggests that we should be widening access for the NAO to all public bodies where possible.
The question of the role of elected representatives on public bodies is an interesting one. We already require disclosure of political affiliations in appointments to public bodies and we focus on merit, rather than on the basis of some partisan desire. I do not believe that activity in a political party should be a bar to appointment and, as has been expressed in the debate, political activity can enhance the role of public bodies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) gave an insightful and intelligent maiden speech. He has a hard act to follow when we think of his predecessor, Bob Sheldon, but the quality of his speech showed that he is well up to the task. His background and involvement in trade unionism, local government and citizens advice bureaux will stand him in good stead in his time here. His speech showed an understanding of and pride in the local communities that he serves. His vision is clear and good; it will do much to encourage his constituents. I know that he will play a strong role in the Select Committee on Public Administration, and I look forward to seeing him take part in future Cabinet Office debates.
The hon. Member for Winchester talked about the need to reinvigorate the public voice and participation in public life in general. It is certainly important that efforts be made to encourage volunteering and appointments to school governing bodies and other local organisations. I share the view that more effort needs to be made to improve diversity. We strive always to reach the targets that we have set, particularly in terms of bringing young people into public life. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who has had to leave the Chamber, as she explained earlier, talked about taking risks in appointing young people and referred to the wild card. I am not sure whether that applies to me—time will tell.
I also share the hon. Gentleman's view that organisations should reflect all elements of service delivery and that it is important to have not only professionals but service users such as patients, victims of crime and council house tenants on public bodies. On the implementation of the code of practice for public bodies, the hon. Gentleman asked about the requirement to publish annual reports. We wish to see that requirement implemented more frequently, and acknowledge that more must be done to ensure that best practice is spread.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough expressed strong views that more efforts must be made to drive forward diversity in public appointments, with the greater representation of a variety of groups in society, particularly women. She made insightful comments about the ideas of networks breaking out of the classic appointment system. The concept of equality audits is already essentially undertaken by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who operates in a monitoring capacity in the very way my hon. Friend seeks. I shall certainly be looking at broadening the types of publication in which vacancies for public appointments are advertised, as she described, rather than simply concentrating on the broadsheet newspapers. My hon.

1123
Friend told us that she believed much greater and more proactive work is necessary in this area, and I have taken those comments to heart.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) had a broader interpretation of public bodies. I appreciate his points entirely. He talked about local government participation and mentioned his experiences with grant-maintained schools and voluntary organisations. He said that other public bodies as well as the Government provide public services. We must accept that interchange and dialogue are necessary between the public sector and non-governmental organisations in general.
The hon. Gentleman spoke a lot about the House of Lords reform, as did the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). The Government have developed a considered and well argued approach and have looked at the issue properly in the context of the United Kingdom's political system. We have said that no political party should command a majority in the second Chamber. A House in which the Government of the day have no majority cannot be regarded as a poodle or a House of cronies. The Prime Minister's power of patronage has been massively reduced.
Our decisions are underpinned by very clear principles. The second Chamber must not undermine the position of the House of Commons. It must bring distinctive expertise to the scrutiny of legislation and must also be more representative of the country as a whole. The Government believe that a wholly or largely elected second Chamber would not be the right approach for the UK at this time. Although I question some of the hon. Gentleman's assumptions on House of Lords reform, at least he is attempting to engage in the reform process, which is welcome and refreshing.
In a very enlightening speech—the first I have heard from him and the first I am sure of many—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) talked of the need for more co-operation between public bodies. He also commented on the Scottish experience of promoting a "bonfire of the quangos". Devolved authorities are quite rightly pursuing their own approach to the issue, and the Scottish Executive have set in train their own process from which we can all learn and which we should watch very closely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart said that we should recognise the balance that we have to strike between the number of elections to public authorities and the efficacy of service delivery, which is often well served by a public body that is accountable to Ministers. He also mentioned local government consultation meetings such as neighbourhood forums, and the difficulty of encouraging a healthy turnout for those events. As we know, occasionally such meetings are attended only by the usual suspects, with longer speeches and few signs of discontent. Others can judge whether that applies to today's debate; I would not say that it does.
In his speech, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury pursued a refreshingly consensual approach and discussed some very specific examples. He described the sad incident in his constituency and how he has attempted to gain more information from the Environment Agency. I know that my ministerial colleagues will certainly be examining his comments. He also raised the issue of what
1124
motivates his constituents to vote. I share his belief in the importance of local government, even if I do not quite share his opinions on the European Union. His speech was refreshingly progressive and egalitarian, but I am not sure that that bodes well for his career on the Opposition Front Bench.
The principles of public service reform cannot be forgotten. The big-picture issue for this debate is the need to have a framework for national standards, inspection and accountability for all public services, to devolve more freedom to the front-line professionals, to recognise the value and work of front-line staff, and to strive whenever possible to give more choice to service users. Public service reform is important and is not a matter for only the Government to initiate: public bodies have a role in it, too.
The work of the Select Committee on Public Administration should not go unrecognised. I am aware that the Committee has announced that it will be conducting an inquiry into public appointments. The Government will of course co-operate with that inquiry and carefully consider recommendations. I should certainly welcome new ideas on how we can broaden the composition and membership of public bodies, as that is an aspiration that I share entirely. In the past, far too many public appointments were available only to those who knew where to look for them or the right people to talk to. The Government are putting an end to that practice. Wider publicising of posts is clearly crucial to reform, and new technology can help ensure that up-to-date information is available to as many people as possible.
The points that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough made on women are crucial. Rather than sitting passively and waiting for applications to be made, much can be done actively to promote and encourage interest. The Government's commitment to equal representation for women and men will require extra effort to achieve, but next year, for example, the Cabinet Office will be holding a series of regional seminars across the country led by the new Minister for Women—the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). The seminars will start in the new year and seek to provide practical information, advice and opportunities to women who already hold a public appointment.
I should also take a moment to pay tribute to the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which has been instrumental in developments in recent years. Its first report recommended the role of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Looking back, it seems astonishing that that role did not exist before.
Ever since the Government came to office we have consistently demonstrated our commitment to more open and transparent government. Our commitments in the new Freedom of Information Act 2000 are underpinned by a code of practice that sets clear standards on how information should be made available. Dialogue should take place with service users at all times. The new statutory right of access to a wide range of information held by public bodies enshrines the existing practice of many quangos which were already proactive in releasing a huge volume of data into the public arena.
The Government intend to strike the right balance in their policy towards public bodies, checking the number and growth of new quangos while simultaneously

1125
improving the systems of those that are in place. We have to work hard to increase diversity in public appointments while always focusing on appointment by merit and anticipating the major changes from the growing regional dimension of public policy. I look forward very much indeed to working closely with hon. Members and the Public Administration Committee in reforming public bodies and modernising the structures through which so many vital public bodies are delivered.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Rail Franchises
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
12.55 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I have great pleasure in initiating this debate. I want to focus on one aspect of railway policy: the role of franchising, especially as it applies in the South West Trains area. I represent part of that area and, if my geography is correct, so does the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). The hon. Gentleman is looking at me quizzically, so perhaps he does not.
The debate is appropriate at this time and there are three reasons for it. I am aware that a big national debate is under way about the role of the Secretary of State in the liquidation of Railtrack, but I do not want to be part of that—it is taking place at a different level.
My first concern is the effect of the structural changes on day-to-day services in areas such as mine. The brutal fact is that my part of outer London, the adjacent areas and their feeder lines are daily suffering a rapid and visible deterioration in service provision. That can be seen in the growing number of cancellations, of late departures and even later arrivals, and in increasing overcrowding. Those points are not anecdotal. I have checked with the railway management—an authority—who confirm that their internal statistics show that rapid deterioration is taking place. The system of fines and incentives cannot cope with the problem because the infrastructure itself is declining.
My second reason for holding the debate is to isolate certain issues that do not form part of the big question as to whether Railtrack should have been liquidated. I support the Government's action on Railtrack—as did my party. The Government took the correct approach, so I am not trying to score political points. However, many issues subsidiary to the Railtrack ownership question are unclear.
Many of us have an interest in the matter as constituency MPs and we are unclear about the way forward. For example, what is to happen to the management vacuum at the heart of Railtrack? Under the 10-year plan, what will happen to the transmission of funding for service enhancement? How will that finance chain be affected by the change in ownership? What will happen to the three tiers of responsibility: the infrastructure providers, the franchise operators and the subcontractors? Currently, they all have their own profit margins and there are confused lines of responsibility.
The Minister knows well that such confusion has lain at the heart of all the failures of privatisation. We do not yet know how the problem will be tackled. In this case, we do not yet know the Government's thinking on vertical integration, which is an essential and topical issue—certainly in my area. I want to sound out the Government on at least their provisional thinking on that subject.
I want to ask about the role of South West Trains. I am not an apologist for South West Trains, nor have I come here to give the company a caning. It simply happens to be the franchise operator.
South West Trains got off to a bad start. The company sacked a substantial number of key staff soon after it was awarded the franchise. The service deteriorated badly.

1127
Staff had to be re-hired, and arguments about terms and conditions caused further disruption. The company endeared itself neither to my constituents nor to many other people. When the new franchising round began, I was more impressed by some of the alternative bidders, such as Dutch Railways.
However, that is history. South West Trains was provisionally awarded the new franchise; it was the preferred bidder. I am impressed by the quality of the new senior management. I have talked to the chairman of the company who seems genuinely committed to railways and to making them work. As a constituency MP, my job is to work with the company to help it to get the franchise operating so as to deliver the service improvements that it promised. That is why I have introduced the debate.
South West Trains has undertaken to provide three specific aspects of service improvement. One is a doubling of the service on some of the suburban loop lines, but that in turn requires investment in new rolling stock. The company has undertaken to provide longer trains, which also requires improvements in stations and the length of platforms. It has undertaken to provide better coaches, CCTV, and more comfort and safety. All those things require money, and as long as there is uncertainty about the franchise arrangement, it will not be clear how South West Trains can make its way forward.
To crystallise the debate and perhaps to help the Minister, I shall encapsulate what I want to say in five questions. He may not be able to answer them all in full today, but perhaps he can do his best and let me have the other answers in writing. First, what exactly is the status of the South West Trains franchise? I asked the Minister a parliamentary question about that a few weeks ago, and received the predictable reply that a decision would be made in due course. I am sure that that is factually true, but it is not terribly helpful.
The franchise has been in limbo for more than six months, and it expires in February 2003. We are rapidly reaching the point at which key decisions on investment cannot be made owing to uncertainty. When will a decision be made, and what form will it take? I fully understand that the Government cannot divulge details of the Strategic Rail Authority's commercial negotiations with companies, but if the Minister can give us as much clarity as possible about the timing and nature of the franchise, the company and those of us living in the franchise area will at least be able to see what the future holds. Before I entered Parliament, I worked in a big corporation in which we operated on 10, 20 or 50-year planning horizons. It is necessary to do that in many industries. The railways have been required to operate on a short leash, and that is simply not the way forward.
The second question is more concrete, which may make it easier for the Minister to answer. When will the 10-car trains that have been promised under the franchise in my area arrive? Under the franchise proposals, there was a firm planning horizon and it was proposed that the 10-car trains would arrive in 2004. Will they be delivered on time? Longer trains are crucial if we are to solve overcrowding. Is it intended that the franchise undertakings in relation to longer trains will be met on time? Can the Minister give me an assurance that that promise will be met?
1128
Thirdly, how does the Department propose to ensure that the finance is available for the service enhancements that have been promised under the new franchise? Where will the money come from? I am aware that the Government have an ambitious, promising, large long-term investment plan, but anyone who is following the matter closely will know that the system is close to collapse in terms of the financing mechanism.
If the Minister is following the matter closely, he will have read a revealing article in Modern Railways, a specialist journal, in July this year. It is rather technical, but revealing about the way in which funding is disappearing into the sand. It makes the point that current big rail projects are costing about three times as much as under the British Rail system for the equivalent amount of track. There is an enormous amount of waste under the existing structures. It looks as if the promising finance is not being used productively to produce the promised enhancements.
It appears, and the figures support this, that the cost of maintenance has increased by 35 per cent. in the past three years owing to the inefficiency and inflated profits of the subcontractors. Many people anticipated that that would happen when they criticised rail privatisation, and it has. The practical implication is that the pot of money available for funding service enhancements seems to be disappearing. How will those service improvements be achieved? In the case of the South West Trains franchise, we are talking not about massive capital projects but about modest ones involving station lengthening and the acquisition of new stock. Is the money available for them? Will it come from the Treasury, the SRA or private finance initiatives?
Fourthly, I turn to service and track deterioration. How is that being monitored? Are the Government aware of the extent to which quality has deteriorated? When will that curve start to turn upwards? I know that the Secretary of State is repeatedly pressed on that point, and I believe that he told the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, rather hopefully, that he expected to see improvements by the time of its next meeting, which I think is in January. Perhaps he had not realised that the timetable was so strict. I am not trying to score a political point, but will the Minister give us some indication of when improvements will occur, so that I can pass that on to my constituents? When the Government have studied the inventory of their assets and the underlying technical problems, they should be able to estimate when service provision will begin to improve. We need that predictability.
Fifthly, what is the Government's provisional thinking about vertical integration? We know that it is an option because in his original statement to the House the Secretary of State indicated that he was open-minded about a variety of structural alternatives. However, I press the Minister to give specific, although not necessarily definitive, views about vertical integration.
The chairman of Stagecoach, which owns South West Trains, has gone on the record to advocate that option—I am not breaching any confidentiality—and to make what seems to me, as a layman, a very strong case for it. He argues that vertical integration would eliminate all the profit margins of the three sets of operators and ensure that there was real accountability because the franchise operating company would be responsible for the maintenance of the track as well as customer provision. It

1129
would be responsible also for safety, subject to an independent certification procedure. There would be a concentration of responsibility that has not been seen since the railways were privatised. Vertical integration could be introduced, on an experimental basis, in one region. Are the Government sympathetic to that approach? Are they encouraging it, or have they rejected it?
My final point is not substantive but concerns process. MPs are kept well briefed by Departments about many matters concerning their area. The Department for Work and Pensions keeps us informed about the Government's employment schemes, and we are well briefed on education initiatives as they affect our constituency. Some quangos are getting much better at communicating, and it is increasingly common for hospital trusts, for example, to keep local MPs informed about events.
The railways, however, are an absolute nightmare. It is virtually impossible for us to find out anything about what is happening in our area. We can try to develop a working relationship with the franchise company, but the whole process is extremely opaque. Will the Government consider how they can ensure that MPs are kept abreast of operational and practical developments in the railway system as they affect our constituents? I can assure the Minister that in a commuter constituency such as mine, the deterioration of rail services is perhaps an MP's biggest political headache. I am keen to find practical solutions rather than to score political points, but I would be grateful if the Government helped by clarifying the position.
1.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions(Dr. Alan Whitehead): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this debate and providing us with an opportunity to discuss passenger rail franchise agreements and the other issues that he mentioned. He will understand that it will not be possible for me to give him a definitive answer to absolutely every point that he made, but he may find it useful if I write to him about one or two issues. The essence of the hon. Gentleman's remarks related to the South West Trains franchise. We can air the subject at length today, and I hope that he will find my comments useful in discussions with his constituents.
I confirm the hon. Gentleman's geographical prowess in suggesting that South West Trains services pass through my constituency. I travelled on one of its trains to the House this morning and it arrived at my station and at Waterloo exactly on time. I can offer nothing further than that observation.
The franchise agreement, about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, is a legally binding contract. It sets out the rights and obligations of a franchisee for the provision of railway services and, in return, provides for payments to be made to the franchise operator, determined by a competitive bidding process.
There are 25 train operating companies under the control of 11 different franchisees. Most of them provide services under franchise agreements of between seven and 15 years, negotiated in 1995 or 1996 by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising through the provisions of the Railways Act 1993. Franchise agreements are not static;
1130
they evolve over time, and changes have been made to most of those original agreements, sometimes brought about by a change of control of the franchisee. None the less, most franchise agreements are not radically different from when they were first agreed.
When franchising occurred for the first time, the rail industry was in a very different position. It was a pre-Hatfield industry, with a newly created Railtrack. The growth in passenger numbers in the past few years—some 7 per cent. a year prior to Hatfield—was not envisaged at the time, and franchises were let on the basis of a non-expanding railway. The franchising director, who was responsible for letting franchises at the time, was steered by objectives, instructions and guidance from the then Secretary of State. Those required him to let franchises in a way that left maximum scope for the initiative of franchisees, and to impose requirements that were no more burdensome than necessary to achieve the objective of letting franchises quickly and obtaining good value for money.
Thus the specifications for service provision and quality were based on the service offered by British Rail. The philosophy was to provide a privatised industry that was no worse than the public one that it replaced. The terms negotiated in franchise agreements reflect that.
Minimum service levels were based on the service being operated by British Rail at the time of franchising, and key fares were regulated against British Rail prices. Benchmarks for performance were based on the historic performance of British Rail over that part of the network for which the franchise was being let, and benchmarks for service quality issues were based on the results of surveys of British Rail passengers. Investment by train operating companies for expansion was not a major factor. The franchises typically included a falling subsidy profile, with the franchise agreements for the most profitable routes including a clause for the payment of a premium by the franchisee back to the Government.
It would be wrong to imply that no thought was given to improving services. Incentive regimes and enforcement thresholds—the hon. Gentleman mentioned some of those devices—were incorporated to encourage an improvement in performance and service quality. Franchisees of train operating companies in the south-east, and those providing regional and local services elsewhere, where market forces alone were not deemed to be sufficient to uphold performance standards, receive extra subsidy for improving the punctuality and reliability of services, but pay penalties for deteriorating performance. All franchise agreements include enforcement thresholds for performance, which, if broken, can lead to varying degrees of sanction, including, ultimately, franchise termination.
Since those franchise agreements were signed, the franchising authority has had the opportunity to negotiate additional benefits. For instance, where material breaches of franchise agreements have occurred it has been the policy of the Strategic Rail Authority, or its predecessors, to secure a passenger dividend by way of compensation to passengers. Depending on the nature of the breach, that could be something relatively minor, such as an improvement to facilities at a particular station, or something major, such as the procurement of new rolling stock.

1131
When the chance has arisen, the authority has also taken the opportunity to negotiate improved terms in franchise agreements, notably when a change of control of a franchise has occurred. For instance, when FirstGroup took over the Great Western franchise in 1998, a bespoke performance incentive regime was negotiated under which the company can be penalised for poor performance. That was the first of the long-distance, high-speed operators to have such a regime written into their agreement.
In the light of increasing demands to improve services to meet growing demand, in the autumn of 1999 the Secretary of State instructed the Strategic Rail Authority to replace existing franchise agreements, starting with those that were due to expire by 2004, so as to drive up punctuality, reliability and service quality, and to inject investment into the industry. Replacement agreements could complement our 10-year transport plan, which provides £180 billion for the nation's transport infrastructure.
As has been well documented, the Strategic Rail Authority experienced some difficulty in negotiating replacement deals. Two of the first six franchises to be re-tendered, Central Trains and Great North Eastern Railway, resulted in proposals with which neither the authority nor Ministers were satisfied either in respect of value for money or because they were difficult to compare, and subsequently no preferred party could be selected. Negotiations on other franchises were also taking longer than originally expected.
In July this year, the Secretary of State instructed the authority to examine what could be done within existing franchise agreements, or by negotiating short extensions to those agreements, so as to get improvements to services implemented as soon as possible. The two-year extension awarded to Midland Main Line last year is a clear example of the benefits that we want to be spread to other parts of the network. The £240 million package includes £135 million investment in new rolling stock, £17 million investment in a new East Midlands Parkway station and the provision of additional services. That does not mean that there will be no longer-term replacement franchises. Indeed, the authority has been instructed to continue negotiations on those franchises for which it has already selected preferred counterparties for new long-term agreements.
The authority is continuing to negotiate replacement agreements for South Central, South West Trains and Chiltern Railway with GoVia, Stagecoach and M40 Trains respectively. When longer-term replacement franchises are negotiated, we make it clear that early benefits should be secured for passengers. In response to the Secretary of State's statement, the Strategic Rail Authority has submitted a revised programme to Ministers, which we are currently reviewing. An announcement on that programme will be made by the authority in due course.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Government's intentions with regard to the future of Railtrack. I can do no better than refer him to the Secretary of State's statement on 15 October 2001, in which he said:
"In the light of the administration of Railtrack, we believe that we should now consider reshaping the structure of the industry in a way that recognises that the needs of the travelling public must come
1132
first. We shall propose to the administrator that a private company limited by guarantee be established to take over Railtrack's responsibilities. Any operating surplus it makes would be re-invested in the railway network. Such a company would have the needs of the travelling public and other users as a priority. As it would have no shareholders, we would remove the conflict between the need to increase shareholder value and the interests of rail passengers."
He went on:
"Performance targets would be set and linked to levels of service, safety and value for money. The board would work on commercial lines but would focus solely on delivering a safe, well-maintained rail network that is fit for the 21st century."
He also emphasised that the company envisaged that it
"would be able to promote collaboration and co-operation around the wheel and track interface, the absence of which has been one of Railtrack's weaknesses."
He went on:
"A private company limited by guarantee would need far less intense regulation…We shall discuss these proposals with the industry's key players."
Indeed, we are doing that. He continued:
"We are clear that it is important for the new structure to provide strong strategic leadership; a cut in the burden of day-to-day interference; an end to the self-defeating system of penalties and compensation;"—
a matter that was raised by the hon. Gentleman—
"clear accountability; and an end to perverse incentives."—[Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 955–56.]
As the Secretary of State has already said, he has an open mind on vertical integration, but it would not be appropriate for me today to go any further than that because of the nature of the position that he reported to the House on 15 October.
No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be most interested in the services operated by South West Trains, as it is the operator of services through his Twickenham constituency. I have considerable familiarity with train services in that constituency. The names of the stations Whitton, St. Margarets, Fulwell, Hampton and Strawberry Hill flash before my eyes, although in those days some of the stations were serviced by trains with smoke coming out somewhere near the front.
South West Trains was included in the first batch of franchises for replacement in 1999. Following a competitive process, the Strategic Rail Authority signed heads of terms with Stagecoach as the preferred counterparty for the replacement franchise in March this year. The SRA is working with Stagecoach towards signing a deal that preserves the benefits agreed in the heads of terms.
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the Strategic Rail Authority cannot give a date when the deal might be signed. It does not want to undermine its negotiating position by setting itself a deadline. It wants to have complete confidence that the terms negotiated are fully enforceable and offer best value for money before the deal is signed. Suffice it to say, it wants that to be at the earliest opportunity.
I understand that the authority will consider with Stagecoach the possibility of bringing certain elements of the deal forward in advance of franchise agreement signature. Elements that could be brought forward, to ensure that passengers get some early benefits, include an increase in evening and Sunday services and measures to improve station security.

1133
The hon. Gentleman asked about finance for the services envisaged under the new franchise under discussion. The focus of the investment proposal under that franchise is to allow growth in passenger demand, to increase the reliability and punctuality of services and to reduce overcrowding. Under the heads of terms, £1.7 billion is committed over the first 15 years to that end.

Within the heads of terms. Stagecoach has a detailed set of schemes that will provide passengers with a number of early benefits. Those include—it is particularly pertinent to the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked—investment in almost 800 new vehicles to replace the ageing mark I stock, increase the fleet and help relieve overcrowding. In April 2001, Stagecoach agreed contracts with the lessors, Angel Trains, and with Siemens, the manufacturer, for the supply of those vehicles. That order, the biggest ever UK rolling stock contract, is underwritten by the SRA. The first of the new trains are scheduled to enter service in 2002.
The second benefit—again, the hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the matter—is a programme of platform lengthening at Waterloo and throughout the suburban network to allow the use of 10-car trains in place of the current eight-car trains. That will increase peak capacity on most suburban routes by 25 per cent.
Initial work site visits and technical studies have begun for those platform extension works. Even so, the hon. Gentleman will understand that, until a new agreement is signed, no date can be given for the introduction of the 10-car trains. However, I think that he will take an assurance that work is well in hand to examine how the 10-car trains can come into service.
Further benefits include a recast timetable on the Windsor and Reading lines to provide an additional two trains per hour for most of the day through Twickenham and Richmond. Improvements in service frequencies in suburban areas include the provision of four trains per hour at all stations on the Hounslow loop, and between Shepperton and Kingston.
In the longer term, the heads of terms provide for the redevelopment of Clapham Junction station by 2007. The upgrade is designed to make the station more comfortable and convenient for local passengers, and for those who
1134
have to change trains. Improvements will also be made at Waterloo to provide for the safe and convenient circulation of a growing number of passengers, and upgrades will be carried out at Wimbledon and Vauxhall to improve interchange with the underground.
Stagecoach has also put a set of aspirations in the heads of terms on which progress may be made later in the franchise, including the introduction of 16-car trains on longer distance routes, which is particularly interesting to me. They also include the extension of platforms at Waterloo for 12-car suburban trains, and the introduction of double-decker trains on some routes—low bridges permitting, I imagine. Of course changes cannot happen overnight, but I believe that over the next few years passengers on the South West Trains network will see a marked improvement in their service.
The rail industry has recently gone through an unprecedented upheaval, starting with the Hatfield accident in October last year, continuing with the widespread disruption to the network that followed it, and culminating in the placing of Railtrack in administration in October this year. It will be some time before the new structure for the industry is clear. However, the future of services nationwide will become clearer with the publication of the Strategic Rail Authority's first strategic plan later this year, and with the announcement of its revised replacement programme.
The strategic plan will set out the authority's long-term vision for the railways, and its priorities for the short and medium terms. Those priorities will need to address the targets set in our 10-year plan, which are to increase passenger numbers by 50 per cent. by 2010 through investment in infrastructure and capacity, to reduce overcrowding, and to secure improvements in punctuality and reliability.
We are fully committed to delivering the vision for railways set out in our 10-year plan, and we will continue to ensure that the industry bodies work together in partnership to deliver the rail service that passengers expect and deserve in the 21st century.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past One o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Solicitor-General what her Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of Fair Trade goods.[15210]

  The Solicitor-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. The Law Officers' Departments aim to support ethical trading wherever practicable in the conduct of its business.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Solicitor-General what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer(a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13296]

  The Solicitor-General
  I gave no holding replies during this period.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to her Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers. [13295]

  The Solicitor-General
  Five named day questions were tabled to me during this period. None received a holding reply.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the President of the Council what his Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of fair trade goods. [15214]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of state for International Development, today, at column 931W.

  The Privy Council Office however does not have a refreshment facility in which it could stock fair trade goods.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Council what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to his Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer(a)within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days,(c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13319]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  None.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Council how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to his Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers. [13300]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Seven named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to the Privy Council Office between 15 October and 5 November.

  No such questions received a holding answer.

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to his Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers; [13297]

  (2) what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to his Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer (a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13316]

  The Prime Minister
  Thirty-seven named day written parliamentary questions were tabled for answer in the specific period. Of these seven received holding replies. I provided substantive answers for five of these questions within three parliamentary days, and two within seven parliamentary days.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on Government representation on the board of the successor company to Railtrack. [12149]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It will be for the Railway Administrator to put a proposal to the Secretary of State for a scheme to transfer the network operator out of administration. We have indicated that we will be making a proposal for a company limited by guarantee to take over Railtrack's role, but the Secretary of State will consider any proposal put to him by the administrator to transfer the railway
  899W
  assets out of administration as a going concern. The composition of the board of Railtrack's successor will therefore depend on the eventual scheme put to us by the administrator.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 195, on documents relating to the Railway Administration Order of 7 October, if he will make a statement about the level of the proposed payments to Railtrack under the RenewCo scheme. [11800]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: No structure could be found for a RenewCo vehicle that successfully met all of the conditions set out in the 2 April agreement between Government and Railtrack.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 1 November 2001,Official Report, column 781W, what advice the agencies gave officials about their requirements to give investment grade rating to the proposed successor to Railtrack. [14678]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Officials have discussed the Government's proposals for a company limited by guarantee (CLG) with credit rating agencies. Proposals for a CLG will be targeting a long term credit rating of A/A2 or higher, to reflect the financing capacity requirement of the rail infrastructure business.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many save as you earn schemes are held by employees of Railtrack. [14438]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department does not hold this information. It is a matter for the company.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the impact on take-up of employee share ownership schemes resulting from the devaluation of employee share schemes held by employees of Railtrack. [14437]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is for employees to consider the strength of their company when participating in employee share schemes.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place the notes of his meetings with(a) the Chairman of Railtrack on 25 July and (b) the Rail Regulator on 5 October, in the Library. [15499]

  Mr. Byers
  Details of internal communications are exempt from disclosure under section 2 of Part II of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place copies of his Department's correspondence with the Strategic Rail Authority regarding negotiations on the development of RenewCo and the payment of funds to Railtrack under(a) the resettlement procedure and (b) the arrangement for payment of network grant proposed by the Rail Regulator in October 2000 and agreed by Railtrack in January 2001, in the Library. [15500]
  900W
  Mr. Byers
  The criteria required RenewCo to be successfully established were stated in the 2 April agreement between Government and Railtrack.

  Central Trains
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with Central Trains about providing an improved service between Grantham and Skegness. [13493]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are aware of the desire to improve this service. The Rail Passenger Partnership fund administered by the SRA would be a possible source of support for an increased local service. Bids can be made individually or by consortia which could include the train operator and local authority.

  London Underground
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the estimate of the interest charged to support the PPP for the London Underground at 1 October; and what is the current estimate. [13989]

  Mr. Spellar
  London Underground is currently negotiating the contracts to deliver this investment. To estimate at this stage of the negotiations what rate of interest the private sector infrastructure companies might be charged on the debt they raise would undermine London Underground's commercial position and jeopardise its ability to deliver best value.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects the Health and Safety Executive to complete consideration of the safety case for the PPP for London Underground. [14492]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The independent Health and Safety Executive is responsible for the timetable for consideration of London Underground's safety case. They will reach a decision after considering all the relevant issues.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions at what level of cost overrun under the PPP for the London Underground infracos will be able to demand additional financial support; and if he will make a statement. [14482]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The modernisation contracts provide for an "extraordinary review" if costs are increased by more than £200 million despite the infrastructure company carrying out the investment in an economic and efficient way. This is aimed largely at external events, which the infrastructure companies might be unable to bear and which could arise in any long-term contractual relationship.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how the budget for London Underground step-in inspection and maintenance powers will be set; who will be responsible for funding that budget; and if he will make a statement; [14518]
  901W
  (2) how long infracos will be allowed to comply with a notification of the need for safety works, before London Underground can invoke its step-in works to default powers under the PPP arrangements; and if he will make a statement; [14516]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the arrangements that London Underground will have available to them to inspect the tube for safety concerns under the (a) proposed works in default and (b) step in powers process under the PPP arrangements; [14517]

  (4) how many staff will be employed in (a) the inspection team and (b) the maintenance team available to London Underground to carry out its step in powers under the PPP arrangements: and if he will make a statement. [14513]

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the detailed arrangements under the works in default step-in powers for(a) notifying infracos of the need to take action on safety grounds and (b) performing works not carried out by infracos under the London Underground PPP. [14480]

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how disputes between Transport for London and infracos as to the exercise of step-in powers by London Underground will be resolved; and if he will make a statement. [14495]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground will have a range of methods under the contracts for checking whether the infrastructure companies are carrying out their obligations. The contracts will require the private companies to provide asset management plans and detailed information on asset condition on an open book basis. London Underground will have rights to audit or inspect work and records at short notice.

  Where London Underground finds a safety concern it will be able either to direct action from the infrastructure company or to step in itself, whether or not the infrastructure company has complied with its obligations. This step-in power allows London Underground to do the work itself or to employ an outside contractor or another infrastructure company. In either case, if the infrastructure company has breached its obligations, the work will be done at the expense of the infrastructure company that failed to meet its obligations. If action is determined by London Underground in these circumstances to be needed, it can be taken immediately with any disputes resolved later. In such cases London Underground does not need to give notice of its intended step-in.

  It is for London Underground to determine the appropriate number of staff to be employed for inspection and step-in, and to set the relevant budgets.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will deem approval by the HSE of the safety case for the London Underground PPP arrangements to be a guarantee that the PPP regime is safe: and if he will make a statement. [14519]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is the responsibility of London Underground Ltd. under health and safety legislation to ensure safety on the underground network. It is the role of the Health and Safety Executive to assess and consider 902W
  for acceptance London Underground's safety case, and to inspect for compliance as necessary. Acceptance of London Underground's safety case would mean that London Underground had made a satisfactory case under the Railway Safety Case Regulations 2000 to give confidence to the HSE that it has the ability, commitment, and resources to properly assess and effectively control risks to the health and safety of the public, staff and contractors.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to request the National Audit Office to review, prior to the award of the contracts, the value for money of the proposed PPP for the London Underground; and if he wil I make a statement. [14514]

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects the NAO to report on the London Underground PPP; and if he will make a statement. [14485]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given to the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 503W.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions under the(a) actual and (b) proposed (i) contracts and (ii) understandings, what level of compensation will be payable to the infracos who have submitted bids for the PPP for London Underground in the event of the PPP Scheme being found not to represent value for money; and if he will make a statement. [14512]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No compensation will be payable to bidders in the event of bids for the modernisation plans for the underground being found to be not value for money.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what definition of a fair return on investment is being used for the private sector infracos investing in the London Underground PPP; and if he will make a statement. [14488]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 186W. The rate of return will be determined by the fair and rigorous competitions that London Underground are conducting.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what projections he has made as to fare increases after the London Underground PPP contracts are signed; and if he will make a statement. [14489]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 26 April 2001,Official Report, column 312W. Fare decisions on the London Underground are now a matter for the Mayor of London.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of(a) the management structures proposals for London Underground PPP from the point of view of safety and (b) the conclusions reached by

  903W
  Sir Desmond Fennell in his report on the King's Cross fire as to the management structure operated by London Underground. [14490]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As the Duty Holder under the relevant legislation, London Underground is responsible for ensuring that safety risks are reduced to as low as reasonably practical. The independent Health and Safety Executive is responsible for safety regulation of London Underground.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what contingency plans he proposes to put in place in the event of insolvency by one or more of the infracos in the London Underground PPP; and if he will make a statement. [14487]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Greater London Authority Act 1999 contains specific provisions to protect the public interest should an infrastructure company perform poorly and be at risk of becoming insolvent (sections 220–224).

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will indicate(a) for each year of the first seven and a half year period and (b) for the total of the first seven and a half years of the infraco contracts for the PPP of London Underground, what proportion of investment will come from (i) the private sector and (ii) the public sector; and if he will make a statement. [14484]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The plans for the modernisation of the Underground will deliver around £13 billion of investment to improve the underground's infrastructure over the next 15 years. London Underground is in the process of negotiating the contracts to deliver these plans. It is currently estimated that in the first seven and a half years some 25 per cent. of finance for these plans will be provided by the private sector, with the remainder coming from London Underground fares and Government grant.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with London Underground on the future membership of its board post PPP; and if he will make a statement. [14491]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The board of London Regional Transport is responsible for considering and approving appointments to the board of its subsidiary, London Underground Ltd. This responsibility will remain with London Regional Transport until London Underground Ltd. transfers to Transport for London.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement as to the phasing of works under the London Underground PPP between different tube lines and between(a) stations, (b) track and signalling infrastructure and (c) rolling stock. [14494]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on 18 July 2001,Official Report, column 195W. Bidders have said that in the first period of the Tube modernisation plans: over 60 miles of track will be repaired or replaced; over 500 carriages will be replaced or refurbished; over 50 stations will be modernised; new
  904W
  signalling will be installed on the Northern and Victoria lines, with improvements elsewhere; and CCTV will be installed to improve security in trains and stations.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement as to the guarantees under the London Underground PPP which will ensure(a) replacement and (b) upgrading of the tube infrastructure. [14498]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The public private partnership is designed to achieve a comprehensive modernisation of the entire underground network. The infrastructure companies will be contractually required to deliver specified upgrades of each line by dates set by London Underground. In addition infrastructure companies must meet specified levels for the condition of all underground assets, comply with London Underground standards and the requirements of their safety case.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions the Government have had with the National Audit Office over the value for money of the London Underground PPP; and if he will make a statement. [14493]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 503W. My Department's officials have had numerous meetings with the National Audit Office on the value for money evaluation of the Government's plans for London Underground.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement as to which risks will be transferred to the private sector under the London Underground PPP, and the extent to which those risks will be transferred. [14497]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In line with Treasury guidance, the Government's plans for the London Underground follow the principle that risks should be allocated to whoever is best able to manage them. The aim is not to transfer risk for its own sake, as this would lead to a decline in value for money, but rather to optimise the transfer of risk.

  Transport for London
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the credit rating is of Transport for London; and if he will make a statement. [14496]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Transport for London's credit rating is a matter for Transport for London.

  Departmental Name Change
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total cost has been to public funds of re-branding his Department to accommodate its name change following the last general election. [14450]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 10 July 2001,Official Report, column 438W.

  Westminster City Council
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has
  905W
  been the cost to public funds of the Westminster Auditor's inquiry into Westminster city council's designated sales policy for the period since 30 April 1999; [14329]

  (2) what the cost to public funds of the Westminster Auditor's inquiry into Westminster city council's designated sales policy was from 18 July 1989 to 31 October 2001. [14328]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We are advised by the Audit Commission that the auditor's costs for the investigation, up to and including the publication of his report in 1996, was £3,017,905, which has been met by Westminster city council.

  The Commission has a responsibility to indemnify the auditor for the cost of any proceedings resulting from such investigations. Under the indemnity the Commission had met, up to 30 April 1999, costs of £2,997,000 incurred by the auditor, his solicitor and barrister, in relation to the inquiry. The total litigation costs, including those of some of the appellants whose appeals were successful in the Divisional Court, amounted to £3,705,000 in the same period.

  The auditor's costs (including those of his solicitor and barrister) incurred since 30 April 1999, indemnified by the Audit Commission, amount to £1.75 million to 31 October 2001, including the costs of the remaining successful appellant (£514,265), which were not paid over until after 30 April 1999, but exclude any costs borne by Westminster city council since 30 April 1999.

  Train Toilets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers the Rail Regulator has to oblige train operating companies to make working toilets available to passengers on trains. [14705]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for the train operating companies.

  Rosyth Ferry Terminal
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date his Department first informed the European Commission of plans for the Rosyth ferry terminal; what correspondence took place between his Department and the European Commission; and if he will place copies in the Library. [13935]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]: The Commission has been aware of plans for the Rosyth ferry terminal for some time, and a meeting was held to discuss the state aids issues on 9 November.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate the Government have made of the value of the Millennium Dome site. [14503]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 21W.
  906W
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Government will publish the requirements for potential buyers of the Millennium(a) Dome and (b) site. [14504]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 October 2001,Official Report, column 431W.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by what date the Government expect to have sold the Millennium Dome. [14511]

  Ms Keeble
  The aim is to secure a sale as quickly as possible, consistent with value for money, securing a worthwhile and sustainable future for the Dome and a deliverable outcome.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans the Government have to allow residential building on the Millennium Dome site; [14510]

  (2) what plans the Government have to dismantle the Millennium Dome. [14505]

  Ms Keeble
  None.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the factors which will influence the costs incurred by the Millennium Dome after 31 December; [14507]

  (2) what estimate the Government have made of the costs that will be incurred by the Millennium Dome after 31 December. [14506]

  Ms Keeble
  English Partnerships, as owners of the Dome, are continuously revising their estimates of costs in the light of changing circumstances, and are making every effort to keep costs down. The average monthly maintenance cost has fallen to £240,000. including security, rates and services. These costs, together with the costs of any additional works required in preparation for a future Dome use, will be kept under review, and budgets adjusted accordingly.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to regenerate the Greenwich peninsula; and what role it expects the Millennium Dome to play in this regeneration. [14509]

  Ms Keeble
  The regeneration of the Greenwich Peninsula is a key element in developing this part of east London, and driving the transformation of the Thames Gateway.

  The development of the 300 acre peninsula site is creating a template for future mixed use development and is bringing unprecedented regeneration benefits to a part of London which was inactive for many years. In doing so, English Partnerships, the Government's regeneration agency, has transformed one of the largest tracts of derelict land in Europe. The development area, which also contains the new North Greenwich Interchange, includes the United Kingdom's first Millennium Village; Britain's first low energy Sainsbury's food store; Britain's largest B&Q store; Europe's first round multiplex cinema; a fully integrated school and health centre and a 162-bed hotel.

  907W
  In addition there are 50 acre of parks, open spaces and new river walks and cycle path, together with a new river pier and a new yacht club.

  Like many others, including the London borough of Greenwich, the Government are committed to the Dome staying in Greenwich. It is an important landmark on the London skyline which has hastened the regeneration of Greenwich peninsula and more widely and has added to the quality and variety of world-famous structures that were already so prominent in the area. Delivering a successful future for the Dome will build on this, ensuring continued recognition world-wide and enabling the regeneration momentum that has been established to continue.

  Runway Capacity
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he will take to make runway capacity available for increased regional air(a) services and (b) routes. [14321]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) is considering runway capacity issues. The forthcoming consultation documents on air services in the south-east of England and regional air services will present a range of runway capacity options.

  Airport slots are allocated in accordance with EC Regulation 95/93. Ministers are currently considering policy options for the protection of slots at London airports for regional access.

  Regional Air Travel
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what change there has been in the amount of regional air travel in the last six weeks. [14322]

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the market for regional air services after the events of 11 September. [14336]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Over the last six weeks air services across the UK have been in a state of flux. Routes have been cancelled, put on hold, reduced in terms of frequency, moved between airports and put back on by another airline.

  BAA reported that at their airports their worst affected routes were the North Atlantic down 25.9 per cent. in September (38 per cent. in the period after the 11 September). However growth has continued in Scotland, figures for October show Edinburgh up 13 per cent. and Glasgow up 7 per cent., Stansted has also recorded growth of 5 per cent. These increases are largely the result of the continued development of low cost airlines.

  The Government are working hard to help return the aviation industry to business as usual as quickly as possible. We are carrying out a fundamental review of aviation security to ensure that air travel is as safe from terrorist attacks as we can make it while, at the same time, balancing security with our freedom to travel.

  Air Passengers (Security)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he is making of the impact of low-cost airlines on the running costs of airports; and what impact this has had on the provision of security for passengers. [14335]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is primarily a commercial decision for airlines and airports. The CAA as the economic regulator of airports can also consider complaints. Low cost airlines have no impact on the security of passengers as the security measures required by DTLR do not depend on whether an airline is low cost or high cost.

  Homelessness (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions how many homeless people there are in the Greater London area; and what the figure has been in each of the last three years. [14733]

  Ms Keeble
  Information reported to the Department by London boroughs on the number of households accepted under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need, in each of the last three years, is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1998–99

  26,470

  1999–2000

  28,440

  2000–01

  29,630

  2001–021

  7,350

  1 First quarter

  Source:

  DTLR P1(E) housing returns (quarterly)

  National and regional summaries of local authorities' activity, including a table presenting figures on homelessness acceptances as reported by each London borough, are provided in a quarterly Statistical Release published by the Department. Copies are available in the Library, and also via the Department's website. The latest edition, published on 12 September, presents statistics up to the end of June 2001.

  Stagecoach Bus Service (Monmouth)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if she will request(a) the Health and Safety Executive and (b) the Vehicles Inspectorate to undertake an assessment of overcrowding on the Stagecoach 69 bus service between Llandogo and Monmouth carrying pupils to and from school. [15243]

  Ms Keeble
  As I said in my answer of 6 November 2001,Official Report, column 138W, to my hon. Friend, the primary responsibility for ensuring that a bus is not overcrowded lies with the driver. The driver or conductor should not allow more passengers than the bus is certified to carry, and may limit the number of passengers below that if the number being carried at the time is detrimental to safety.

  It is not the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive to investigate overcrowding on buses. However, the Vehicle Inspectorate would follow up specific complaints or reports of known regular incidents

  909W
  of overcrowding. To do so they will need detailed information of the times, date and location and if possible the vehicle registration. This information on the case referred to in this instance should be forwarded to The Senior Traffic Examiner. Dave Rhys, at the Vehicle Inspectorate, School Road, Miskin, Pontyclun, Mid Glamorgan, CF72 8YR.

  Port Health
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will give a breakdown of the spending on Port Health in each of the last three years for which centrally collected data are available. [15055]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: English local authorities have reported the following expenditure on Port Health:

  Port Health net current expenditure by local authority: 1995–96 to 1997–98

  £000

  Local authority

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  City of London

  1,878

  2,173

  2,191

  Birmingham

  1

  1

  1

  Gateshead

  17

  10

  13

  Leeds

  3

  3

  3

  Liverpool

  82

  84

  95

  Manchester

  36

  37

  38

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  28

  16

  21

  North Tyneside

  44

  26

  33

  Salford

  36

  37

  38

  Sefton

  47

  49

  55

  Solihull

  -1

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  44

  26

  33

  Trafford

  9

  9

  9

  Wirral

  61

  64

  70

  Bristol UA

  95

  84

  89

  East Riding of Yorkshire UA

  —

  35

  34

  Hartlepool UA

  8

  0

  10

  Kingston upon Hull

  215

  n/a

  n/a

  Middlesbrough UA

  38

  0

  0

  North Lincolnshire UA

  —

  35

  0

  Poole UA

  9

  7

  19

  Portsmouth UA

  76

  90

  98

  Redcar and Cleveland UA

  —

  41

  41

  Southampton UA

  340

  375

  258

  Stockton-on-Tees UA

  38

  41

  44

  Allerdale

  3

  2

  2

  Barrow-in-Furness

  2

  2

  2

  Blyth Valley

  40

  40

  44

  Boothferry

  31

  —

  —

  Boston

  2

  8

  6

  Caradon

  12

  16

  16

  Carrick

  107

  107

  107

  Cleethorpes

  62

  —

  —

  Colchester

  3

  2

  2

  Crawley

  107

  185

  173

  Dover

  103

  64

  53

  Easington

  —3

  0

  0

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  9

  9

  9

  Gillingham

  3

  3

  3

  Glanford

  31

  —

  —

  Great Grimsby

  25

  —

  —

  Great Yarmouth

  10

  11

  14

  Halton

  9

  9

  9

  Holderness

  15

  —

  —

  Ipswich

  0

  1

  0

  Kerrier

  15

  15

  15

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk

  8

  1

  0

  Lancaster

  21

  22

  24

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  39

  —

  —

  910W

  Port Health net current expenditure by local authority: 1995–96 to 1997–98

  £000

  Local authority

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Lewes

  63

  67

  66

  Plymouth

  104

  103

  105

  Purbeck

  2

  2

  3

  Rochester upon Medway

  6

  4

  5

  Scarborough

  3

  3

  3

  Selby

  18

  14

  15

  South Kesteven

  1

  0

  0

  Stroud

  11

  13

  14

  Suffolk Coastal

  196

  130

  -1

  Teignbridge

  1

  -1

  1

  Tendring

  69

  42

  44

  Vale Royal

  9

  9

  10

  Wansbeck

  40

  40

  44

  Warrington

  9

  8

  8

  Waveney

  13

  13

  11

  Weymouth and Portland

  22

  28

  28

  Wyre

  10

  11

  12

  Total

  4,335

  4,226

  4,040

  Note:

  1. Authorities are listed within class as follows:

  (a) Shire counties

  (b) Unitary authorities

  (c) Shire districts

  The structure of local government has changed over the period, with the staged establishment of unitary authorities. Where these exist they took on. for their area, the function of the old shire county and district.

  Where relevant, shire districts pre-reorganisation have been placed on the same line as the post-reorganisation unitary authority.

  A dash denotes an authority did not exist during the financial year and a negative figure would represent a net income.

  Airline Industry
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations he has received from the airline industry on levels of employment following the incidents of 11 September; and if he will make a statement. [15665]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have received numerous representations from the airline industry and others on the effects of the events of 11 September.

  The Government recognise the importance of the aviation industry to the UK economy and is therefore paying close attention to the industry's current problems. We moved quickly to underwrite, on a temporary basis, third party war risk insurance for UK airlines and service providers to the airline industry. The initiative has subsequently been widely copied elsewhere. The European Commission has set out guidelines on emergency aid measures which were endorsed at the meeting of European Transport Ministers on 16 October. We support the Commission's stance and are actively considering whether further aid should be paid to the British airline industry in accordance with the guidelines.

  Housing Capital Resources
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he
  911W
  will announce the results of the consultation exercise on the needs indices to be used in the allocation of 2002–03 housing capital resources to local authorities and registered social landlords. [15790]

  Ms Keeble
  Decisions have now been taken about the needs indices to be used in the allocation of housing capital resources for 2002–03. I am arranging for details of the indices to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Department issued a consultation paper in July seeking views on the development of the indices, including some specific proposals for changes to the indices for 2002–03. Some 80 responses were received. A list of the respondents is available in the Library of the House and individual responses can be viewed in the Department's Library.

  The responses reflect the difficulty of striking the right balance over the differing housing needs around the country. Responses from London argued that the revised indices would not give sufficient weight to the need to provide additional affordable housing in areas of high demand; those from northern regions raised concerns that the proposed changes do not adequately reflect the problems of area renewal and housing market failure.

  The Indices of Deprivation 2000 (ID2000) were adopted last year as the basis for the future allocation of resources to deprived areas. The consultation paper set out a proposal for moving to base the targeting of housing capital resources on the most deprived areas as identified in ID2000. We have decided to proceed with this change. ID2000 is a more up to date, broader based measure and is a clear improvement on the largely, 1991 Census-based Index of Local Conditions on which the targeting is currently based. Work is either planned or being undertaken to address the acknowledged weaknesses in the housing element of ID2000 and the absence of a crime measure.

  Most LAs are unaffected by moving to use ID2000 but a small number of authorities face sizeable shifts in index shares. We will, as indicated in the consultation paper, apply transitional arrangements to phase the impact of this change in over three years.

  We have also decided to proceed with the three other proposed changes—the introduction of a low demand indicator into the LA index; the increase in the share of the LA index accounted for by the LA stock indicator; and the revised basis for the index used to allocate Disabled Facilities Grant resources. The transitional arrangements will also apply to these changes.

  The housing capital resources for LAs for 2002–03 will be allocated through the Single Capital Pot (SCP). The performance-related component (5 per cent.) within this is much less than has applied to housing allocations in earlier years (50 per cent.). The consultation paper indicated that we did not consider it right for the better performing authorities to face the whole impact of this in one year. The consultation paper proposed that the transitional arrangements should be applied in a way which also covered the reduction in the size of the performance element. We have decided to address this in a different way by allocating a part, one third, of the formulaic housing element of the SCP on the basis of performance assessments. This has the advantage of much greater transparency and it also reflects the latest
  912W
  performance assessments rather than being fixed on the 2000 assessments as would have been the case under the initial proposal.

  Pedestrian Protection
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the additional average cost of providing pedestrian protection in the Honda Civic car; which car has the best pedestrian protection rating to date in the European New Car Assessment Programme; and which cars have been assessed at 65 per cent. or above in the EEVC Working Group 10 tests. [15679]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Honda Civic has the best Euro NCAP pedestrian protection result to date, with a score of 72 per cent. We estimate that the additional vehicle manufacturing cost of the Honda Civic relating to pedestrian protection to be around £6.50. We have made no specific estimate of the extra running costs linked to pedestrian protection.

  The Euro NCAP pedestrian test currently allows a mix of best and worst positions, chosen by manufacturers and Euro NCAP respectively.

  However, we believe that significant further modification would be required for the vehicle to meet the full EEVC WG10 or the later WG17 requirements, resulting in a further increase in manufacturing and running costs. In a separate series of DTLR funded research tests using the EEVC WG17 procedures and criteria, the Honda Civic was subject to 19 tests. The results are summarised below.

  WG17 requirements

  Test

  Total tests

  Met

  Not met

  Child head

  12

  2

  10

  Upper leg

  3

  2

  1

  Full leg

  4

  2

  2

  Total

  19

  6

  13

  This should not detract from the significant achievements by Honda on pedestrian protection in relation to other cars. Published results of Euro NCAP tests show that no other cars have scored 65 per cent. or above.

  Roadworks (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans his Department has for road works on the A12 between Hatfield Peverel and Mountnessing in the next 12 months; [14962]

  (2) what action he will take to alleviate the traffic jams on the A12 north of Boreham at Hatfield Peverel while the road works are in progress; [14964]

  (3) when the road works on the A12 to the north of Boreham at Hatfield Peverel will be completed; and when the A12 will return to normal traffic flows; [14963]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the traffic jams being caused by road works on the Al21 north of Boreham at Hatfield Peverel; and what has been the average time it takes vehicles to travel through the road works in each week since their establishment. [14965]
  913W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Richard Thorndike to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 15 November 2001:
  Tim Matthews has been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about planned and proposed roadworks on the A12. I am replying as Tim Matthews is currently away on business.
  I am sorry that the resurfacing of the A12 near Hatfield Peverel is causing problems for road users. We expect the work to be completed around the middle of February, although to minimise delays over Christmas, the traffic management will be suspended between noon on 19 December and noon on 7 January.
  We have not recorded details since work started of the delays for each week. Although we know there have been delays of over an hour particularly when there have been accidents. However, on average in the morning it takes about 10–15 minutes longer to travel southbound and about 5–10 minutes longer to travel north.
  We have no plans for major roadworks on the A12 between Hatfield Peverel and Mountnessing during the next 12 months. We are, however, planning to resurface part of the Brentwood Bypass next September which will involve some work at the Mountnessing Interchange. Details will be published nearer the time.
  If you would like more details, the Agency's Project Manager, James Hassall would be happy to discuss the scheme. His telephone number is 01234 796094

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to his Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer(a) within three parliamentary days,(b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days,(d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued; [13326]

  (2) how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to his Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers. [13307]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In the period 15 October to 5 November, my Department answered 261 named day parliamentary questions, of which 81 (31 per cent.) received holding answers.

  Of the 81 that received holding answers, 72 (89 per cent.) received substantive answers within three parliamentary days (of which 29 (36 per cent.) received substantive answers within one day); and 9(11 per cent.) received substantive answers within seven parliamentary days.

  Physical Agents Directive
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent meetings he has had with representatives of the(a) haulage, (b) construction and (c) engineering sectors regarding the European Commission's proposed physical agents directive; and if he will make a statement. [15687]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Executive has had several meetings with industry sectors about the two physical agents directives on vibration and noise.914W
  The most recent meeting with construction sector representatives was on 14 November and with engineering sector representatives on 1 November. They will be meeting representatives of the haulage industry on 20 November.

  Fair Trade Goods
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of Fair Trade goods. [15216]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department's procurement policy is about the achievement of value for money. The Department does not have a specific policy requiring the purchase of fair trade goods. Purchasing Officers are expected to consider each case on its merits with particular regard to the need for any products purchased to represent value for money. However, this Department does have available in the main staff restaurant fair trade beverages and confectionery and only provides fair trade beverages for official meetings. In addition, this Department's policy is to purchase timber and timber products only from sustainable and legal sources.

  Local Government Finance Settlement
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will make a statement on the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement 2002–03. [16241]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Subject to the progress of parliamentary business, we expect to make an announcement to the House on Thursday 29 November.

  New Track
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he intends to allow assets of the not-for-profit company known as New Track to be made available as security to bankers in order to secure funding for the company. [11221]

  Mr. Spellar
  A substantial portion of the income for a company limited by guarantee would be covered by stable long-term contracts. These would form the basis for an investment grade credit rating to secure funding for the company.

TREASURY

  Departmental Underspending
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister regarding underspend in the Department of Health; [13206]

  (2) what measures he is taking to reduce underspend in the (a) Department for Education and Skills, (b) Department of Health, (c) DETR main programmes, (d) Ministry of Defence and (e) Home Office; [13203]

  (3) if he will provide a breakdown of the main items of intended expenditure that were not spent comprising the underspend arising from the difference between the

  915W
  Final Department Expenditure Limit and Provisional Outturn for 2000–01 for the (a) Department for Education and Skills, (b) Department of Health, (c) DETR main programmes, (d) Ministry of Defence and (e) Home Office. [13202]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 13 November 2001,Official Report, columns 606–07W.

  Scottish Devolution
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is regarding consultations prior to the publication of proposals involving the transfer of powers to the Scottish Executive by(a) primary legislation and (b) Order in Council. [13823]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on14 November 2001,Official Report, column 748W.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will quantify in real cash terms the total change in the amount of income tax paid by higher rate taxpayers between May 1997 and the latest date for which information is available. [14425]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to "Inland Revenue Statistics", table 3.4, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The latest version of the table can be accessed on the Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an assessment of the cost of lowering the higher rate of income tax by 1 pence. [15395]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to "Inland Revenue Statistics" table 1.6, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The latest version can be accessed on the Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to his Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers. [13299]

  Mr. Boateng
  86 of the 143 named day questions tabled to the Treasury in the period concerned were answered substantively on the nominated day.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to his Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer(a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13318]
  916W
  Mr. Boateng
  Of the 75 named day questions to which holding answers were given in the period concerned, 53 received substantive answers within three sitting days, 12 within seven days, five within 10 days and five within 15 days.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to improve fiscal incentives for the development of combined heat and power plants. [15512]

  Mr. Boateng
  Gas or coal used by good quality combined heat and power systems is exempt from the climate change levy. Electricity produced by such systems is also exempt if it is used on the site where it is generated or if it is sold through a bilateral contract to another end user. Good quality CHP systems are also eligible for 100 per cent. enhanced capital allowances as part of the Government's climate change levy package. The Government are considering how best to encourage CHP and will be publishing proposals in the form of a CHP strategy in the coming months.

  Illegal Drugs (Hun)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to(a) increase and (b) improve illegal drugs interception by Customs and Excise at the Port of Hull; and if he will make a statement. [15690]

  Mr. Boateng
  Greater flexibility in the deployment of officers enable Customs in Hull to respond more quickly to smuggling threats. The Customs drug dog unit in Hull has been expanded and from the new year an X-ray scanner will be based in Hull to greatly increase the number of freight examinations.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the quarrying industry on the design of the proposed aggregates levy. [15340]

  Mr. Boateng
  I and my officials have had meetings with various representative bodies for the aggregates industry, and other interested parties throughout the development of the levy.

  Illegal Food Imports
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many, and what percentage of flights arriving at(a) Heathrow,(b) Gatwick, (c) Stansted and (d) other airports in the UK were checked, in the latest year for which figures are available, for the presence of food intended for illegal importation; and of those flights checked, on how many occasions such food was found. [15192]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The lead responsibility for controls on imported food lies with the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and agencies acting on its behalf. Customs has provided support to these agencies and participated in a number of joint exercises at airports to address the risk of illegal meat imports. Application of normal Customs controls to incoming flights is based on

  917W
  assessment of a range of risks and no figures exist of how many flights were checked for the purpose of detecting illegal importation. Where illegal food is found during Customs examination appropriate action is taken. Seizures in the year 1 April 2000–31 March 2001 were:

  Heathrow: 217

  Gatwick: 73

  Stansted: 5

  Other airports: 94

  This does not include seizures made in joint exercises with the lead enforcement agencies where they take the seizure action.

  Advanced Corporation Tax
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total cost to local government pension schemes resulting from the abolition of advanced corporation tax relief on pension funds. [14698]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The LGA estimated that the net effect of the 1997 decision to abolish advance corporation tax relief on local authority pension funds was £130 million. The Government specifically took account of this estimate in the spending plans set by the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Radio Spectrum
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the possibility of selling or licensing the military spectrum to the private sector. [14419]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer commissioned earlier this year an independent review of radio spectrum management, led by Professor Martin Cave, to advise on the principles which should guide future management of the spectrum, to help derive most value from this national asset. One of the issues which the review is exploring is how best to improve the arrangements for facilitating access, for commercial uses, to any defence spectrum which would not compromise any legitimate current or future defence needs. The review is due to report to Ministers by the end of 2001.

  Freedom of Information
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date his Department established a working group of officials to prepare his Department for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and on what dates this committee has met since it was set up. [14775]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have been asked to reply.

  In May this year, the Home Office established a Board level Senior Group to steer departmental progress towards implementation of the Act. The group first met on 8 May. Pending a decision on the timing of implementation, it has not met since, but is now scheduled to meet on 29 November 2001.
  918W
  The Senior Group is supported by a working-level Practitioners Group, which met on 14 May and 17 September 2001.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Direct Selling (Utilities)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to tighten the regulation of direct selling by utilities. [12152]

  Mr. Wilson
  Direct selling is regulated under a range of consumer legislation. The Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations (The Doorstep Selling Regulations), govern doorstep sales and were strengthened in 1998. New Distance Selling Regulations, governing telephone and internet sales, came into force in October 2000. Local Trading Standards departments are responsible for the enforcement of these regulations. Breaches of the regulations that result in harm to the collective interests of consumers could also be grounds for the courts to make a Stop Now Order requiring the company concerned to cease the offending conduct. Under The Stop Now Order (E. C. Directive) Regulations, which came into force on 1 June 2001, the power to apply for such Orders is held by the Director General of Fair Trading, local authority trading standards officers, and sectoral regulators.

  In the case of gas and electricity, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) introduced a Marketing Licence Condition in 1998 that governs the sales and marketing practices of suppliers. The Licence Condition was strengthened in January 2001. Ofgem closely monitors the sales and marketing activities of suppliers, and, where necessary, it will take formal action against individual suppliers.

  In addition, I have recently written to all gas and electricity suppliers to express my concern about the distress caused by incidences of sales malpractice and demand that suppliers improve their performances. Consumers affected by sales malpractice not only form a negative view of an individual company, but also of the competitive market as a whole. It is in suppliers' own interests to maintain the highest possible sales standards, to resolve problems rapidly where they occur and to ensure that the consumer is content with the outcome.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to her Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers. [13313]

  Ms Hewitt
  104 named day questions were tabled, 52 per cent. received a holding reply.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to her Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer(a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary

  919W
  days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13332]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows.

  (a) 91 per cent

  (b) 98 per cent.

  (c) 100 per cent

  (d) 0 per cent

  (e) per cent.

  Energy Sector
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total(a) direct and (b) indirect Government support for the energy sector, excluding oil and gas production, in each year since 1990. [13287]

  Ms Hewitt [holding answer 8 November 2001]: The information is set out in the table.

  Government financial support for the energy sector, excluding oil and gas

  £ million

  Total support

  Year

  Direct

  Indirect

  1990–91

  283.5

  127.1

  1991–92

  571.2

  809.7

  1992–93

  814.1

  892.9

  1993–94

  595.8

  963.1

  1994–95

  372.5

  988.4

  1995–96

  236.8

  793.5

  1996–97

  197.1

  112.8

  1997–98

  215.5

  126.5

  1998–99

  317.0

  127.0

  1999–2000

  227.0

  56.4

  2000–01

  334.1

  64.9

  Notes:

  1. The figures for direct support include:

  (a) direct Government funding for research and development on renewable energy through the DTI's Sustainable Energy Programme and through Research Councils via the Science Budget

  (b) support for the coal industry but excluding the impact of debt write-offs and proceeds at the privatisation of British Coal and payments made in respect of historic liabilities retained in the public sector, such as health claims

  (c) support for nuclear based on the funding to the UKAEA details of which were included in the reply to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on 14 November 2001, Official Report, columns 756–57W.

  2. The figures for indirect support include:

  (a) expenditure through the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO), the Scottish Renewables Obligation and the Northern Ireland NFFO funded by the electricity consumer through the Fossil Fuel Levy in Great Britain and variant arrangements in Northern Ireland.

  (b) the premium received by Nuclear Electric plc over and above the market price for electricity in the period 1990–96 details of which were provided in the reply to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on 14 November 2001, Official Report, columns 756–57W.

  Postcomm
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences have been issued by Postcomm within the reserved area; and what assessment she has made of their impact on Consignia's ability to meet its universal service obligations. [13743]
  920W
  Mr. Alexander
  To date, following consultation, Postcomm has issued a licence to Consignia plc. a condition of which requires the provision of a universal postal service, and four other licences.

  Postcomm's primary duty is to exercise its functions in the manner which it considers is best calculated to ensure the provision of a universal postal service. Subject to this duty Postcomm shall exercise its functions in the manner which it considers is best calculated to further the interests of users of postal services, wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition between postal operators.

  Consignia
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action Consignia is taking to improve recruitment and retention in areas where this is more difficult. [13733]

  Mr. Alexander
  As an operational matter, this is an issue for Consignia management.

  Consignia is aware that there is a particular problem around staff turnover in the first few months of employment within areas where alternative employment is readily available. In response, with the active support of the Communication Workers Union, the company is trailing a new approach that includes mentoring of new entrants and retention payments.

  I am advised that the results of these trials will be available in the new year.

  Postal Services Regulatory Regimes
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on the services condition of the European Union and UK postal services regulatory regimes. [13649]

  Mr. Alexander
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry routinely receives formal and informal representations on different aspects of developments in the United Kingdom and European postal markets including regulatory regimes.

  Fur Products
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry(1) what measures exist to ensure that consumers are not sold items made of or containing domestic(a) dog and (b) cat fur by (i) mistake and (ii) fraudulent practices; [13794]

  (2) what measures are in place to combat potential consumer fraud with regard to the sale of fur (a) garments and (b) items; [13796]

  (3) how many people are employed by her Department to ensure that fur products on sale in the United Kingdom are accurately described; and what is their annual budget; [13795]

  (4) what information (a) is given and (b) has to be given by law to consumers regarding the origin by (i) species and (ii) country of (A) fur garments,(B) garments containing fur trim and (C) items made from fur in the United Kingdom; [13793]
  921W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department does not enforce legislation which protects consumers from misleading statements about products. Trading standards officers who are employed directly by Local Authorities enforce the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 place the duty to investigate under the Regulations on the Director General of Fair Trading.

  It is a criminal offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 for a person in the course of a trade or business to apply, by any means, false or misleading statements to goods, including statements about their composition. Additionally, the Director General of Fair Trading can take injunctive action under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 (as amended) to prevent misleading advertisements. The regulations define an advertisement widely, as any form of representation which is made in connection with a trade or business in order to promote the supply or transfer of goods.

  Trade Descriptions (Sealskin Goods) (Information) Order 1980 requires goods made wholly or partly of, or derived wholly or partly from, sealskin to be legibly and conspicuously marked with, or accompanied by, information to the effect that the goods are made of sealskin and where the seals were taken.

  Department is not aware of any other legislation that requires fur products to be labelled with information.

  Nuclear Installations (Security)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations her Department has had with independent experts in respect of the security of nuclear facilities since 11 September. [14277]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) within my Department is the Government's security regulator for the civil nuclear industry. OCNS has operational and regulatory autonomy in setting security standards and ensuring industry compliance. OCNS and DTI officials liaise with their counterparts in other agencies at home and abroad and with industry experts in the civil nuclear industry.

  Community Post Offices
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the role of community post offices in the post office re-invention programme. [13762]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: Among the Performance and Innovation Unit report recommendations, all of which were accepted by Government, was that there should be a programme of modernisation and reinvention of the urban network. This reinvention programme will not be relevant to community post offices, defined by Post Office Ltd. as small rural offices with restricted opening hours, which fall within the rural network of offices serving settlements with less than 10,000 residents.

  Postal Deliveries
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many first class letters from(a) the PO postcode area and (b) the Isle of Wight achieve
  922W
  delivery (i) by first post the following day and (ii) within 24 hours; and how many to London in each category achieve delivery by each of those times. [14364]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: This is an operational issue for Consignia.

  I have been advised by the company that it does not hold all this information. However, for the financial year 2000–01 the company has provided the following information:

  89 per cent. of first class letters were delivered the next day from the PO postcode area of posting.

  92 per cent. of letters from the PO postcode area reached neighbouring areas the next working day.

  86 per cent. of letters from the PO postcode area of posting reached distant areas the next working day.

  Road Fund Licences (Post Office Sales)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates he has made of the costs associated with allowing all post offices to sell road fund licences. [14026]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: I have been informed by Post Office Ltd. that it acts as agent for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) in issuing motor vehicle licences through 4,000 post offices. In order to safeguard the interests of taxpayers, DVLA has to ensure that the relicensing service is cost effective. Under the present arrangements, increasing the number of post offices offering the facility increases the costs without increasing the total revenue collected. With the completion of the Horizon automation programme, we are considering the scope for extending the facility more widely without additional cost to DVLA.

  Postmasters (Compensation)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to(a) assist and (b) compensate sub-postmasters in Northern Ireland, with special reference to owners of rural post offices, affected by the phasing out of the old system of benefit payments in favour of the automated credit transfer system. [14977]

  Mr. Alexander
  Benefit and pension recipients who wish to collect their benefits in cash at post offices will continue to be able to do so after the change in payment arrangements, beginning in April 2003, by means of Universal Banking Services.

  The Government remain committed to maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices and has committed £270 million of support over the next three years to start the implementation of the Performance and Innovation Unit's recommendations, all of which the Government accepted, for modernisation of the post office network.

  The PIU report recommendations include financial support for modernisation of the urban and rural networks. Post Office Limited's objective for the urban network of the future is to establish bigger, better, brighter post offices based on viable businesses that deliver adequate returns to subpostmasters. The Government are also committed to providing transitional financial assistance to the rural network and will shortly receive advice from the Postal Services Commission on the best way of channelling assistance to rural post offices.

  Sub-post Offices (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices have been(a) opened and (b) closed in each of the London borough authorities in each of the last three years; and if he will list them. [15336]

  Mr. Alexander
  I understand from Post Office Limited that data on the post office network are not held on a local authority basis. From the financial year 2000–01, network data have been compiled on a regional basis and in that year there were 10 net closures of post offices in the London region.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Government investment there was in the north-west Regional Development Agency(a) in 1999, (b) in 2000, (c) in 2001 and (d) is projected for 2002. [14716]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The north-west Development Agency's net budgets for these years are as follows:

  North-west Development Agency budgets

  £000

  2002–03 (gross indicative)1

  276,600

  2001–02 (net allocated)2

  3276,215

  2000–01 (net actual)2

  4206,962

  1999–2000 (net actual)2

  141,337

  1 Only gross figures (including receipts) are available for 2002–03.

  2 Actual net figures (excluding receipts) available for 1999–2000 and 2000–01.Latest net allocation figures (excluding receipts) available for 2001–02.

  3 Includes additional funding for the Business Recovery Fund in response to foot and mouth disease, and the Rapid Response Fund.

  4 Includes funding for additional activity.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on levels of Government investment in all regional development agencies in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c)2002. [14719]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The Regional Development Agencies' budgets are as follow:

  Regional development agencies' budgets

  £000

  2002–03 Gross indicative1

  2001–02 Net allocated2

  2000–01 Net actual2

  One North East

  183,400

  157,755

  123,492

  North West DA

  276,600

  276,215

  206,962

  Yorkshire Forward

  221,900

  218,134

  172,668

  East Midlands DA

  95,200

  86,717

  75,497

  Advantage West Midlands

  185,700

  159,801

  135,897

  East of England DA

  71,600

  58,247

  42.582

  South East of England DA

  102,200

  97,851

  80,850

  South West of England DA

  92,400

  84,663

  68,468

  London DA

  298,100

  277,142

  270,860

  Total

  1,527,100

  31,416,525

  1,177,276

  1 Only "gross" figures (including receipts) are available for 2002–03

  924W
  2 Actual net figures (excluding receipts) available for 2000–01. Latest net allocation figures (excluding receipts) available for 2001–02.

  3 Includes additional funding for the Business Recovery Fund in response to foot and mouth disease, and the Rapid Response Fund.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Al-Qaeda
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has that the hijackers who crashed the commercial airliners in the United States on 11 September were trained in al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. [14256]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Al-Qaeda, harboured by the Taliban regime, have for some time run training facilities in Afghanistan. Prior to the current military action against al-Qaeda targets, there were at least 12 camps across Afghanistan, of which at least four were used for training terrorists. Following military action none of these camps are operational.

  Most of the nineteen11 September hijackers were al-Qaeda associates. A senior UBL associate has claimed to have trained some of the hijackers in Afghanistan. We know that al-Qaeda terrorists who carried out a failed attack on a US Navy destroyer in January 2000 had trained in camps in Afghanistan.

  Organised Crime (Russia)
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources have been offered to the Russian Government to help it to combat organised crime in Russia. [14729]

  Peter Hain
  The UK is keen to assist Russian efforts to combat organised crime. We have signed two memorandums of understanding to facilitate co-operation between UK and Russian law enforcement agencies. The National Criminal Intelligence Service has provided advice and consultants to a Russian project to establish a financial intelligence unit, an essential element in tackling money laundering.

  With our international partners, we participate in Operation Millennium, an Interpol initiative sponsored by the G8 to share intelligence on Eastern European, including Russian, organised crime. We also contribute to the Joint EU/Russia Action Plan on combating Russian organised crime, focusing on judicial co-operation in criminal matters and on law enforcement co-operation.

  EU (New Members)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries seeking membership of the European Union he has visited during the last 12 months. [14734]

  Peter Hain
  Since his appointment in June, the Secretary of State has visited Warsaw on 30 September and Ankara on 17–18 October. The Secretary of State has also met his Czech, Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Cypriot counterparts. I visited both Prague and Budapest
  925W
  in September, and have plans to visit more candidates early next year.I have also met the Foreign Ministers or chief negotiators of most of the candidate countries.

  European Union Chapters
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many European Union chapters have been approved by the EU in each of the countries seeking membership; and if he will list them. [14735]

  Peter Hain
  Of the 31 chapters of the European Union acquis communautaire (EC legislation), Cyprus has provisionally closed 23, Hungary 22, Czech Republic 21, Slovenia 21, Slovakia 20, Estonia 19, Latvia 18, Lithuania 18, Poland 18, Malta 18, Bulgaria 12, and Romania eight. The FCO has deposited with the Commons Library a table detailing which chapters have been provisionally closed by each of the candidates.

  Your Britain, Your Europe Project
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all publications issued under the Your Britain, Your Europe project; and what the(a) print run and (b) cost has been in each case. [14824]

  Peter Hain
  According to our latest and statistical information, the following publications bearing the Your Britain, Your Europe logo were issued during the lifetime of the Your Britain, Your Europe initiative:

  Leaflet

  Cost (£)

  Print run

  Your Britain, Your Europe

  3,863

  7,000

  What has the EU ever done for us?

  2,834

  8,000

  Europe Day Programme

  2,342

  10,000

  The Treaty of Nice

  2,618

  13,200

  Future of Europe

  1,417

  10,000

  Want to know more about Europe

  2,783

  11,000

  Regional Factsheets

  1,408

  2,200

  Five editions of the newsletter

  18,568

  50,000

  Bird Protection (Cyprus)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Cyprus regarding the trapping and eating of protected migrant birds; and what steps he plans to take to support improved enforcement of bird protection legislation in Cyprus. [14803]

  Peter Hain
  The Government remain concerned that this activity continues to take place in Cyprus, and welcome the inclusion of the issue on the agenda of the forthcoming Berne Standing Committee meeting. For our part, the Sovereign Base Area police have for a number of years put considerable effort into anti-poaching measures. Recently there has been an especially robust campaign including the expansion of anti-poaching patrols. The SBA police also work in close co-operation with the Cyprus Game and Fauna Service. In addition, as part of a larger initiative, the Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats 926W
  is being extended to the SBAs. We intend to continue to work with the Republic of Cyprus to bring an end to this unpleasant and outlawed practice.

  European Commission (Costs)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many committees and advisory groups are funded by the European Community to advise the Commission; and at what cost. [14859]

  Peter Hain
  The general budget for the European Union for 2001 lists 473 committees under budget lines A-7031 and A-7032. Appropriations for their expenditure in 2001 totalled 21.96 million euros. The full list of these committees appears on pages 480–508 of the Official Journal of the European Communities of 26 February 2001.

  British Russia Centre
  Valerie Davey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the annual reports of the British Russia Centre and British East-West Centre will be available. [16309]
  Peter Hain
  Copies of the centres' annual report for the financial year 2000–01 have now been placed in the Libraries of both Houses..

  The centres received grant in aid of £226,648 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to support their activities in FY 2000–01. In addition, the centres secured funding of £109,346 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for direct expenditure on projects.

  The centres manage projects to promote and support the development of democratic institutions, the rule of law and society in Russia, eastern Europe and central Asia. Activities last year included sending election observers to Kyrgyzstan; bidding for and winning a contract for a two-year project to assist in reform of tax systems in Russia, and a project to train young lawyers in the south Caucasus in specialist skills relating to the ECHR.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to his Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer(a) within three parliamentary days,(b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days,(d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13321]

  Mr. Straw
  The four questions which were issued with holding replies received substantive answers within the following timescales:

  (a) 2

  (b) 1

  (c) 1

  (d) 0

  (e) 0.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to his
  927W
  Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers. [13302]

  Mr. Straw
  Sixty-six named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to my Department between 15 October and 5 November. Of these, 6 per cent. received a holding reply.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the UN Special Rapporteur for Sudan's recent comments to the UN General Assembly on the links between oil exploitation and conflict in that country; and if he will make a statement. [15688]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The civil war in Sudan started decades before the oil project came on stream in 1999. The main fields are in or close to an area of longstanding conflict between pro and anti government Nuer militias. It is not clear that oil has significantly affected this situation. We are engaged, with our EU partners, in an effort to encourage the Government to be more transparent about the use to which it puts its oil revenues. The Government's assurances that the majority are devoted to development expenditure would be all the more convincing if they were backed up by clear data.

  European Union Heads of Mission held a meeting with the Sudanese Minister of Finance on this subject on 6 November. But the overall objective remains to achieve a lasting peace, which alone will bring an end to suffering in Sudan. In that respect we warmly welcome Senator Danforth's mission to Sudan and intend to work closely with our US and EU colleagues, and interested regional parties, to try to achieve renewed progress.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of fair trade goods. [15206]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have no departmental policy on the purchase of fair trade products though my private office seeks to offer fair trade coffee and teas to visitors.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Sure Start, Birkenhead
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much of the(a> revenue and (b) capital allocation awarded to Birkenhead for the first year of its Sure Start programme was used. [11819]

  Jacqui Smith
  In the 2000–01 financial year, Sure Start Birkenhead received £141,000 of its revenue allocation and £22,000 of its capital allocation.

  Private School Funding
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average extra funding per 928W
  primary school pupil in (a) the UK, (b) England and (c) Shropshire was in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000 and (v) 2001. [13812]

  Mr. Timms
  The Secretary of State is responsible for England only. The funding data for the years in question are as follows:

  Shropshire revenue funding per primary pupil

  £

  Cash terms

  Real terms 2000

  SSA

  Grants

  Total per pupil

  SSA

  Grants

  Total per pupil

  1997–98

  2,000

  30

  2,040

  2,150

  40

  2,180

  1998–99

  2,100

  40

  2,140

  2,190

  40

  2,230

  1999–2000

  2,220

  120

  2,340

  2,260

  120

  2,380

  2000–01

  2,300

  290

  2,590

  2,300

  290

  290

  2001–02

  2,410

  460

  2,870

  2,350

  450

  2,800

  Change

  400

  430

  830

  200

  420

  610

  Note:

  Real terms calculated using GDP deflators published by the Treasury 25 September 2001. The 2001–02 grant figures arc provisional and are liable to change. The figures have been rounded to the nearest £10.

  England revenue funding per primary school pupil

  £

  Cash terms

  Real terms 2000

  SSA

  Grants

  Total per pupil

  SSA

  Grants

  Total per pupil

  1997–98

  2,130

  30

  2,160

  2,280

  30

  2,320

  1998–99

  2,250

  40

  2,290

  2,350

  50

  2,390

  1999–2000

  2,370

  120

  2,490

  2,420

  120

  2,530

  2000–01

  2,470

  290

  2,760

  2,470

  290

  2,760

  2001–02

  2,590

  500

  3,090

  2,520

  490

  3,010

  Change

  460

  470

  920

  240

  450

  690

  Note:

  Real terms calculated using GDP deflators published by the Treasury 25 September 2001. The 2001–02 grant figures are provisional and are liable to change. The figures have been rounded to the nearest £10.

  Students (Living Expenses)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 2 November 2001,Official Report, column 898W, on costs of living, what estimates the research gave of total required living expenses in (a) London and (b) other parts of England and Wales. [14677]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Student Income and Expenditure Survey 1998–99 did not give estimates of the total required living expenses. It recorded reported expenditure by students of students.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to examine the role of Capita in the operation of their contract to run individual learning accounts; and if she will make a statement. [14836]

  John Healey
  The Department regularly monitors the performance of Capita in the delivery of ILAs as part of the standard contract management arrangements.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of individual learning account credits was spent on IT-related skills. [15010]
  929W
  John Healey
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The Department holds information specific to basic IT-related learning which attracts an ILA incentive of 80 per cent. As at 31 October, ILAs had supported 765,873 such learning episodes at a total cost of £147,669,129, since the launch of the national framework in September 2000.

  During this period ILAs have supported 1,380,370 learning episodes.

  Course titles for the 20 per cent. ILA discount do not allow precise figures for IT-related learning to be extracted.

  Internet Access
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans her Department has to increase internet access to those without computers. [15126]

  John Healey
  The Department has a range of measures to increase access to those without computers particularly for those who live in disadvantaged areas. We are committed to establishing 6,000 UK online centres in England by the end of 2002. There are currently over 1900 UK online centres in operation with more opening each month. They offer access and support to people who have not used, or are not familiar with the internet. In addition we are investing in wiring up communities. Seven pilot projects are exploring how the benefits of access to information and communication technology, including the internet, will help individuals to develop new skills, access job opportunities and become more involved in their communities.

  Excellent progress is being made to improve computer/student ratios in schools, further education colleges and higher education institutions. 97 per cent. of all schools are now connected to the internet. In future all school leavers should have the skills to use and benefit from new technologies.

  Educational Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what plans she has to extend educational maintenance allowances to all areas of all local education authorities; [15554]

  (2) what evaluation she intends to make of the educational maintenance allowance pilots; and when. [15469]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The educational maintenance allowance (EMA) scheme is still in the pilot stage. There are currently eight different variants of the scheme being tested in a total of 56 local education authorities.

  The Department has commissioned the Centre for Research and Social Policy to carry out a rigorous three-year evaluation study of the pilots which is now in its third year of data collection. The study is examining each of the EMA variants to determine their effect upon participation, retention and achievement in further education. It is an extensive study not only of hard figures on take-up of EMAs but also includes interviews with local practitioners and partners. 20,000 interviews will be carried out with young people from both pilot and control areas to examine what factors influence their decisions at age 16 when considering post-compulsory education.
  930W
  Early findings of the study show that EMAs are having a positive effect not only on participation and retention but also on student behaviour. However, it is important that we do not make any decisions on the future of EMAs until we have received satisfactory evaluation conclusions.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to her Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers; [13314]

  (2) what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to her Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer (a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13333]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have provided substantive replies to all of the 191 PQs tabled to this Department for answer on a named day between 15 October and 5 November, 96 of which were sent on the named day. Details of all the remaining 95, for which holding replies were issued, are as follows;

  44 were answered within three parliamentary days; 28 within seven parliamentary days; seven within 10 parliamentary days; nine within 15 parliamentary days; and seven over 15 parliamentary days (the longest of which was 22 days after the named day).

SCOTLAND

  Ministerial Visits
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if she will list all official overseas visits undertaken by Ministers in her Department in each year since May 1997, indicating(a) the cost in (i) cash and (ii) real terms, (b) the number and grade of (i) civil servants and (ii) special advisers accompanying Ministers and (c) the number of official engagements or meetings undertaken on each visit; and if she will make a statement; [6923]

  (2) on how many occasions in each year since 1992 non-commercial flights were used by Ministers in her Department for official overseas visits; what the (a) destination, (b) Ministers involved, (c) cost and (d) reason for use of non-commercial flights were on each occasion; and if she will make a statement. [6924]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 October 2001, Official Report, column 823W.

  Ministers (Evidence to Committees)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her policy is with regard to(a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department giving evidence to (i) Scottish Parliament. (ii) Welsh Assembly and (iii) Northern Ireland Assembly committees; and to

  931W
  what categories of document she gives (a) full access, (b) restricted access and (c) no access to (1) Scottish Parliament, (2) Welsh Assembly, (3) Northern Ireland Assembly and (4) House of Commons Select Committees. [7012]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 1003W.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ministerial decisions were made where authority for the same derived from the Royal Prerogative for the most recent calendar month for which information is available. [9370]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Records are not kept of the individual occasions on which powers under the Royal Prerogative are exercised, nor would it be practicable to do so.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to her Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers; [13312]

  (2) what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to her Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer (a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13331]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Of the small number of 'named day' written questions (the vast majority are tabled as 'ordinary' written questions instead) tabled to my Department between the dates mentioned, all but one were either answered on the day or within 15 days.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of fair trade goods. [15209]

  Hilary Benn
  We take every opportunity to promote fair trade products and also to support ethical trading in mainstream business. As the hon. Member knows, fair trade tea, coffee and chocolate are available in the House of Commons and they are also available in the Department for International Development refreshment facilities. I understand that a number of other Departments have considered stocking fair trade products.

  Afghanistan
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if, in liberated parts of Afghanistan, she will take steps to arrange for children 932W
  who are seriously injured as a result of the fighting to receive medical treatment where this has not so far been available. [15618]

  Clare Short
  My Department is currently supporting a number of agencies including Save the Children, UNICEF and the Red Cross Movement, which provide health services for children throughout Afghanistan. I have recently announced further financial contributions to both UNICEF and the Red Cross, which will also include support for health services that benefit children.

  We anticipate that the advances made by the Northern Alliance in recent days will improve access and enable more effective delivery of humanitarian assistance.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she will publish a detailed humanitarian aid strategy document for Afghanistan. [13988]

  Clare Short
  We have no plans to publish a humanitarian aid strategy document for Afghanistan. Thrice weekly updates on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan are published by my Department and held in the Library of the House. A further paper, "Afghanistan Recovery: An Emergency Plan for the First 100 Days", is also available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the Government's commitment to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan; and how services by road will be sustained. [13865]

  Clare Short
  The UK Government have fully committed to doing all they can to help relieve the suffering of the people of Afghanistan. My Department has set aside £40 million to respond to the current crisis affecting Afghans. In line with the objectives of the international community, our top priorities are to: help meet immediate life saving needs within Afghanistan; support refugee needs in neighbouring countries; help host populations in neighbouring countries through programmes which benefit them; and strengthen international humanitarian agency capacity and co-ordination. Funds are being channelled through UN agencies, the Red Cross and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

  UN agencies, particularly the World Food Programme (WFO), continue to make good and steady progress in the delivery of humanitarian assistance into Afghanistan. New land convoy routes into Afghanistan are opening up, and the volume of relief supplies entering the country has increased over recent weeks as a result. With our support, WFP and the Russian Ministry for Emergencies (EMERCOM) have begun a joint operation to transport 9,000 metric tonnes of food from Tajikistan to northern Afghanistan.

  Some mountainous areas of Afghanistan may become cut off by snow during the winter months. WFP are in the process of procuring snowploughs and other equipment to support their trucking operations in these regions. They have already begun snow clearance in the Anjuman Pass—the main north-east route into the Panjsheer Valley. As a last resort, WFP are also looking at the possibility of airdropping food to vulnerable people living in snowbound areas of Afghanistan.
  933W
  The changing situation on the ground opens up new opportunities for us to improve humanitarian programmes and give better access to some of the most vulnerable people. Plans are now being made for the international staff of humanitarian agencies to return to parts of Afghanistan as soon as possible. Those agencies should now be able to accelerate deliveries so that winter stockpiles can be built closer to people who need them. However, such progress is dependant on improved security.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to her Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers; [13305]

  (2) what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to her Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer (a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13324]

  Clare Short
  We received 21 parliamentary questions for named day answer between 15 October and 6 November of which seven were answered without sending a holding reply. Ten received substantive answers within three days and four within seven days. No named day question took longer than seven days to answer.

  Departmental Publications
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what were the total(a) publication and (b) advertising costs for the Department in each of the past four years. [15692]

  Clare Short
  Expenditure in relation to publications in the years in question is as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1997–98

  166

  1998–99

  347

  1999–2000

  570

  2000–01

  639

  We have adopted a policy of openness and now publish policy documents that were previously kept secret.

  We do not hold a separate advertising budget. However, the bulk of our advertising is in relation to recruitment, on which we spend around £1–£1.2 million per year.

  Development and Co-operation Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the outcome was of the Development and Co-operation Council held in Brussels on 8 November; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [14396]
  934W
  Clare Short
  At its meeting on 8 November, the Development Council, by consensus:Noted the progress that had been made in reform of the EC's external programmes, including the publication of the Commission's first ever annual report on external assistance. The Council agreed that further progress was needed and that in order to make the annual report a more useful tool for monitoring progress it should be substantially enhanced next year to include firm indicators of the effectiveness of the EC's aid programmes and policies;
  Agreed that member states would consider further what steps might be taken to establish specific timetables to reach the 0.7 per cent. GNP aid target in the context of preparations for the UN Financing for Development Conference (Mexico March 2002);
  Agreed that, following the events of 11 September. the Council should continue to give priority to implementing the Declaration on Development Policy agreed in November 2000, give increased attention to the development challenges in Asia, and continue to integrate analysis on conflict prevention and resolution into the EC's programmes;
  Agreed conclusions on the preparations for the world summit on sustainable development (Johannesburg September 2002); measures to be taken to address poverty reduction; the link between fisheries policy and poverty reduction; the biodiversity action plan; mainstreaming gender equality in development policy; participation of civil society in the implementation of the Cotonou agreement; improving the EU development response towards ACP countries in crisis and conflict; and a resolution on the importance of development education.

  Military Planners
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what contact her Department has had with military planners at US Central Command in Tampa, Florida, to enhance humanitarian aid efforts in Afghanistan. [13987]

  (2) if she has seconded officials from her Department to US Central Command in Tampa, Florida to liaise with US military planners on the humanitarian aid strategy for Afghanistan. [13986]

  Clare Short
  Good civil/military liaison is essential to the effectiveness of the humanitarian effort.

  Civil/military specialists from my Department have been deployed to CENTCOM and to Islamabad to liaise with the coalition military and United Nations humanitarian staff.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what date her Department established a working group of officials to prepare her Department for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and on what dates this committee has met since it was set up. [14773]

  Clare Short
  DFID' s Knowledge and Communications Committee oversees preparations for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The committee considered freedom of information issues at its meetings in July and November of this year.

  "Trade Matters"
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the cost of
  935W
  producing the Departmental publication, "Trade Matters, Eliminating World Poverty, Information Pack"; and how many were produced. [15691]

  Clare Short
  The cost of producing the "Trade Matters" information pack, which included an introductory booklet and 12 briefing papers, was around £48,000.

  The quantities produced were as follows:

  Booklet—30,000 copies

  Briefing papers—36,000 copies (3,000 copies of each of 12)

  Information pack wallets—4,000.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to his Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers; [13306]

  (2) what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to his Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer (a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13325]

  Mr. Darling
  We received 106 named day parliamentary questions for answer between 15 October and 5 November and we issued holding replies in respect of 18 (17 per cent.).

  Substantive replies were subsequently issued to one question within three parliamentary days, 10 questions within seven parliamentary days, three questions within 10 parliamentary day and two questions over 15 parliamentary days. One question was subsequently transferred to another Department and one remains unanswered.

  Benefits
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was recovered, in the last year for which information is available, of the benefits paid to those ineligible to receive such benefits by reason of(a) fraud and (b) mistake; and how much is estimated to remain uncollected. [7960]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 16 October 2001]It is not possible to separate the total amount of overpaid benefit recovered into overpayments due to fraud and those due to other reasons. At the end of September 2001, the total amount of overpayments remaining uncollected was estimated to be £1,040 million.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much a person must have in savings to receive interest equal to the value of(a) the average income support entitlement and (b) the average housing benefit entitlement, if interest is paid according to the base rate of the clearing banks. [7920]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table 936W

  Benefit

  Average amount payable per week (£)

  Amount of savings needed to earn the equivalent amount in interest

  Income Support

  70.21

  Between £70,000 and £90.000

  Housing Benefit

  51.20

  Between £50,000 and £65,000

  Notes:

  1. Calculations are based on a bank base rate of interest of 5.25 per cent.

  2. The range given reflects the extent to which interest is gross or net of basic rate income tax.

  3. Average benefit rates taken from Housing Benefit Quarterly Summary Statistics May 2001 and the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, 5 per cent. sample, May 2001.

  4. Interest rate taken from Bank of England information on bank base rate appropriate to end of May 2001. This interest rate is arrived at through information provided by selected clearing banks. It has been assumed for the purposes of the calculations that interest can be obtained on a weekly basis without loss compared to the annual rate.

  5.The amounts of savings have been rounded to the nearest five thousand pounds.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many winter fuel payment claims for winter 2000 have been received since the deadline of 31 March; how many of these claims have been allowed; how many have been disallowed; and how many have yet to be processed. [7921]

  Mr. McCartney
  For the winter of 2000–01, claims needed to be made before 31 March 2001. To date, there have been 5,379 claims which did not meet this deadline. Some 3,445 of these claims have been allowed. 1,379 have been disallowed, and 573 have still to be processed.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many former participants in the new deal have become(a) personal advisers and (b) senior advisers in the new deal for young people. [7980]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not available as the Employment Service does not hold details of the programmes in which all employees were previously engaged.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much he has forecast for expenditure on the pension credit in its first full year. [7795]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government will publish estimates of the costs of the Pension Credit when the Bill is introduced.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many responses to the pension credit consultation document he has received; who they are from; and if he will make them available in the Library. [14312]

  Mr. McCartney
  Over 400 responses were received to the formal consultation exercise (The Pension Credit: A Consultation Paper, Cm4900, November 2000), many welcoming our proposals. We continue to consider views and work closely with groups representing older people
  937W
  to deliver a modernised and dedicated service to meet pensioner needs. We will be announcing our response to the Pension Credit consultation in due course.

  SEMA
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how he monitors compliance by SEMA with its latest guidelines; and if he will make a statement. [11902]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Medical quality standards, including compliance with training and guidelines, are monitored monthly by SchlumbergerSema Medical Services. Doctors in the Department's Corporate Medical Group are regularly involved in validation of Medical Services' medical quality audit system and its application.

  The Department takes a keen interest in Medical Services' performance against quality targets. Monitoring outcome reports are analysed by the Department's contract management team (IMPACT) and Corporate Medical Group, and stringent requirements are placed on Medical Services to develop and deliver action plans to improve performance where this fails to reach an acceptable standard. Failure to improve may result in service credits being applied.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the service credit arising from SEMA's performance against targets up to 31 March. [11906]

  Malcolm Wicks
  SchlumbergerSema Medical Services' performance against service levels and quality targets is reviewed monthly. Service credits are applied when performance falls below target. The Department aims to apply service credits in a manner which acts as an incentive to improve performance, therefore the decision to apply service credits takes into account any mitigating factors, and the effectiveness of action being taken to improve performance.

  In the period to March 2001 the Department has claimed service credits from SchlumbergerSema on several occasions where there has been failure to deliver the required service or improvements.

  Details of the amount involved are not in the public domain, as commercially sensitive information.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the numbers of(a) jobs lost and (b) jobs under threat by the events of 11 September; and if he will make a statement. [12552]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Because normal labour market turnover is so large, it is difficult to assess how much is due to particular changes or events.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the West Chelmsford constituency have been caught involved in(a)social security benefit fraud and (b)housing benefit fraud in each of the last five years for which figures are available;
  938W
  what action was taken against them; and what was the total amount of money calculated to have been lost to the Treasury as a result of the fraud. [14961]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available.

  Benefit Claimant Count
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent estimate he has made of the impact on Government expenditure of a change in the claimant count of 50,000. [12797]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The impact on Social Security expenditure of either an increase or decrease in unemployment of 50,000 is estimated to be either a saving or additional cost of approximately £250 million, for a full year.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has to award maximum child benefit to all siblings of a multiple birth; [13655]

  (2) if he will review the provision of child benefit for siblings of a multiple birth. [13656]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There are no plans to award the higher rate of Child Benefit to siblings of a multiple birth.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter sent to companies to remind them of their obligation to offer access to a stakeholder pension. [7919]

  Mr. McCartney
  A copy of the letter, and the factsheet that accompanied it, has been placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Murder Inquiries
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish details of the arrangements for the inquiries into the murders of(a) Chief Superintendent Breen, (b) Superintendent Buchanan, (c) Lord Justice and Lady Gibson and (d) Billy Wright; and if he will make a statement. [12001]

  Jane Kennedy
  The package of proposals published after the Weston Park talks contained details of the investigation by a judge of international standing into the case of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan, Lord Justice and Lady Gibson, Billy Wright, Patrick Finucane, Rosemary Nelson, and Robert Hamill. Further details will be published in due course.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to his Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers. [13309]
  939W
  Dr. John Reid
  In total 32 named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to my Department between 15 October and 5 November. Of these, 25 received holding replies.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to his Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer(a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13328]

  Dr. John Reid
  Of the 25 named day parliamentary written questions tabled to my Department which received holding replies between 15 October and 5 November:(a) none received substantive answers within three parliamentary days; (b) 21 received substantive answers within seven parliamentary days. The remaining four questions will receive substantive responses as soon as possible.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of fair trade goods. [15211]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply provided today by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department for International Development. The Lord Chancellor's Department will take every opportunity to encourage the use of fair trade products through its procurement activities, and specifically during the course of the review of the arrangements for contracted catering services that is planned to take place during the next 12 months.

  Jury Rooms (Smoking Ban)
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 752W, on smoking in jury rooms, if he will give instructions that all asthmatics who are allergic to tobacco fumes will automatically be exempted from jury service. [15689]

  Mr. Wills
  There are no plans to introduce any further restrictions on eligibility for jury service. However, a person suffering from asthma, or any other illness, can apply to the Crown court to be excused from service on the ground of personal hardship. It will ultimately be for a judge to decide whether a person should be excused for this reason.

WALES

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of fair trade goods. [15218]
  940W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, International Development. My Department has fewer than 50 staff and does not provide snack or canteen facilities.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to his Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers; [13310]

  (2) what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to his Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer (a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13329]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  10 questions. All received substantive answers on the given date.

HEALTH

  SNOMED System
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are in place for independent scrutiny and evaluation of the SNOMED system; if the results of that scrutiny will be published; and if he will make a statement. [9400]

  Ms Blears
  holding answer 22 October 2001]: Agreement has been reached with the College of American Pathologists that a programme of formative evaluation work should be carried out in the national health service, as part of the United Kingdom contribution to the development of the SNOMED clinical terms. This will run through 2002–03. A further independent evaluation will be undertaken and plans are being drawn up for a panel to oversee this process. The SNOMED clinical terms will also be subjected to the NHS information standards approval process, which is overseen by the NHS Information Standards Board. The results of these evaluations will be published.

  Intermediate Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy from 1 April 2002 to give people an enforceable right not to be charged for intermediate care services. [14714]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]:Our view is that all intermediate care, as defined in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the January circular (Health Service Circular 2000–01: Local Authority Circular (2001)1) and subject to the normal time limits outlined there, should be free at the point of use.

  Services commissioned or provided by the national health service are free. Although councils retain local discretion to charge we are encouraging them to make all such services free at the point of use, through the use of Health Act flexibilities.
  941W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken in evaluating the baseline figures for intermediate care to audit compliance with the criteria set out in paragraph 7 of HSC 2001/01: LAC (2001). [14712]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]A recent detailed survey of intermediate care validated the 1999–2000 baseline and established current levels of provision using the defining criteria in the January 2001 circular (Health Service Circular 2001/01: Local Authority Circular (2001).

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the definition of intermediate care in HSC 2001/01: LAC (2001). [14715]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: The definition in the January 2001 circular (Health Service Circular 2001/01: Local Authority Circular (2001)1) was drawn up in consultation with practitioners in the field. Subsequent feedback indicates that it has brought much needed clarity and is being implemented.

  We shall, however, keep this under review and issue further guidance if needed.

  Statutory Instruments (Explanatory Notes)
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the mechanisms for ensuring that Explanatory Notes to Statutory Instruments issued by his Department are comprehensible, with special reference to S.I. No. 3442. [13222]

  Ms Blears
  It is a long-standing convention that the Explanatory Note of a Statutory Instrument should contain a reference to the full title of any European Commission legislation that is implemented by that Statutory Instrument. In accordance with that convention, the Explanatory Note of Statutory Instrument No. 2001/3442 indicates which EC legislation is being implemented. The subject matter is inherently technical.

  Beta Interferon
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the decision by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence not to recommend beta interferon to be supplied by the NHS for patients with multiple sclerosis; [13403]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost per patient of supplying beta interferon by the NHS to multiple sclerosis patients; [13405]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of NHS patients with multiple sclerosis who would require beta interferon if available from the NHS. [13404]

  Ms Blears
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has not yet issued definitive guidance on the use of disease modifying drugs in multiple sclerosis. Its final appraisal determination (FAD) is now at the appeals stage.

  However, as recommended in the FAD we are currently holding discussions with the manufacturers to consider a range of options under which drugs for multiple sclerosis might be made available tinder the National Health
  942W
  Service. One option is a "risk-sharing" scheme which will evaluate their clinical and cost effectiveness, and until these discussions are concluded we cannot provide detailed information on potential numbers of patients who may be affected. The FAD indicates that the current annual cost per patient of the various available drug treatments is £7,259 (Betaferon), £9,061 (Avonex), £9,088–£12,068 (lower dose/higher dose Rebif) or £6,650 (glatiramer acetate).

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at how many places it was possible to treat coronary heart disease(a) in each health authority and (b) in total in England for the last two years for which figures are available. [13616]

  Jacqui Smith
  Coronary heart disease is treated throughout the national health service. Depending on the severity and nature of the disease, patients are treated in a variety of settings, covering prevention, treatment and rehabilitation in both community and hospital settings. It is therefore not possible to quantify provision in the manner requested.

  Pneumococcal Vaccination
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the value of pneumococcal vaccination in reducing the winter burden on the NHS; [13970]

  (2) if he will reduce the target age for pneumococcal vaccination to match the flu vaccination programme for older people. [13971]

  Jacqui Smith
  Pneumococcal vaccine is recommended for all those aged two years or older in whom pneumococcal infection is likely to be more common and/or dangerous, ie those with:

  Asplenia or severe dysfunction of the spleen

  Chronic renal disease or nephrotic syndrome

  Immunodeficiency or immunosuppression due to disease or treatment, including HIV infection at all stages

  Chronic heart disease

  Chronic lung disease

  Chronic liver disease including cirrhosis

  Diabetes mellitus.

  The Department continues to recommend this vaccine based on underlying ill health rather than age. Because the Department's policy on pneumococcal vaccine is designed to reduce morbidity and mortality, we have made no specific studies on the reduction of winter burden on the national health service.

  Mental Health
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to proceed with the reforms of the Mental Health Act 1982 outlined in the White Paper, "Reforming the Mental Health Act"; and if he will make a statement. [15178]

  Jacqui Smith
  We remain committed to the reform of the Mental Health Act 1983. New legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Nursing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much each(a) primary care trust and (b) health authority paid in respect of free nursing care up to 31 October; and how many nursing home residents were placed in each registered nursing care contribution band; [12341]

  (2) what estimate he has made of how many hours of nursing care will be funded from each of the registered nursing care contribution bands; [12343]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 18 October 2001, Official Report, column 1329W, on nursing care, if he will place in the Library a copy of the background papers concerning the testing of the registered nursing care contribution tool; [12416]

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 18 October 2001,Official Report, column 1329W, on nursing care, (a) how many assessments had been completed by 31 October and (b) how many of these assessments were conducted face to face; [12415]

  (5) pursuant to his answer of 18 October 2001,Official Report, column 1329W, on nursing care, how many nurses had completed the training in the use of the tool by 31 October; how many nurses have been designated to undertake assessments; and of these, how many were in post by 31 October. [12417]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]I refer to the answers given to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 9 November 2001,Official Report, columns 478–79W.

  Copies of an "Evaluation of the Registered Nurse Care Contribution for the Determination of Residents' Needs for Registered Nursing Care, When in Use in Nursing Homes" undertaken by the Gerontological Nursing Programme of the Royal College of Nursing have been placed in the Library.

  The Department is commissioning an evaluation of the implementation of free nursing care.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the projected cost is of providing free nursing care for the elderly in England in the next three financial years. [15420]

  Jacqui Smith
  £100 million was made available for free nursing care for adults over the age of 18 in nursing homes for the last six months of 2001–02. The full year costs for 2002–03 are currently being considered and allocations will be made early next year.

  EU Food Supplements Directive
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in negotiations regarding the draft EU food supplements directive in protecting the interests of the UK health food industry. [12753]

  Ms Blears
  We supported the final compromise proposal on which political agreement was reached in the Council of Ministers recently. The final text includes a number of important and hard won concessions which will benefit both United Kingdom consumers and the UK health food industry.

  Cutlass Review
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the timetable is for the Cutlass review of medicines; [13787]

  (2) how many patients have been recruited to the Cutlass review (a) to take the existing medicines and (b) to take the atypical medicines; [13786]

  (3) what assessment he has made as to the opinion of psychiatrists on the efficacy of atypical anti-psychotic medicines. [13783]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]:A multi-centred, randomised, controlled trial of the Cost Utility of The Latest Antipsychotics in Severe Schizophrenia (CUTLASS) is being conducted under the Department's health technology assessment programme. The trial, which compares new (atypical) drugs with conventional drugs, started in 1999 and is due to end in November 2002. The design of the trial means that it is not possible to extract information before the trial is completed about how many patients have taken which drugs. It is similarly not possible to provide information on results until the trial is ended.

  Treatments
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if it is his policy that treatments should not be available in the NHS unless they have been subjected to randomised controlled trials; [13782]

  (2) what proportion of treatments used in the NHS have been subjected to randomised controlled trials. [13781]

  Jacqui Smith
  No. Clinicians may choose to prescribe medication on the national health service which has not yet been licensed for use in this country (with the manufacturer providing supplies on a "named patient" basis) or is not licensed for a particular indication for which it is to be used. The clinician will do so only after considering the benefit of administering the medicine in relation to the risk involved.

  We do not hold information on the use of treatments which have not been the subject of randomised controlled trials.

  Antipsychotic Medicines
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made as to the likely occurrence of(a) tardive dyskinesia and (b) other side effects from the use of (i) atypical antipsychotic medicines and (ii) older treatments; [13784]

  (2) what the main side effects are from the use of typical antipsychotic medicines; and if he will make a statement. [13785]

  Jacqui Smith
  The safety and efficacy of antipsychotics are assessed at the time of licensing by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) with expert advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM).

  Tardive dyskinesia is a well-recognised side effect of older "typical" antipsychotics. Tardive dyskinesia is of particular concern because it may be irreversible on withdrawing therapy and treatment is usually ineffective. Factors predisposing to the development of tardive

  945W
  dyskinesia include old age, female sex, affective disorder, schizophrenia characterised by negative symptoms and organic brain damage. Newer atypical antipsychotics have been developed that are better tolerated, but tardive dyskinesia can still occur following long term administration with these drugs. The lower incidence of tardive dyskinesia with atypical antipsychotics remains to be established although at present this does appear to be the case.

  Information on possible adverse effects is available in the summary of product characteristics which is produced by the manufacturer and approved by the licensing authority for each medicine. Tardive dyskinesia is well documented in the product information for both typical and atypical antipsychotics and is also described in the British National Formulary which provides guidance on prescribing to doctors.

  Other side effects of older. typical antipsychotics can include; drowsiness, agitation, convulsions, dizziness, headache, confusion, gastrointestinal disturbances, dry mouth, constipation, difficulty with passing urine and blurred vision, cardiovascular symptoms, endocrine effects, blood abnormalities and skin rashes.

  As with all medicines the safety of antipsychotics (typical and atypical) are continuously monitored by the MCA and the independent expert advisory body, the CSM.

  Patients (Testing)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) under what circumstances it is lawful for patients to be tested without their knowledge or consent; and if he will make a statement; [14127]

  (2) what guidance and legislation applies to staff of accident and emergency departments on testing girls under the age of 10 years for pregnancy without their knowledge or agreement or that of their parents. [14126]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]In treating a child, the welfare of the child must be paramount. While in most circumstances we would expect a child and, where relevant, his or her parents to be involved in decisions about that child's treatment or care, in certain circumstances—for example emergencies—this may not be possible.

  A range of tests would be carried out in the case of abdominal pain, intended to facilitate a diagnosis, dependent upon whether or not the health professional involved considers the test to be an appropriate medical response to the symptoms presented. Ectopic pregnancy can be life threatening. The test described does not involve any form of physical intervention as the child is asked to give samples to enable the tests, and will voluntarily agree to provide these samples. Therefore there can be no question of assault by staff. The potential of pregnancy in a very young child may raise the question of abuse which, once the child's health has been safeguarded, may require further investigation. Following the case of Gillick, the courts have held that children who have sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable them to understand fully what is involved in an intervention will also have the capacity to consent to that intervention.
  946W
  While there is no English statute setting out the general principles of consent, case law ("common law") exists. The Department has published the "Reference Guide to Consent for Examination or Treatment",(March 2001) which provides guidance in this respect. This states:
  "A life threatening emergency may arise when consultation with either a person with parental responsibility or the court is impossible, or the persons with parental responsibility refuse consent despite such emergency treatment appearing to be in the best interests of the child. In such cases the courts have stated that doubt should be resolved in favour of the preservation of life and it will be acceptable to undertake treatment to preserve life or prevent serious damage to health".
  (Section 3.8.5, page 17.)

  In respect of adults, except in strictly defined circumstances (for example under the Mental Health Act) an adult cannot be subjected to a test which involves a physical intervention without his or her consent if the person is capable of giving it. If the person lacks capacity to consent, in England and Wales the test can be carried out if it is in the best interests of the person concerned. The law in Scotland is somewhat different.

  We announced in the NHS Plan (paragraph 10.22) that we intend to ensure that good practice in consent for examination and treatment is in place in clinical and research settings, with changes to be introduced from the end of 2001. Guidance for health professionals and leaflets for patients have been produced to inform people about their rights and responsibilities earlier this year. Ministers are currently considering a model consent policy and revised consent forms for the national health service.

  Endometriosis
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of endometriosis diagnosed at(a) Dorset County, (b) Poole General and (c) Royal Bournemouth hospitals in the 1999–2000 data year were classified stage three or four; [13943]

  (2) how many endometriosis patients from Dorset were referred out of county for laser treatment during the data year 1999–2000; [13944]

  (3) how many cases of endometriosis were diagnosed in the 1999–2000 data year at (a> Dorset County,(b) Poole General and (c) Royal Bournemouth hospitals. [13942]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]The Department does not collect information showing the number of patients diagnosed with endometriosis, or the classification of the condition. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chief executives of the national health service trusts concerned for further information.

  Information from the health episode statistics database shows that no patients from Dorset were referred out of the health authority area for laser treatment for endometriosis.

  NHS Reconfiguration Panel
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the composition of the NHS reconfiguration panel; when he expects appointments to this body will be made; what the remit of the panel is; and what measures he is taking to ensure its independence. [14301]
  947W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: Composition of the independent reconfiguration panel (IRP) will follow the modernisation board model of one third professionals, one third managers and one third patients' and citizens' representatives. Dr. Peter Barrett has been appointed chair of the IRP. The members are being selected through open competition and the interviews are due to take place shortly. The aim is to complete the appointments process by the end of the year.

  The panel's draft terms of reference were outlined in the press release accompanying Dr. Barrett's appointment. These will need to be agreed with the panel membership before being confirmed. The panel will provide authoritative advice to the Secretary of State on referred proposals for national health service service change. The panel will publish the advice it gives in relation to each proposal referred to them by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  The IRP will have a crucial role in advising on the outcome of significant reconfigurations, making the process more transparent and accountable. It is important to have public confidence in the panel and the processes it will use in its deliberations.

  We propose to hold a simulation exercise early in the new year to which all major stakeholders will be invited to participate. We are also committed to consulting widely on the criteria that the panel will use. The simulation exercise will form part of the consultation process.

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Health what the trends have been in the use of electro-convulsive therapy in the last 15 years; and what research his Department has undertaken into the trends. [14937]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 November 200I]: The most recent information available concerning trends in the administration of electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) is contained in the one-off survey covering the period from January 1999 to March 1999, England only, that was undertaken to provide an up-to-date and accurate snapshot picture of the use of electro-convulsive therapy (ECT). A copy of this document is available in the Library.

  The results of the ECT survey showed that in keeping with the trend from 1985 through 1999–91 the number of administrations of ECT has declined. The estimated 65,930 administrations of ECT compares with 105,466 reported administrations in 1990–91 and 137,940 in 1985.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been waiting more than 13 weeks for an out-patient appointment(a) on the latest day for which figures are available and (b) for the previous quarter, in the Mid Essex hospital trust area. [14966]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Total number of patients waiting 13 weeks or more for an outpatient appointment at Mid Essex hospital services national health service trust at quarter 1 2001–02 (June 2001) and quarter 2 2001–02 (September 2001).
  948W

  Number of patients waiting over 13 weeks

  2001–02

  Number

  Quarter 1 (June 2001)

  2,146

  Quarter 2 (September 2001)

  2,439

  Source:

  QM08 quarterly return

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were(a) waiting for inpatient treatment and (b) waiting more than 12 months for inpatient treatment, on the latest day for which figures are available in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area. [14967]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Total number of patients waiting and the number of patients waiting over 12 months for hospital treatment at Mid Essex hospital services national health service trust in September 2001.

  Number

  September 2001

  Total wailing

  8,968

  Waiting over 12 months

  683

  Source:

  Monthly waiting list return

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the July 2000 NICE guidance on NHS audiology services and digital hearing aids was published before the financial contract for the NHS bulk purchasing of digital hearing aids for the first wave sites had been completed. [15677]

  Jacqui Smith
  Yes. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance was published in July 2000 and the bulk purchasing contract was completed at the beginning of October 2000.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will set out the timetable for the evaluation of digital hearing aids under the 20 first wave sites; [15680]

  (2) what guidance his Department has given to the 20 NHS sites providing digital hearing aids for the financial year 2002–03; [15681]

  (3) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) of 29 October 2001, Official Report, column 560W, on digital hearing aids, what evaluation has been made of the impact that an extra £25 million extra expenditure on audiology services will have; and by what date his Department expects to make a decision as to the speed and scale of the modernisation of NHS audiology services. [15676]

  Jacqui Smith
  Twenty national health service trusts are participating in the modernising hearing aid services pilot project, which is addressing the most effective hearing aids for NHS patients, the best ways of supplying hearing aids and how a modernised hearing aid service can best be delivered to NHS patients. £11 million has been invested since May 2000 and up to 18,000 people will have benefited by March 2002.
  949W
  The Institute of Hearing Research is evaluating the modernisation project on behalf of the Department. Interim reports have been made available to the Department, based on limited data at this stage, suggesting that there is benefit to patients from a digital hearing aid fitted in a modernised service. The evaluation is on-going and further reports are expected to be available in March and December 2002.

  Detailed guidance on patient protocols, when to fit various aids etc., has been given to those sites participating in the pilot. Guidance will be updated based on the experience of the pilot sites. Subject to favourable evaluation, we will make decisions about how best to spread the modernised services, including the provision of digital hearing aids, throughout the NHS. We have earmarked funds to begin roll-out and up to £25 million will be invested by 2003–04 subject to further favourable evaluation. Funding decisions for 2002–03 will be made in time to allow sites to make plans for delivering services for that financial year.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to monitor the number of people who have decided to purchase digital hearing aids from overseas. [15678]

  Jacqui Smith
  No such steps are being taken. People who purchase digital hearing aids overseas are not required to inform the Department of their purchase.

  NHS Plan
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the sponsors for the public consultation to confer on the NHS plan referred to in Annex E (p112) of the Department's Annual report 2001. [15418]

  Mr. Hutton
  The sponsors in kind who helped us with the distribution of the NHS Plan by making copies available on their shelves were five retail chains: Safeway, Morrisons, Waitrose, Tesco and Sainsbury; and three high street pharmaceutical chains: Boots, Lloyds and Superdrug.

  Osteoporosis
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he will take to encourage primary care organisations to consider the recommendations in "Primary Care Strategy for Falls and Osteoporosis", published by the National Osteoporosis Society in July; [10210]

  (2) what was the cost to the health service of dealing with osteoporotic fractures in each of the last three years; [10211]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the impact which recommendations in the "Primary Care Strategy for Falls and Osteoporosis", published by the National Osteoporosis Society in July, could have on reducing the number of fractures which the health service has to deal with; [10208]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the impact which recommendations in "Primary Care Strategy for Falls and Osteoporosis", published by the National Osteoporosis Society in July, could have on reducing the cost to the national health service of dealing with fractures. [10209]
  950W
  Jacqui Smith
  The latest evidence suggests that the annual cost of hip fractures in the United Kingdom is in excess of £1.7 billion. Hip fractures are caused mainly by osteoporosis. Through the National Service Framework for Older People we have signalled the importance of addressing osteoporosis. This document sets targets and milestones for local health and social care systems to establish an integrated falls service, which will include appropriate interventions and advice to prevent osteoporotic fracture.

  We welcome the National Osteoporosis Society's primary care strategy for falls and osteoporosis. This strategy, involving many different agencies, is an excellent example of the type of integrated approach that is likely to he successful in the long term. We hope that local health care providers make its implementation a priority in their work to develop the osteoporosis aspects of integrated falls services.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to his Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers. [13308]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department received 345 named day parliamentary questions in the period 15 October to 5 November, 61 per cent. received a holding answer.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to his Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer(a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13327]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is as follows:

  Substantively answered within three days—69 per cent.

  Substantively answered within seven days—15 per cent.

  Substantively answered within 10 days—9 per cent.

  Substantively answered within 15 days—1 per cent.

  Substantively answered over 15 days—0 per cent.

  A further 6 per cent. are still to be answered.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the decision of the BBC not to televise Holocaust Memorial Day 2002. [14720]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), on 13 November 2001,Official Report, columns 638–39W.

  European Year of People with Disabilities
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her plans for the 2003 European Year of People with Disabilities. [14831]

  Dr. Howells
  National plans for the 2003 European Year of People with Disabilities are still in an embryonic state. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston is leading on this issue, and I understand that a decision to approve the formation of the National Co-ordinating Committee will not be taken until 3 December. I will be pleased to consider what contribution would be most appropriate for my Department when this is requested.

  WPC Kaur
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) at the employment tribunal hearing of the claim by WPC Kaur, how many days were taken(a) by the claimants' case and (b) by the response on her behalf; when the judgment is expected; and if she will instruct the Royal Park Constabulary not to stop paying WPC Kaur before the judgment is given; [15283]

  (2) if she (a) instructed him not to and (b) was informed that the former head of the Royal Parks Constabulary did not give oral evidence on her behalf in the employment tribunal case of WPC Kaur. [15284]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its chief executive, William Weston. I have asked him to arrange for replies to be given.

  Letter from William Weston to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 16 November 2001]:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the tribunal involving PC Kaur because this is an operational matter that is the responsibility of the Royal Parks Agency.
  The industrial tribunal sat on a number of days between 24th September and 17th October. During that time the presentation of the claimant's case took six and a half days and the case for the Secretary of State took five and a half days. No indication was given as to when a judgement will be forthcoming.
  The former Chief Officer of the Royal Parks was not called to give evidence. The former Deputy Chief Officer was due to give evidence but was unable to do so because he was unwell. We would not expect to inform the Secretary of State about such a detail of the proceedings unless it was of particular significance.
  The question of how PC Kaur is paid is not related to the period of the tribunal. We have been paying her according to the procedures for paying all staff in the Agency (and the Royal Parks Constabulary) who are absent from work through sickness and we will continue to pay her on this basis, regardless of when the judgement of the tribunal is made known.

  Ofcom
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her plans are for representation for Scotland on the proposed Ofcom; and if she will make a statement. [15066]
  952W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The draft Communications Bill to be published in spring 2002 will contain details of how the interests of Scotland will be represented within Ofcom.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to her Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers; [13315]

  (2) what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to her Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer (a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13334]

  Dr. Howells
  Of the 44 named day written questions tabled to the Department between 15 October 2001 and 5 November 2001, 27 received holding answers. Of these, 20 received substantive answers within three parliamentary days, four within seven parliamentary days, two within 10 parliamentary days, and one within 15 parliamentary days of the holding answer being issued.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of fair trade goods. [15202]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport recognises the public desire to purchase ethically and environmentally sound goods where this is practical. It is inherent in the Department' s environmental management system that it should seek to influence the supply chain in favour of fair trade type goods but, at the same time the expenditure of public money demands that procurement must achieve value for money via a competitive market. Where fair trade can compete successfully against other suppliers for cost, quality and service the Department will give preference to the ethical and environmentally acceptable option.

DEFENCE

  HMS Ocean
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) of 30 October 2001,Official Report, column 659W, for what reason the docking period for HMS Ocean planned for early 2002 has been brought forward; if its four month duration can be shortened; and which Lloyd's Survey Standards it is designed to achieve; [13428]

  (2) when HMS Ocean will be ready for deployment; [13423]

  (3 whether repairs other than routine maintenance are required on HMS Ocean. [13424]
  953W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on 2 November 2001, Official Report, column 877W, and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 9 November 2001, Official Report, column 433W.

  While it would have been possible to reduce the duration of the now deferred docking period, the optimum solution in the current operational circumstances is to carry out the shorter assisted maintenance period at Ocean's home port of Portsmouth, rather than dock the vessel. This will also maximise the time ships staff can spend with their families before rejoining the vessel if she is required for operational deployment.

  A number of surveys to meet Lloyd's standard are undertaken over a period of time to assess the vessel's condition. Many of these surveys can be completed while the vessel is afloat but those which can be undertaken only in dock will be deferred until the docking period. This will not affect the ability of the vessel to operate safely.

  Public-private Partnerships
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the projects in his Department which have been considered as potential public private partnerships since 1997 which have not been undertaken because the public sector comparator had a lower net present value than the public private partnership proposed; and if he will make a statement. [13435]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chief Secretary on 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 607W. Rigorous appraisal processes are applied to public-private partnerships to ensure that they are workable and appropriate, as well as economic. This usually means that we can confirm the viability or otherwise of a project at an early stage. There have been no cases in the last four years within defence where it has been decided not to proceed with a project because of financial comparisons with the public sector comparator.

  RAF St. Athan
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of RAF St. Athan; and if he will make a statement. [15155]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 706W. The position remains that we are continuing to work closely with all stakeholders to develop a solution for the St. Athan site. An announcement will be made once this work is complete.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence of those recruited to the armed forces, how many have successfully completed initial training at depots in each of the last 10 years. [14029]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not held in the format or period requested. Details that are available are set out in the table.
  954W

  Year

  Intake

  Gains to trained strength

  Naval service

  1995–96

  2,337

  1,483

  1996–97

  3,959

  2,144

  1997–98

  4,600

  2,959

  1998–99

  4,767

  3,028

  1999–2000

  4,953

  3,314

  2000–01

  4,623

  3,052

  Army

  1995–96

  12,911

  7,194

  1996–97

  15,522

  8,718

  1997–98

  15,379

  9,492

  1998–99

  16,963

  9,331

  1999–2000

  16,483

  10,472

  2000–01

  14,714

  9,994

  RAF

  1995–96

  2,424

  2,032

  1996–97

  2,684

  2,292

  1997–98

  3,526

  3,074

  1998–99

  4,246

  3,477

  1999–2000

  4,097

  3,433

  2000–01

  3,632

  3,072

  For all of the services there is limited correlation between intake and gains to the trained strength because the date of entry and date of completing training will often fall in different financial years. The figures reflect not just the completion of basic training but also the initial specialist training required to allow each person to join the trained strength of his/her service.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Defence Aviation Repair Agency requested the assistance of the Welsh Development Agency to facilitate the relocation of the fixed wing aircraft repair business from RAF St. Athan to Cardiff International Airport. [15156]

  Mr. Ingram
  Informal discussions initially took place between the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA) and the Welsh Development Agency (WDA) during October and November 2000. DARA gave a formal presentation to the WDA on 12 December 2000 detailing the business development needs at DARA' s sites in Wales (St. Athan and Sealand).

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the cost of retaining four sites within the Defence Aviation Repair Agency. [15154]

  Mr. Ingram
  No formal assessment of the cost of retaining four sites within the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA) has been carried out. I refer my hon. Friend to the letter by the then Minister of State for the armed forces, Mr. Spellar. dated 31 January 2001, which gives a breakdown of the actual cost for running the four sites in financial year 1999–2000, copies of which were placed in the Library of the House.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 November 2001,Official Report, column 874, on Afghanistan, what his estimate is

  955W
  of how many civilians have been killed as a result of Coalition action; and how many actions have caused unintended (a) injury and (b) damage. [15623]

  Mr. Ingram
  We cannot estimate the number of civilian casualties or the number of actions that have caused unintended injury or damage because we have no means of independently verifying the allegations made in Afghanistan.

  As has regularly been made clear in the House, our targeting processes are rigorous and every effort is made to avoid civilian casualties and damage to non-military equipment and buildings.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of British forces in Afghanistan. [15343]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the House on 14 November 2001,Official Report, columns 861–79.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 November 2001,Official Report, column 874W, on Afghanistan, how many claims of damage to civilian life and property have been carefully investigated; which agencies are responsible for investigating such claims; and if he will place (a) copies of those claims and (b) the results of the investigations made by the Coalition in the Library. [15629]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 November 2001,Official Report, column 874W, on Afghanistan, how many battle damage assessment reports he has received; and how many attacks on a target were over 50 per cent. successful. [15628]

  Mr. Ingram
  I receive regular Battle Damage Assessment reports and am kept updated on significant developments. The success of missions is not measured in terms of a percentage but against the achievement of military objectives. Our objectives of destroying terrorist camps and creating the right conditions for future action in Afghanistan, including possible humanitarian or stabilisation operations, have been met. As recent events show, we are also making progress on our objective of limiting the Taliban's ability to protect and support Osama bin Laden and the al-Quaeda organisation.

  Departmental Assets
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value of his Department's assets holdings is, broken down by asset holder, under the headings of(a) Land &amp; Buildings Scotland, (b) Land & Buildings UK, (c) Land & Buildings Overseas, (d) Fighting Equipment, (e) Nuclear Submarine Fleet, (f) Nuclear Missile Capacity, (g) Heritage Assets, (h) Plant & Machinery, (i) Vehicles and (j) Investments, in the last financial year for which figures are available. [15220]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information on asset values for the 1999–2000 financial year is contained in the Ministry of Defence section (Section 7) of the National Asset Register 956W
  published by the Treasury in July 2001. The register lists asset holdings by Top Level Budget Holder and Agency Chief Executive in the asset categories agreed by the Treasury. A copy of the register is available in the Library of the House. Providing the information in the format requested could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on our asset holdings for 2000–01 will be published in the Departmental Resource Accounts in December. These will provide a breakdown by Treasury category at MOD departmental level.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops have been stationed in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [13774]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of Armed Forces personnel stationed in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years is set out in the table.

  As at 31 October

  Number of troops

  1991

  17,962

  1992

  18,982

  1993

  19,022

  1994

  18,345

  1995

  17,070

  1996

  16,490

  1997

  16,716

  1998

  15,566

  1999

  14,459

  2000

  13,640

  2001

  13,820

  Swift Sword II
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many battle groups exercised within I Armoured Division during exercise Swift Sword II. [14030]

  Mr. Ingram
  The UK Land contribution to Exercise Saif Sareea II comprised Headquarters 1 UK Armoured Division, 3 Commando Brigade, 4 Armoured Brigade and 102 Logistic Brigade. Of this force, 4 Armoured Brigade, commanding two fully equipped armoured battlegroups, came under the command of 1 UK Division.

  Short Service Commissions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the conversion rate of short service to regular commissions in each of the last 10 years. [13704]

  Mr. Ingram
  Lists of the conversion rate of short service to regular commissions in each of the last 10 years are shown by individual service in the tables.

  All naval service officers (trained and untrained)

  Year

  Short commission strength

  Conversions

  Rate (percentage)

  1991–92

  1,659

  1134

  8.1

  1992–93

  1,560

  1128

  8.2

  1993–94

  1,450

  1101

  7.0

  1994–95

  1,299

  175

  5.8

  1995–96

  1,201

  1123

  10.2

  1996–97

  1.204

  1167

  13.9

  1997–98

  1.158

  1184

  15.9

  957W

  All naval service officers (trained and untrained)

  Year

  Short commission strength

  Conversions

  Rate (percentage)

  1998–99

  1,089

  1179

  16.4

  1999–2000

  1,383

  180

  13.0

  2000–01

  1,694

  233

  13.7

  1 Incomplete data

  Note:

  Some of the information requested k not held as complete data, and the tables are marked accordingly.

  Army officers trained strength

  SSC start strength

  Conversions to Reg. C

  Rate (percentage)

  1 April 1991

  4,721

  596

  12.6

  1 April 1992

  4,506

  507

  11.3

  1 April 1993

  4,264

  387

  9.1

  1 April 1994

  3,770

  320

  8.5

  1 April 1995

  3,417

  272

  8.0

  1 April 1996

  3,174

  247

  7.8

  1 April 1997

  3,162

  259

  8.2

  1 April 1998

  3,314

  254

  7.7

  1 April 1999

  3,237

  173

  5.3

  1 April 2000

  3,164

  119

  3.8

  Note:

  Until the 'Stepping Stone' approach to commissions was introduced on 1 March 1999, short service commission (SSC) officers could convert to regular commission (Reg. C) or special regular commission (SRC). Subsequently, the standard progression has been from SSC to intermediate regular commission (IRC) and then to Reg. C. As a result, fewer officers now go direct from SSC to Reg. C.

  Statistics for transfers to IRC are not yet to hand. I will write to the hon. Member with these statistics when they are available and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  All RAF officers (trained and untrained)

  Conversions SSC to permanent commission

  SSC strength

  Conversions

  Rate (percentage)

  1991–92

  1,614

  133

  8

  1992–93

  1,621

  182

  11

  1993–94

  1,460

  159

  11

  1994–95

  1,260

  115

  9

  1995–96

  1,018

  93

  9

  1996–97

  799

  103

  13

  1997–98

  626

  162

  26

  1998–99

  513

  102

  20

  1999–2000

  570

  126

  22

  2000–01

  574

  125

  22

  Cluster Bombs
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation has been made by(a) the UK and (b) its allies of the use of cluster bombs in Kosovo, with particular respect to the impact of these weapons on civilians (i) during and (ii) after hostilities. [15669]

  Mr. Ingram
  531 RBL 755 cluster bombs were dropped by the RAF during Operation Allied Force. We assessed them to have performed reliably and within their specification. I have no information on allies' evaluation of similar weapons.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to his Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers. [13311]

  Mr. Ingram
  According to our records, 153 named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to the Ministry of Defence between 15 October and 5 November. The proportion which received a holding reply is 35 per cent.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to his Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer(a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13330]

  Mr. Ingram
  According to our records 153 named day parliamentary questions were tabled to the Ministry of Defence between 15 October and 5 November. I am unable to provide details in the format requested, however, the table gives details of those questions which received an answer within the time scale specified:

  Number

  Within three parliamentary days

  15

  Within seven parliamentary days

  1

  Within 10 parliamentary days

  0

  Within 15 parliamentary days

  0

  Over 15 parliamentary days

  1

  These figures include answers which gave an undertaking to write to hon. Members.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Review Bodies
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews established since 2 May 1997 were in existence between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001. [15832]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have today placed this information in the Libraries of the House, in the form of an annual report; a copy is also being placed in the Vote Office. Future reports will be published annually.

  Task forces, advisory groups and reviews provide independent, expert advice to Government on a wide range of issues. These are an effective means of securing high quality advice on matters of real public concern and they seek to operate in as open and transparent a way as possible. While they are not a new phenomenon, it is only since 1997 that detailed information on them has been public.

  Pension Mis-selling
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the total lump sum cash payment received by the civil service pension schemes from transfers back into such schemes as a result of the outcome of private pension mis-selling; and if he will estimate the sums still to come. [12655]

  Mr. Leslie
  This information is not held centrally and the information below has been collected from scheme administrators.

  The total amount received for the last three complete financial years (1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01) is £7,147,792. This does not include any amounts received in respect of staff employed by either the Ministry of Defence or the Crown Prosecution Service for 1998–99 as these figures are not available.

  I cannot estimate any sums still to be received. It is for those who have mis-sold pension policies to identify cases and, under the relevant Financial Services Authority guidelines, make restoration payments to the PCSPS.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to his Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers; [13298]

  (2) what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to his Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer (a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13317]

  Mr. Leslie
  During the period queried the Cabinet Office received 20 named day questions of which seven (equating to 35 per cent.) had holding replies.
  960W
  Of these seven holding replies, one parliamentary question was answered within three parliamentary days; two were answered within seven parliamentary days; one was answered within 10 parliamentary days; and three were answered within 15 parliamentary days.

  People's Panel
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister with effect from which date the People's Panel has been wound up. [15374]

  Mr. Leslie
  The People's Panel has not been wound up. The contract with MORI does not expire until the end of January 2002. By that time, decisions will have been made about the future of the panel.

  Regeneration
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for each(a) area-based and (b) other regeneration-related initiative for which his Department is responsible, what is (i) the amount budgeted and (ii) the total expenditure in each financial year for the planned lifetime of each initiative (A) nationally and (B) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [14883]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for the Government Office network which administers initiatives of the type referred to on behalf of other Departments. The budgets for such initiatives are the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for those Departments.

  Regional Schemes
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what regional schemes are in operation in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [14882]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government office for the north east administers the following major schemes operating in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency:

  Programmes under the Local Transport Plan;

  Programmes under Objectives 2 and 3 European funding;

  Regional Selective Assistance;

  The Housing Investment Programme; and

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what regional schemes are managed by the Government Office for the North East; how long they will run; and how much investment is involved. [14881]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government Office for the North East delivers many programmes in the region for a number of government departments. Major programme expenditure includes:

  £458 million to improve transport infrastructure for five years (2001–06);

  £434 million over the years 2000–06 by the European Commission under the European Structural Funds;

  £215 million under the New Deal for Communities initiative over 10 years (2000 and 2011);

  £186 million under the Regional Selective Assistance scheme between 1997 and 2001;

  £175 million in 2001–02 under the Housing Investment Programme;

  £119 million under the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund initiative over 3 years (2001–04).

  48-hour Week (Waivers)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many civil servants in each Department have signed waivers to work voluntarily more than 48 hours per week; for how many the Minister has rescinded such a waiver; what grade of civil servant is involved; for what reason the waiver was requested; by whom; and if he will make a statement on his policy. [15171]

  Mr. Leslie
  This information is not held centrally. It could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  It is for individual departments and agencies to put into place measures which they consider necessary to ensure compliance with the Regulations.

  Technologies Advisory Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is(a) the remit and (b) the membership of the Technologies Advisory Group. [15200]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Technical Advisory Group (recently renamed as the Technology Advisory Group) was formed by the Office of the e-Envoy earlier this year to enable government to obtain the views of expert and representative members of the Technology, Media and Telecoms Sectors and other industry on technology issues affecting the realisation of the e-government vision. The mechanism also enables industry to gain a clearer understanding of the current and possible future direction of e-government. The full terms of reference for the Group are at Annex A.

  The membership of the Group is a cross-section of experts mainly at Technical Director level drawn by invitation from twenty or so industry leading organisations. The Department of Trade and Industry, the Society of IT Managers (SOCITM) and the Computer Software Services Association (CSSA) are also represented. A full list of members is attached at Annex B.

  The group met for the first time in July and a second meeting was held in September. The next meeting is planned for December 2001. The subject matter has included the e-Government Interoperability Framework (the e-GIF), Public Key Infrastructure (PM) and Channels Strategies for e-government services.

  A sister group, the E-business Advisory Group (EAG), was also established this year with a remit to provide views on how best to introduce e-business ideas and approaches across the Public Sector.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the cost to local authorities of seeking antisocial behaviour orders.[12026]
  962W
  Mr. Denham
  Based on a survey of 21 cases conducted in April this year, the average cost of applying for an antisocial behaviour order was calculated to be £4,800. This is the cost to either the local authority or the police and includes staff costs associated with evidence gathering, preparing the case and attending court.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the time taken to obtain antisocial behaviour orders broken down by the time taken to(a) collect evidence, (b) consult with interested parties and (c) complete court proceedings; and if he will make a statement. [12025]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not available centrally.

  Dyfed-Powys Police
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Ceredigion of 24 October 2001,Official Report, column 67W, on police suspensions, what is the cost of the suspension of the officers in the Aberystwyth division of Dyfed-Powys police since September and December 1999. [12284]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: The Professional Standards Department of Dyfed-Powys police has informed me that the two officers from the Aberystwyth division were suspended on full pay in accordance with Police Regulations. At the time of suspension, one officer was in receipt of an annual salary of £22,323; the second officer was in receipt of an annual salary of £23,787.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to his Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer(a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued; [13322]

  (2) how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to his Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers. [13303]

  Mr. Blunkett
  156 named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to the Home Department for answer between 15 October and 5 November. Of these, 92 (59 per cent.) were given a holding answer.
  963W
  Of these 92 questions:

  (a) 62 were given a substantive answer within three parliamentary days,

  (b) 12 were given a substantive answer between four and seven parliamentary days,

  (c) seven were given a substantive answer between eight and 10 parliamentary days,

  (d) seven were given a substantive answer between 11 and 15 parliamentary days, and

  (e) three were given a substantive answer over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued.

  A further one has yet to be answered.

  Special Constables
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many special constables there were in the(a) City of London and (b) Metropolitan police area in (i) May 1997 and (ii) for the latest month for which figures are available based on current police area boundaries; [12408]

  (2) how many special constables there were in the (a) City of London and (b) Metropolitan police area in (i) May 1997 based on old police area boundaries and (ii) for the latest month for which figures are available, based on current boundaries. [12407]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The strength of the City of London and Metropolitan police special constabularies as at March 1997 and March 2001, the latest date for which figures on special constabulary strength are available, are set out in the table:

  March 1997

  March 2001

  City of London police

  86

  43

  Metropolitan police

  1,714

  774

  The boundary of the Metropolitan police district was redrawn with effect from April 2000, with responsibility for policing areas outside the London boroughs being transferred to Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey constabularies.

  The Government are committed to increasing the special constabulary and as part of the police reform process we are looking at radical improvements in the management, welfare and deployment of special constables.

  Islamic Radicals (Extradition)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since May 1997 requests for extradition of Islamic radicals based in the United Kingdom have been turned down; and if he will make a statement. [14830]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  None.

  Police Resignations
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many resignations there were from the police force in the year to March(a) 1997 and (b) 2001 due to (i) medical and (ii) other reasons. [9724]
  964W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]: The information requested is in the table provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

  Medical retirements

  Other reasons

  Forces

  1996–97

  2000–01

  1996–97

  2000–01

  England and Wales

  2,012

  1,209

  3,340

  4,244

  Avon and Somerset

  66

  42

  113

  89

  Bedfordshire

  15

  18

  35

  33

  Cambridgeshire

  20

  11

  39

  55

  Cheshire

  19

  22

  45

  57

  City of London

  7

  9

  30

  29

  Cleveland

  22

  9

  25

  41

  Cumbria

  18

  24

  40

  37

  Derbyshire

  39

  12

  32

  39

  Devon and Cornwall

  21

  15

  106

  116

  Dorset

  11

  12

  52

  54

  Durham

  23

  8

  25

  41

  Dyfed-Powys

  12

  14

  19

  33

  Essex

  29

  34

  72

  106

  Gloucestershire

  11

  7

  45

  43

  Greater Manchester

  207

  110

  152

  189

  Gwent

  28

  16

  26

  34

  Hampshire

  21

  17

  1ll

  167

  Hertfordshire

  10

  13

  64

  99

  Humberside

  19

  20

  47

  98

  Kent

  15

  29

  108

  124

  Lancashire

  36

  30

  70

  99

  Leicestershire

  29

  28

  44

  50

  Lincolnshire

  11

  4

  42

  49

  Merseyside

  167

  47

  73

  109

  Metropolitan police

  457

  225

  623

  917

  Norfolk

  15

  10

  65

  49

  North Wales

  33

  31

  27

  44

  North Yorkshire

  39

  37

  22

  30

  Northamptonshire

  14

  8

  23

  38

  Northumbria

  85

  28

  78

  100

  Nottinghamshire

  34

  16

  43

  71

  South Wales

  43

  76

  92

  69

  South Yorkshire

  33

  30

  61

  99

  Staffordshire

  47

  9

  54

  56

  Suffolk

  22

  14

  40

  50

  Surrey

  24

  18

  56

  74

  Sussex

  42

  16

  143

  134

  Thames Valley

  55

  20

  94

  165

  Warwickshire

  10

  15

  21

  31

  West Mercia

  39

  28

  54

  68

  West Midlands

  96

  29

  228

  252

  West Yorkshire

  57

  44

  136

  161

  Wiltshire

  11

  5

  65

  46

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by police authority, the number of reported incidents of domestic violence for each of the last three years for which figures are available. [10213]

  Mr. Denham
  Details of the numbers of domestic violence incidents recorded by police forces, obtained from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary Annual Statistical Return, are given in the table. The definition of domestic violence incidents used for the 1999–2000 and 2000–01 figures is as follows:

  Any violence between current or former partners in an intimate relationship, wherever and whenever the violence occurs. The violence may include physical, sexual, emotional or financial abuse.
  965W
  The figures for 1998–99 used the following definition:
  Any form of physical, sexual or emotional abuse which takes place within the context of a close relationship. In most cases, the relationship will be between partners, married, cohabiting or otherwise; or ex-partners.

  The figures for 1998–99 are therefore not directly comparable with those for 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  Domestic violence incidents

  Financial years

  Forces

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  4,791

  9,973

  9,210

  Bedfordshire

  4,923

  5,474

  5,616

  Cambridgeshire

  1,113

  2,558

  2,959

  Cheshire

  9,503

  7,271

  7,393

  City of London

  83

  n/a

  22

  Cleveland

  4,818

  3,980

  4,540

  Cumbria

  3,268

  3,140

  3,294

  Derbyshire

  12,585

  9,872

  n/a

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,453

  3,611

  2,957

  Dorset

  2,116

  2,306

  2,361

  Durham

  1,930

  4,679

  5,446

  Dyfed-Powys

  2,106

  2,184

  1,670

  Essex

  10,850

  10,841

  9,936

  Gloucestershire

  1,421

  6,248

  6,061

  Greater Manchester

  56,203

  46,330

  51,448

  Gwent

  4,250

  4,603

  3,150

  Hampshire

  3,128

  3,856

  10,513

  Hertfordshire

  6,363

  6,373

  6,228

  Humberside

  1,148

  7,787

  6,356

  Kent

  9,605

  8,997

  8,926

  Lancashire

  6,778

  8,560

  17,392

  Leicestershire

  7,246

  5,631

  3,320

  Lincolnshire

  1,519

  738

  278

  Merseyside

  20,612

  19,801

  16,663

  Metropolitan police

  41,531

  77,099

  91,154

  Norfolk

  4,973

  5,567

  5,811

  Northamptonshire

  2,620

  4,422

  2,843

  Northumbria

  14,442

  10,336

  11,898

  North Wales

  4,305

  2,763

  3,436

  North Yorkshire

  4,024

  5,327

  3,554

  Nottinghamshire

  3,803

  3,799

  4,054

  South Wales

  7,252

  7,609

  7,507

  South Yorkshire

  12,209

  2,177

  n/a

  Staffordshire

  n/a

  9,482

  10,868

  Suffolk

  1,962

  495

  2,307

  Surrey

  1,653

  3,234

  5,026

  Sussex

  8,174

  9,300

  10,083

  Thames Valley

  10,885

  10,221

  5,887

  Warwickshire

  2,500

  2,687

  3,360

  West Mercia

  n/a

  1,866

  6,383

  West Midlands

  20,362

  25,225

  31,328

  West Yorkshire

  23,658

  26,271

  18,604

  Wiltshire

  7,563

  5,977

  5,485

  England and Wales

  351,728

  398,670

  415,327

  n/a = not available

  Alcohol (Young People)
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he had with the police prior to the amendment of the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 to the effect that only alcohol in unsealed containers may now be seized; and if he will make a statement. [12092]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: Section 29 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 amends section 1 of the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 and increases the power of police in respect of under-age drinkers because it now
  966W
  allows them to confiscate alcohol, and alcohol containers which have been opened, from under-age drinkers in public places.

  The 1997 Act was deliberately amended by the 2001 Act to ensure consistency between new police powers to confiscate alcohol (but not sealed alcohol containers) from any person in a public place designated for the purpose by the relevant local authority, and the measures contained within the 1997 Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act.

  Prior to the Act discussions on the provisions were held with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers and individual forces who had included confiscation powers within the model byelaw on banning drinking in public places.

  Cemeteries
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is with regard to the provision of new cemeteries. [13488]

  Beverley Hughes
  Burial facilities are currently provided by local organisations, including burial authorities, religious bodies and private companies, in response to local demand. Whether these arrangements need to be reinforced is a matter we intend to consider over the next year. As a first step, we propose shortly to seek information on existing burial space availability.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the relationship between the street price and purity of(a) cocaine and (b) heroin in the last 10 years. [9464]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: Information on mean purity of seizures is available from April 1997 to March 2001 and this together with average street prices over the same period is set out in the table.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Heroin purity (percentage)

  35.3

  38.2

  43.6

  49.7

  Price per gram (£)1

  74

  74

  65

  70

  Cocaine purity (percentage)

  52.3

  55.9

  60.2

  53.5

  Price per gram (£)1

  71

  77

  75

  65

  1 in December

  Police Numbers (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) actual and (b) funded police officers there are in the county of Essex for the latest available date; and what were the same figures on 1 May 1997. [9734]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The information for funded officers and the most recent strength data has been provided by the chief constable of Essex. The 1997 strength figures relate to 31 March 1997 as the Home Office collects police strength data in March and September for each year. The information is in the table.
  967W

  Essex police

  31 March 1997

  1 October 2001

  Funded police officers

  2,944

  3,031

  Actual police strength

  2,961

  2,974

  Funded civilian support staff

  1,425

  1,747

  Actual civilian staff strength

  1,199

  1,586

  Notes:

  1. Figures are full-time equivalents

  2. The funded posts reflect budget provision by the police authority

  Fraud (Police Staff Levels)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed(a) in each police fraud squad, including the City of London police fraud squad, and (b) in the economic and financial crime section of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, in each year since 1996. [11269]

  Mr. Denham
  (a) This information is not kept centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, for the last two years Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has collected data from all forces in England and Wales according to a range of 62 staff functions, one of which is fraud. The staff function for fraud is defined as
  "staff who predominately investigate fraud cases (not including staff who are predominately employed in asset confiscation duties)"
  and
  "staff who are predominately employed to support the investigation of fraud cases (not including staff who are predominately employed to support asset confiscation duties)".
  The data are as follows:

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Force

  Police officer

  Civilian staff

  Police officer

  Civilian staff

  Avon and Somerset

  17

  1

  15

  2

  Bedfordshire

  8

  1

  13

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  7

  0

  6

  0

  Cheshire

  16

  0

  15

  3

  City of London

  74

  12

  70

  11

  Cleveland

  10

  0

  10

  0

  Cumbria

  4

  0

  4

  0

  Derbyshire

  10

  1

  12

  1

  Devon and Cornwall

  10

  0

  18

  5

  Dorset

  13

  1

  14

  2

  Durham

  5

  0

  4

  0

  Dyfed-Powys

  7

  0

  5

  1

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucester

  8

  1

  8

  1

  Greater Manchester

  36

  0

  35

  0

  Gwent

  5

  0

  5

  0

  Hampshire

  11

  3

  12

  3

  Hertfordshire

  10

  0

  11

  0

  Humberside

  9

  1

  10

  1

  Kent

  14

  4

  13

  11

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leicester

  0

  0

  7

  0

  Lincolnshire

  7

  0

  7

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  4

  0

  4

  Metropolitan police

  118

  0

  68

  2

  Norfolk

  7

  0

  7

  0

  North Wales

  9

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  6

  0

  6

  0

  Northamptonshire

  8

  2

  8

  4

  Northumbria

  14

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  11

  1

  17

  1

  South Wales

  15

  2

  3

  0

  South Yorkshire

  21

  2

  20

  5

  968W

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Force

  Police officer

  Civilian staff

  Police officer

  Civilian staff

  Staffordshire

  10

  2

  10

  2

  Suffolk

  6

  0

  8

  2

  Surrey

  12

  0

  17

  3

  Sussex

  2

  1

  0

  2

  Thames Valley

  15

  4

  15

  5

  Warwickshire

  1

  0

  6

  1

  West Mercia

  7

  0

  5

  0

  West Midlands

  28

  12

  29

  9

  West Yorkshire

  42

  0

  43

  0

  Wiltshire

  3

  0

  4

  0

  England and Wales

  616

  55

  560

  84

  (b) The number of staff employed in the National Criminal Intelligence Service as at 1 April each year was:

  Year

  Number

  1996

  17

  1997

  16

  1998

  21

  1999

  24

  2000

  24

  2001

  54

  Since April 2001, eight more staff have been recruited by the Economic Crime Unit and a further 18 people are currently being recruited. By the end of the financial year there will be 80 staff in the unit.

  Police Numbers (Sussex)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have left Sussex constabulary since March 2000 through(a) retirement, (b) early retirement, (c) injury and (d) other employment. [11027]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The information requested has been provided by the acting chief constable of Sussex police and is set out in the table.

  Officers leaving Sussex police between March 2000 and September 2001

  Number

  Retirement

  142

  Early (medical) retirement

  35

  Resignation

  73

  Transfer to new force

  54

  Other reasons1

  11

  Total

  315

  1 Includes officers retiring while on sick leave, for disciplinary reasons, or leaving to return to their original force.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new police officers have been taken on in each division of the Sussex constabulary since March 2000 under crime fighting fund funding. [11026]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The number of crime fighting fund (CFF) funded recruits taken on by a force is calculated as a proportion of total recruitment. Sussex police recruited 47 officers funded by the CFF in 2000–01. Based on forecasts of recruitment

  969W
  for 2001–02 provided by the force, a further 26 Sussex recruits appointed between April and September 2001 will be funded by the CFF.

  The distribution of CFF recruits within a police force area is a matter for the chief constable of that force. I am informed by the force that Sussex do not identify particular officers as CFF recruits but that the number per division is calculated using an allocation formula based on budgetary provision. For 2000–01 Sussex's CFF officers were distributed as follows:

  Number of officers

  Brighton

  8

  East Downs

  7

  Forest

  6

  Highdown

  6

  Hove and Shoreham

  4

  Senlac

  6

  Weald

  5

  Western

  5

  Total

  47

  The force has not yet calculated the distribution of 2001–02 CFF recruits between divisions.

  Religious Hatred
  Mr. Mains
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with(a) the Law Society, (b) the Bar Council, (c) the Justices' Clerks, (d) the District Judges (magistrates courts), (e) the lay magistracy and the Crown court judges in relation to the proposed law on religious incitement; and if he will place a summary of their responses in the Library. [13691]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: Because of the need to place an emergency anti-terrorism Bill before Parliament urgently, it has not been possible to undertake a formal consultation exercise.

  Public-private Partnerships
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the projects in his Department which have been considered as potential public-private partnerships since 1997 which have not been undertaken because the public sector comparator had a lower net present value than the public private partnership proposed; and if he will make a statement. [13433]

  Mr. Blunkett
  From the best information available, there are no instances in this Department where a potential public-private partnership has not gone ahead due to the public sector comparator having a lower net present value than the public-private partnership proposed.

  I would also refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to this question.

  Communications Data
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make data retention compulsory for internet and communications service providers. [13644]
  970W
  Mr. Denham
  I intend to work with service providers on a voluntary code on retention of communications data as part of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. This is an important element of our drive against terrorism and crime. I propose that compulsory powers should be held in reserve and subject to further consideration by Parliament.

  Anti-terrorist Legislation
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with internet and communications service providers about new anti-terrorist legislation. [13646]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Officials met representatives of service providers on 24 October to discuss provisions on communications data retention contained in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. The meeting was a useful opportunity for Government at an early stage of the process to hear the views of industry representatives. The industry has of course been in dialogue with the Department of Trade and Industry over the last two months and we have reflected the representations made. As I said on 15 October in my statement to the House, we are very grateful to the providers. The Government look forward to continuing co-operation with industry on this important issue and to developing a code of practice with industry to implement the provisions of the Bill.

  Afghanistan
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with his European counterparts about dealing with European nationals apprehended in Afghanistan taking arms against British military personnel. [12603]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: None at present.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of fair trade goods. [15208]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Department's policy on the procurement of goods and services is based on value for money principles, which include quality, fitness for purpose and delivery against price. Unless there are reasons to the contrary, all goods and services are acquired by competition. We fully support ethical trading in mainstream business and fair trade products will be purchased where they meet the stated criteria.

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [12269]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Expenditure on information literature advertising and campaign material in the years specified is as follows.
  971W

  £ million

  (a) 1995–96

  10,869

  (b) 1996–97

  8,328

  (c) 1997–98

  3,372

  (d) 1998–99

  4,194

  (e) 1999–2000

  10,080

  (f) 2000–01

  35,637

  Expenditure figures for years 1997–98 and 1998–99 cover the production of information literature, advertising and campaign material in the following subject areas; absent voting/electoral voting, accelerated promotion scheme for graduates (APSG) police, special constables recruitment and fire safety. No significant marketing campaigns were run in these financial years.

  Expenditure in the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 however, covers campaigns in the following areas: police recruitment, vehicle crime reduction, fire safety, rolling/electoral registration and postal voting, passports advice and the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998.

  In 2000–01 the main areas of expenditure were:

  £ million

  Rolling registration and postal voting

  7

  Fire safety

  5

  Police recruitment

  7.5

  Crime (including vehicle crime reduction)

  10

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Rural Payments Agency
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the abolition of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and the progress towards agency status of the Rural Payments Agency; and if she will publish its framework document, corporate plan and business plan. [16242]

  Mr. Morley
  The Rural Payments Agency was launched as an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 16 october 2001. It received accreditation as an EU paying agency on the same date. The chief executive is Mr. Johnston McNeill.

  Since that date and until 15 November, when the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce (Abolition) Regulations 2001 came into force, the agency has been operating as a joint enterprise between the. Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and the Department under a single management structure headed by the chief executive.

  The House has already been informed of the agency's performance targets on 17 October 2001, Official Report, column 1247W. I am arranging for copies of the framework document, the corporate plan and the business plan for 2001–02 to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Illegal Food Imports
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to reduce the number of bodies involved in controlling illegal imports of food. [15193]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: There are a number of bodies with an interest in the control of food imports. We are co-ordinating action to identify practical ways to simplify the situation.

  Scrapie
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on how the Government will test for scrapie-causing agents in apparently scrapie-resistant sheep. [14531]

  Mr. Morley
  Next year we will be testing a sample of sheep brains for signs of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) including scrapie. At present the number of sheep to be tested is 23,000 but this may increase. The relevant European Union legislation requires that, if a test performed under that legislation gives a positive result for the presence of TSEs, the sample material must be genotyped. This will reveal any case where the sheep had a scrapie-resistant genotype.

  We are also carrying out experiments to see if sheep that are fully resistant to scrapie can be infected with BSE. Over five years the sheep will be culled so that, using a range of available tests, their tissues can be examined for signs of infectivity. Results so far have been very encouraging, as infectivity has not been detected.

  Animal Health Bill
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the level of consultation on the Animal Health Bill before its publication. [14530]

  Mr. Morley
  We have had to draw up this legislation swiftly to prepare for any emergency and there has not been time to consult in the way that we normally would. However, over the coming weeks and months, while the Bill is before Parliament we will consult widely on key provisions and their practical implementation.

  With specific regard to the provisions on scrapie and TSEs, we signalled the possibility of introducing a compulsory programme of genotyping and breeding restrictions for TSE-susceptible sheep when we launched a public consultation exercise on the proposed national scrapie plan in July 2000. We are currently consulting stakeholders about the detailed arrangements including the timing of the introduction of a compulsory scheme.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to her Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers. [13304]
  973W
  Mr. Morley
  According to our records, for the period 15 October and 5 November this Department received 254 named day parliamentary written questions, 79 per cent. of which received holding answers.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to her Department that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November received the substantive answer(a) within three parliamentary days, (b) within seven parliamentary days, (c) within 10 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued. [13323]

  Mr. Morley
  The proportion of named day parliamentary written questions that received a holding answer between 15 October and 5 November, and have subsequently received a substantive answer is in the table:

  Parliamentary days

  Number

  Percentage

  (a) Within three

  40

  20

  (b) Within seven

  62

  31

  (c) Within 10

  19

  9.5

  (d) Within 15

  19

  9.5

  (e) Over 15

  61

  30

  Mink Farms
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many mink farms were inspected during the slaughter period in November and December 2000; and what were the methods of slaughter observed. [13800]

  Mr. Morley
  Our records show that three mink farms were inspected during November and December 2000. However, slaughter was only observed at two of these farms. Exposure to carbon monoxide was observed on one farm, and exposure to carbon dioxide was observed at the other.

  Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her priorities are for the reform of UK agricultural policy. [12079]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government want to see a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector which contributes to a thriving and sustainable rural economy and advances environmental, economic, health and animal welfare goals. The independent Policy Commission on the future of farming and food, announced on 9 August, has been established to advise us on how to achieve these objectives.

  One key policy objective is to secure further positive change to the common agricultural policy, framing much of our domestic agriculture policy. In particular, we want to see market price support and production controls phased out, with transitional support payments to help farmers to adjust. This should be complemented by a shift towards the "second pillar" of the CAP, expanding the resources available for targeted support for rural development and agri-environment schemes.

  Vets (Domestic Pets)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what information she has collated on(a) how many vets in each of the last five years have been struck off or disqualified and (b) how many were struck off or disqualified for mistreating domestic pets; [14284]

  (2) what information she has collated on (a) how many complaints have been made about vets in each of the last five years and (b) how many of those complaints were about the mistreating of domestic pets. [14285]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department does not collate figures regarding this matter, as responsibility for these matters rests with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. However, figures furnished to this Department by the college indicate that during the last five years a total of four vets have been struck off. Of these one was struck off for the mistreatment of pet animals.

  During the same period, a total of three vets have been disqualified for periods ranging from one to three months.

  Disqualified

  Struck off

  1997

  0

  2

  1998

  0

  0

  1999

  0

  0

  2000

  1

  2

  2001

  2

  0

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent discussions she has had with the European Commission on the continuation of the OTMS scheme; [14788]

  (2) what time limit has been set for the continuation of the over-30-months cattle scheme. [14792]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: It is the Government's intention to review the over-30-month scheme (OTMS) in light of any changes to the over-30month rule. The rule will be reviewed by the Foods Standard Agency when a sufficient sample of cattle has been tested for BSE and the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) is expected to reconsider existing guidance in the new year. Changes to the scheme would need to be agreed with the European Commission and other member states if amendments to Commission Regulation (EC) No. 716/96, under which the scheme operates, are required.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs how many cattle were slaughtered under the Over 30 Months Cattle Scheme in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [14794]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The total numbers of cattle slaughtered under the scheme for the years in question are shown in the table.
  975W

  Total scheme throughput

  1997

  847,409

  1998

  895,278

  1999

  970,125

  2000

  972,751

  20011

  459,606

  1 To 31 October 2001

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was of the over-30-months cattle scheme in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [14793]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The total cost of the over-30-months cattle scheme for the years in question are detailed in the table. The second column shows the total amount of compensation paid to producers. The third column shows the total cost of the scheme including compensation payments.

  £million

  Year

  Total compensation paid to producers

  Total cost of the scheme including compensation

  1997–98

  288

  432

  1998–99

  264

  380

  1999–2000

  265

  394

  2000–2001

  240

  358

  2001–20021

  44

  81

  1 To 30 September 2001

  Border Inspection Posts
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the establishment of border inspection posts in the United Kingdom by the European Commission Food and Veterinary Office. [14812]

  Mr. Morley
  Community law requires that all products of animal origin from third countries enter through, and are subject to checks at, a border inspection post (BIP).

  Before a BIP can operate it has to be approved by officials of the European Commission Food and Veterinary Office (FVO). FVO veterinary experts will inspect the facility to ensure that the layout, structure and procedures comply with Community requirements.

  Once approval has been given this must be ratified at the Standing Veterinary Committee who will adopt a decision amending the list of approved BIPs.

  Common EU Fisheries Licence
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress made towards a common EU fisheries licence, with respect to communitarisation of national fleets. [14816]

  Mr. Morley
  There has been no movement in this direction. The belief that this is a likely development is based on a misreading of the Swedish Accession Treaty and has no basis in fact.

  Fisheries (Derogation)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the state of negotiations to extend the derogation on six and 12 mile limits. [14819]

  Mr. Morley
  A decision on the six and 12 mile limits will be taken as part of the CFP review in 2002. Discussions in the Council of Ministers have revealed a very strong consensus among member states in favour of renewing the limits; the Commission is also known to support them. For my part, I shall be making every effort to get the limits made permanent.

  Fishing Controls
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1936/2001, laying down control measures applicable to fishing for certain stocks of highly migratory fish, on(a) her Department's activities and (b) Dependent and Associated Territories, with special reference to (i) the Falklands and (ii) Gibraltar. [14796]

  Mr. Morley
  No assessment has been made of the effect of Council Regulation (EC) No.1939/12001 laying down control measures applicable to fishing for certain stocks of highly migratory fish in any fisheries.

  Live Export Refunds
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy regarding live export refunds for cattle; and if it is her policy to support their suspension as concerns the European Communities budget. [14813]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on 12 November 2001,Official Report, columns 597–98W.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in what percentage of cases livestock owners who resisted an animal culling order were subsequently informed that their animals were infected with foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement. [13887]

  Mr. Morley
  The London headquarters of the Department was involved in or made aware of a total of 127 cases where livestock owners appealed against a cull. At the time of appeal, 104 were contiguous premises, 17 were dangerous contacts, three were 3km cull cases, two were slaughters on suspicion and one was an infected premises. In 15 per cent. of this total number, the owners were subsequently informed that their animals were infected with foot and mouth disease and the status of their premises was amended accordingly.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regulations govern(a) the export of game, and (b) compensation for game exporters whose business was affected by foot and mouth. [14308]
  977W
  Mr. Morley
  The Import and Export Restrictions (foot and mouth disease) Regulations regulate the export of fresh meat and animal products from animals susceptible to foot and mouth disease (FMD); there is no statutory provision for payment of compensation to farming or other businesses for consequential losses caused by the outbreaks of FMD, and there are no plans to introduce such payments.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the protocols and guidance for the removal of ash from a foot and mouth disease burn site. [7748]

  Mr. Morley
  The protocols and guidance for the removal of ash from foot and mouth disease burn sites have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under what powers the foot and mouth contiguous cull was carried out. [13815]

  Mr. Morley
  The contiguous cull was carried out using powers contained in schedule 3, paragraph 3 of the Animal Health Act 1981.

  Laptop Computers
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many laptop computers held by her Department have been(a) stolen and (b) lost; how many have been recovered; and what is the total cost of replacements since June 2001. [15354]

  Mr. Morley
  Since June 2001, the Department has had four laptops stolen, and has lost none. None of the stolen laptops has been recovered and none has been replaced to date.

  Departmental Plan
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish her departmental plan. [15358]

  Mr. Morley
  I intend to publish the DEFRA Departmental Report in April 2002 in common with other Government Departments. The report will contain information on progress against the Department's objectives and the challenges ahead for the forthcoming financial year. It will also contain summary expenditure plans for the Department.

  IT
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what problems have been identified in the(a) installation and (b) management of her Department's IT programmes. [15359]

  Mr. Morley
  IT programmes in DEFRA are managed using the Government's methodology for project management known as "Prince 2", and have a single individual with overall responsibility for their delivery. In addition, the Department submits IT programmes to independent review under procedures introduced by the Office of Government Commerce earlier this year. The Department's experience is that these approaches are powerful tools for ensuring that problems in individual programmes are addressed at an early stage and successfully.
  978W
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of her Department's budget is for IT. [15360]

  Mr. Morley
  Around 2 per cent. of the 2001–02 resource budget (ie expenditure covered by the Departmental Expenditure Limit and Annually Managed Expenditure) is planned to be spent on IT.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Keith Simpson: To
  ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many civil servants there are in each division of her Department. [15342]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of civil servants employed by DEFRA as at 1 October 2001 is given in the table. The figures relate to people in post; they include staff employed to deal with foot and mouth disease and those who were in the process of transferring to the Rural Payments Agency. All other executive agencies are excluded.

  Division of DEFRA

  Number of employees

  Agriculture and Food

  577

  Fisheries

  217

  Environment, rural and regional services

  4,075

  Animal health (including state veterinary services)

  2,914

  Science directorate

  101

  European Union and international policy

  57

  Economics and statistics

  175

  Central services

  1,133

  E-business directorate

  360

  Communications directorate

  106

  Total

  9,715

  Mr. Keith. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many civil servants(a) are employed in her Department and (b) were employed by its predecessor department at the latest date for which figures are available. [15372]

  Mr. Morley
  As at 1 October 2001, 9,715 civil servants were employed by DEFRA.

  As at 1 June 2001, 8,735 civil servants were employed by the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  The figures given include staff employed to deal with foot and mouth disease and those who were in the process of transferring to the Rural Payments Agency, but exclude all other executive agencies of the Department.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the PFI contracts which(a) have been agreed and (b) are under consideration. [15355]

  Mr. Morley
  There are four existing PFI contracts: the Countryside Agency's SPIRIT contract for IT services, Pevensey Bay Sea Defences, Broadlands Flood Alleviation Scheme, and the Broadlands Avenue Office
  979W
  Development (Cambridge). The British Waterways Board have two PPP projects under consideration: a property project known as P4, and the Water Grid scheme.

  Vets
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many vets were employed by(a) the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in May 1997 and (b) her Department in October 2001. [15368]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of veterinary surgeons (full-time equivalents) employed by the State Veterinary Service (SVS) for 1997 and 2001 are shown in the table. Of the 286 full-time equivalent veterinarians employed by the State Veterinary Service in 2001 as a whole, 220 veterinarians are employed as field veterinary officers. The work of these officers is supplemented by about 100 Temporary Veterinary Inspectors (TVIs) from the private sector in normal times.

  Year as at 1 January

  Number

  1997

  289.5

  2001

  286.0

  20011

  316.0

  1 As at October

  Flood Defence
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what communications have been received from local authorities in respect of the availability of resources to implement flood defence plans. [14686]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department provides funding to local authorities in England for flood and coastal defence capital works. Other central Government funding for flood and coastal defence is provided through revenue support grant. Local authorities submit forecasts of their plans for capital works on a regular basis and the local government association has provided high level justification of their flood defence spending in future years as part of the Spending Review 2002 process.

  Managed Retreat Schemes
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for managed retreat schemes in Essex; and if she will make a statement. [13922]

  Mr. Morley
  Operational management of flood and coastal erosion risk in England is a matter for local operating authorities—the Environment Agency (EA), local authorities and internal drainage boards. The Government require them to consider a range of options when considering their response to the risk, including managed realignment where appropriate (sometimes called managed retreat). I understand the EA is actively progressing two schemes involving realignment in Essex at present, namely Abbot's Hall in the Blackwater estuary and Brandy Hole on the river Crouch.
  980W
  I also understand the EA is currently undertaking strategy studies of the Essex Estuaries which will involve consideration of managed realignment as an option for other sites in the future.

  Movement of Livestock Scheme
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at what dates and times the autumn movement of livestock scheme helpline has been unavailable; and if she will make a statement on the impact on applicants of the unavailability of that helpline. [12542]

  Mr. Morley
  The Movement Licence Helpline (01392 314941) is open 08.30 to 17.30 Monday to Friday and 09.00 to 13.00 on Saturday. The helpline has never been unavailable. Some calls may be answered by an automatic message, when all the lines are busy, but the number of unanswered calls has not exceeded 5 per cent. of calls made to the helpline.

  The Department also provides a helpline for the use of local authorities and local veterinary inspectors. This helpline is not intended to be used by farmers. However, some farmers have obtained the number and will have been asked to call the Movement Licence Helpline.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the autumn movement of livestock scheme applies to movements between different parcels of land held by the same person. [12541]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 8 October, sole occupancy licences have been available to permit the movement of foot and mouth disease susceptible stock between premises which are in the same control, management and occupation in respect of FMD susceptible animals. All premises listed on the licence must be within a circle of a maximum diameter of 20.0 kms (12.4 miles). Movement of stock between premises covered by the same sole occupancy licence may take place without prior veterinary inspection and without triggering a 21 day standstill of destination. Full details are available from local offices of the DEFRA website.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the help available from her Department to local authorities to deal with the backlog of applications in respect of the autumn movement of livestock scheme. [12544]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is working extremely closely with the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards (LACOTS) on the administration of the livestock movement scheme. The initial backlog of applications which built up after the introduction of the livestock movement scheme has been cleared.

  Potato Industry
  Mrs, Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the annual output of the UK potato industry in
  981W
  each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and what percentage of the land in England under cultivation is used for the production of potatoes. [14062]

  Year

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  12000

  Potatoes in the United Kingdom:

  Volume of harvested production2

  6,393

  7,841

  7,097

  6,568

  6,435

  7,251

  7,153

  6.439

  7,156

  6,611

  Value of production3

  527

  533

  390

  710

  1,095

  636

  390

  630

  750

  501

  Area4

  178

  182

  172

  165

  173

  178

  167

  165

  178

  165

  Percentage of UK total crop area

  3.6

  3.6

  3.8

  3.7

  3.8

  3.8

  3.3

  3.3

  3.8

  3.5

  Potatoes in England:

  Area used for potato production4

  135

  137

  131

  125

  130

  135

  127

  124

  137

  127

  England total crop area4

  4,222

  4,244

  3,839

  3,804

  3,865

  4,016

  4,244

  4,229

  4,005

  3,982

  Percentage of England total crop area

  3.2

  3.2

  3.4

  3.3

  3.4

  3.4

  3.0

  2.9

  3.4

  3.2

  1 Provisional

  2 Thousand tonnes

  3 £ million

  4 Thousand hectares

  Source:

  Agriculture in the UK

  Land Use
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of land in England was(a) under cultivation for crops and (b) used for animal rearing in (i) 1975, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1995 and (iv) the most recent year for which figures are available. [14059]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is given in the table.

  Thousand hectares

  1975

  1985

  1995

  2001

  Total area of England1

  13,042

  —

  —

  —

  —

  of which:

  Percentage total crops

  —

  30.1

  33.7

  29.6

  29.0

  Percentage animal rearing

  —

  40.2

  36.4

  34.3

  33.1

  1 Including inland waterways

  Notes:

  1. Crops including all arable crops. some of which are grown for stockfeeding.

  2. Animal rearing is all grassland and rough grazing.

  3. Common land has not been included in the figures for animal rearing. There are 427,889 hectares of common land in England.

  Sources:

  1. Crops and Animal Rearing—June Agricultural Census 1975, 1985, 1995 and 2001 (main and minor holdings).

  2. Total Area of England—Office for National Statistics (2001 data).

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the principal changes her Department is seeking on reform of the common agricultural policy. [12812]

  Mr. Morley
  The CAP needs further reform to deliver better outputs for our farmers, consumers and taxpayers. The Government are committed to striving to secure a more economically rational CAP, and one which is sustainable in relation to the countryside environment and rural economy. In particular, the Government want to see market price support and production controls phased out, with transitional support payments to help farmers to adjust. This should be complemented by a shift towards
  982W
  Mr. Morley
  The volume and value of UK potato production and the percentage of crop area in England used for potato production are given in the table.

  the "second pillar" of the CAP, expanding the resources available for targeted support for rural development and agri-environment schemes.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford of 29 May on behalf of his constituent Mr. J. Matchett of Langton Ave., Chelmsford; and if she will make a statement about the reason for the delay in replying. [8266]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the delay in providing a reply to his letter. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs replied to his letter yesterday. We have recently identified a real problem with the correspondence system which has led to a backlog of correspondence which Ministers and officials are working hard to clear. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman's letter was caught in that backlog.

  Farming Assistance (Exmoor)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to speed up the process of the collection of cattle and assist farmers with welfare problems in Exmoor. [10778]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the animal movement restrictions which apply to control the spread of foot and mouth disease, collection for movement is permitted to only a single destination on any one day at present.

  Following representations from Exmoor farmers, veterinary advice is that provided there is proper cleansing and disinfection between batches, it will be possible to allow more than one operation per day of gathering for movement to a single destination, without an undue increase in disease risk. Officials are therefore finalising changes to the collecting centre procedures to allow more than one batch per day subject to cleansing and disinfection between each batch and these should be implemented shortly.

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

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [H.L.]
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Clement-Jones.)
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to take the opportunity to rise a matter with the Minister. Noble Lords will know that, in its previous incarnation, the Bill was introduced by the Government prior to the last general election. It went through its various stages in another place.
Recently I wrote to the Minister to ask whether ministerial answers and assurances given in another place would hold good, even though the Bill has now been introduced as a Private Member's Bill, albeit in identical form. The Minister was kind enough to reply to me. I believe that, with the benefit of the ministerial answers in another place, noble Lords will be saved a great deal of unnecessary tabling of amendments and argument if we can rely on the statements made by Ministers. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to respond positively.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for raising the matter. It reflects his evident desire to ensure that the Bill passes speedily through its stages. I am glad to confirm the contents of the letter that I have written to him and I undertake to place a copy of it in the Library.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Meaning of "tobacco advertisement" and "tobacco product"]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 2, at end insert—
""advertisement" includes in particular any notice, circular, label, wrapper, invoice or other document, and any public announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting light or sound but does not include the use of the name or trading name of a company, person or partnership in the ordinary course of the business of that company. person or partnership,"
The noble Baroness said: I shall begin by degrouping two amendments which have been incorrectly grouped with Amendment No. 1 due to a misunderstanding late in the day. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 should be taken out of the grouping and should resume their own place in the groupings list. I apologise for any inconvenience caused by this late adjustment.
The reason for degrouping the amendments is that they address a different range of issues from Amendment No. 1.
Lord Naseby: I should like to seek clarification on the position as regards Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, one of which has been tabled in my name. I have only just collected the Marshalled List of amendments from the Printed Paper Office. Am Ito understand that the list is incorrect? If so, could I have a firm clarification that Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 will take their places in the list and will be addressed after the debate on Amendment No. 2? Am I correct in this?
Baroness Noakes: Once again, I apologise to my noble friend for what has taken place. We had thought that a different grouping would have been arranged. However, noble Lords can see before them what has been issued this morning by the Printed Paper Office. I can confirm that Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 will be taken after the debate on Amendment No. 2.
Lord Naseby: A certain amount of confusion has arisen over this matter. Before we start the proceedings, I should like to know, first, why the Marshalled List which I was given only around six minutes ago is incorrect. Secondly, given that I have spent some time in preparation for the debate, as have other noble Lords who wish to take part, before we commence with the day's proceedings I should like to know exactly when the amendments that I have prepared are likely to be taken.
It requires a fair degree of preparation properly to address the Committee on an amendment. I hope that a noble Lord on one of the Front Benches will be able to make it crystal clear at exactly what point the amendment tabled in my name will be taken.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I hope that I can help the Benches opposite to resolve their confusion. I understand that we shall now take the debate on Amendment No. 1, along with a grouping which will include Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 8. Those amendments will be discussed and Amendment No. 1 will be put before the Committee. Following that debate, Amendment No. 2 will be put before the Committee. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 will have been spoken to in the grouping under Amendment No. 1. After that, we shall reach Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I hope that that clarifies the position.
In turn, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could clarify one further point. Are Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 to be taken separately, or will they be grouped together?
Baroness Noakes: Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are not my amendments. I sought simply to remove them from the grouping under Amendment No. 1. They will be grouped together if the noble Lords concerned wish them to be so grouped or they will be taken individually.
Lord Naseby: Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness on that point. So far as I am concerned, they most definitely should be taken separately.
Baroness Noakes: Having worked through the lack of clarity at the start of our proceedings, perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 1 and the amendments with which it remains grouped concern, in different ways, the definition of a tobacco advertisement and the limitations on what can and cannot be regarded as a tobacco advertisement.
Not all words in all Acts need to be defined. However, crucial words need to be defined. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, or the Minister, may well say that a word such as "advertisement" should be given its natural meaning. But the Bill is designed to ban the advertising of tobacco products and creates a number of criminal offences related to tobacco advertisements, which, on conviction, can result in heavy fines or even imprisonment. The Committee would be failing in its duties if it did not create as much certainty as possible about the scope of the Bill. The Bill should be as clear as possible about which matters are or are not within its scope.
Amendment No. 1 deals with the word "advertisement" and seeks to achieve two objectives: first, to set out a definition of the word "advertisement"; and, secondly, to give a specific exclusion for names or trading names. I move the amendment, not with the certainty that it is 100 per cent perfect in its coverage but on the ground that it is better than no definition. I hope that the Committee will use it as a starting point for the debate and to clarify what the Bill seeks to ban.
The amendment begins with a definition of "advertisement", which I have borrowed from the Food Safety Act 1990. It defines an advertisement as,
"any notice, circular, label, wrapper, invoice or other document, and any public announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting light or sound".
That is not an exhaustive definition. It includes the items I have specified but is not limited to them.
I had doubts about "label" or "wrapper", but I can see that they could be used to promote tobacco products in much the same way as, for example, a brochure. Hence I have left those words within the suggested definition. Amendment No. 4, which will be moved later by my noble friend Lord Naseby, seeks to exclude packaging of a tobacco product from the meaning of "tobacco advertisement". I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
794
Similarly, I hesitate over "invoice", which is a document from the dry old world of accounting and book-keeping. However, it may be possible that an invoice could be used as an advertisement. That is why I have left it in the definition, although a later amendment seeks to exclude such items.
I hope that I have made clear that I put the definition forward with some humility. I should be glad to consider suggestions for improving the definition. However, the principle that we should define words which are critical to the offence being created is important.
I have dealt with the first part of Amendment No. 1. The second part excludes from the definition of "advertisement" the use of the name or trading name of a company, person or partnership in the ordinary course of the business of that company, person or partnership. The point is simple. I hope that it will not be seen as much more than a drafting amendment for the avoidance of doubt. I hope that no one will expect the Bill to remove a company's right to use its own legal name or trading name, for example, in company documents or on websites.
Let me explain what the amendment seeks to do. Companies often use their own names as part of the branding of their products, and sometimes those names are used to brand several, or even all, of the products in which a company trades. To give an example close to my heart—or, rather, my wallet—Chanel is a company which gives its name to quite distinct products, for example, handbags, perfumes, dresses and quite a lot more that I have not yet learnt how to spend money on. Let us suppose that the Government wished to outlaw handbags. Would the use of "Chanel" on a bottle of perfume be regarded as a promotion of handbags? Would the use of "Chanel" on the company's invoices be regarded as the promotion of handbags? I hope that the Committee agrees that that would be a nonsense.
So, too, with tobacco products. I hope that the Committee agrees that it would not be right for the proposed ban on tobacco advertising to be used to stop, for example, Dunhill using its own name for its own corporate purposes or for its wide range of luxury goods other than tobacco products. We shall be discussing some aspects of this issue when we come to the brand-sharing provisions of Clause 11.
The aim of the amendment is to allow companies, individuals and partnerships to use their own names in the ordinary course of their business without fear of it being deemed an unlawful tobacco advertisement. Although drafted in a different way, Amendment No. 8, to be moved by my noble friend Lord Naseby, seeks to achieve much the same effect.
Amendment No. 1 and the other amendments in the group seek to achieve clarity and the avoidance of doubt. I look forward to other noble Lords speaking to their amendments and to hearing the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in relation to this one. I beg to move.
11.15 a.m.
Lord Naseby: I speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. As I do so—and as I shall be speaking to a number of amendments today—the Committee may appreciate it if I make a couple of general remarks which affect these two amendments, particularly, and later ones.
First, I come to this House as a life Peer, an appointed Peer. The number of colleagues who are present today is an indication that it does not need elected Peers to carry out a good revising role in your Lordships' House.
Secondly—I re-emphasise the point—I have absolutely nothing to declare. I am not a smoker. I think the last cigar I smoked was some 17 years ago. On our way to the House this morning my wife could not remember exactly when it was, but it was a long time ago. I do not smoke. I have never during my 30 years in Parliament had any pecuniary involvement with any facet of the tobacco industry, however it may be described in this or any other Bill. Being married to a retired GP, I certainly acknowledge that tobacco kills.
I also come to the Committee with 20 years of experience in advertising. I therefore offer to the Committee, in these amendments and others, some of the experience of those 20 years. It may, of course, be a little dated: nevertheless, I believe the basic rules of advertising do not change very much. Those are important points.
In relation to the amendments, we must also think about consistency of approach. Although this is a Private Member's Bill, we just heard an interchange between the Front Benches to the effect that the undertakings given when the government Bill was introduced hold true. Therefore, government announcements that impinge on the Bill must necessarily be taken into account.
In that regard, the downgrading of cannabis is relevant. Perhaps we may have some clarification. I believe that, if it is downgraded, there is nothing to stop anyone producing a brand. If that is the case, the Government will be concerned to ensure good manufacturing practice rather than back-street production. Those points are relevant. If the approach is to go even further, to cover Ecstasy and other drugs, that will impinge on the Bill.
Turning from the general to the particular, my Amendment No. 3 seeks clarification. First, paragraph (b) in Clause 1 refers to the "effect" of an advertisement—that is the key word—even though the purpose was not to promote a tobacco product. One can sit down and devise a clear strategy of what one is trying to achieve, but, since this is an art rather than a science, one cannot always know that the results will be what one has set out to achieve.
The draft European directive on tobacco advertising uses a slightly different definition. The draft directive describes offending tobacco advertising as advertising which,
"has the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting a tobacco product".
796
So there is no consistency there. Indeed, this morning I received a briefing document from the European Parliament, dated 1st November. Perhaps I may quote from page 20 of the document. Under the heading "Combating Smoking", it sets out:
"The EU position for the 3rd negotiating round for a WHO Framework Convention on combating smoking".
It states that the debate took place three days ago, and continues:
"MEPs will vote on a draft resolution submitted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in preparation for the 3rd negotiating round for a World Health Organisation Framework Convention to combat smoking".
So by the time we reach only the third amendment, we have the extraordinary situation where a Bill before the Committee, following a previous Bill, contains different definitions from that of the European Parliament, which in itself is having to be "shoehorned" into a WHO initiative. Presumably the intention is to have a WHO framework convention. It seems to me that that ought to be the driving force, rather than a Private Member's Bill in this place. There is a similarity between the EU approach and this Bill. However, that does not necessarily make either of them right or sensible.
Perhaps I may dwell for a few moments—reflecting on my previous incarnation before being elected to the other place—on the purpose, or the intended "effect", of an advertisement. Many Members of the Committee may not be aware of the exact thought processes and skills that go into the creation of an advertisement. First, before anyone tries to produce any form of advertisement, however defined, he must sit down and produce a brief—what is it that the client wants to achieve? What does the client wish to communicate to a particular audience? That is not something that can be dashed off in a couple of moments. It is debated at great length with the client. It may take several months to evolve. It may be part of the corporate strategy; it may merely be part of the brand strategy. But it will be part of the refining process: what the client is trying to communicate.
Secondly, he must determine who is the object of the communication. The vast majority of advertising is not blanket advertising. It is targeted at a particular audience. In its most direct form, it can be a letter from one individual to another. In a direct mail sense, it may be from a list system. Posters are a good example. Most noble Lords will have passed posters while coming to the House this morning. Posters are not geared to every single person who passes them. They will have been sited to ensure that the target audience is the most likely to see them. So we cannot just assume a blanket approach.
In weighing up the amendment, it must be remembered that the intended effect of an advertisement will have been thought out in great depth. But, inevitably, not everyone gets everything right. We find that the purpose of the advertisement is usually very clear, but whether its effect is clear is another matter altogether.

797
I recall a brand in the tobacco world called "Strand". I am going back perhaps 30 years—I am not a smoker, but those who are may remember it. I cannot remember which company introduced it. But I do remember the "strap line": it was,
"You're never alone with a Strand".
There was a chap in a mackintosh and I think it was raining. The effect was to say, "If you've got a Strand cigarette and you're on your own, you have a companion with you and you'll feel better". I think that was probably the strategy. But the brand was a complete failure, even though it was backed with a large amount of money. Although the tobacco company that had devised the brand had given a brief to the advertising agency, approved the creative work and seen the posters go up, the whole thing was an absolute flop. Even in those days it must have cost £1 million plus. Today, we should be talking about £20 million or £25 million. So the effect bore no relation to the purpose. I suggest to the Committee that one must be very careful when considering the word "effect".
Although one does not know the "effect" of an advertisement, according to the Bill as drafted if the effect is the promotion of a tobacco product, it will be an offence under the Bill and will carry severe penalties, which are set out in Clause 16. A person who is guilty of an such an offence is liable,
"on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 … or … on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both".
Someone may have created something they think will achieve something, but under Clause 16 of the Bill they could be liable for some fairly swingeing penalties.
11.30 a.m.
Earl Russell: Does the noble Lord think that judging the effect is more difficult than judging whether conduct is liable to provoke a breach of the peace which the common law does daily?
Lord Naseby: I am not a lawyer and therefore I do not know the answer to that question. However, it is a question that should be posed and it is certainly worthy of debate.
It may be argued, in relation to what I have been saying on Amendment No. 3, that all one has to do is look at subsection (2) of Clause 5 which provides a defence requiring the person,
"to prove that he could not reasonably have foreseen that that would be the effect of the advertisement".
However, it is not at all clear how proof of the effect could be provided, let alone how it could be proved that the effect could not have been foreseen.
Whereas it has generally been straightforward to establish whether the purpose of an advertisement is to promote a product or service or company or whatever, it will not in my judgment generally be possible to demonstrate that although it was not the purpose, the effect was to promote a tobacco product. In the
798
absence of any supporting data that can largely be only a subjective judgment. I submit to the Committee that we should not contemplate putting on to the statute book matters based on subjective judgment.
It seems to me that the relevant consideration is to consider the purpose of an advertisement. If it can be reasonably foreseen that the promotion of a product is the effect of an advertisement, that is the purpose of the advertisement. Rather than be concerned with the effect of an advertisement, the proposers of the Bill should in my judgment be more concerned to ensure that there is more certainty—certainty is what we in our revising role in this Chamber should be concerned with—in the application and enforcement of the Bill's provisions on advertising. The removal of paragraph (b) of Clause 1—as Amendment No. 3 proposes—would clarify what is and what is not to be regarded as an advertisement.
With the leave of the Committee I now turn to my Amendment No. 4, which is a fairly long amendment. Some may ask why I bothered to include all its provisions. In my judgment the Bill would be better if it was more explicit. I refer to the precedent of much other UK legislation that is explicit. Therefore, there is the precedent of many Bills passed by Parliament that are explicit. I do not see any reason why this particular Bill should not be explicit. It is not sufficient that the words in the Bill should be left as they are. I understand that the measure will have "a natural meaning" according to the phrase used in the government Bill. If that is not to be the case, it is important that the Bill states what does not constitute tobacco advertising. The amendment seeks to say exactly what does not constitute tobacco advertising. In the commercial world people need to have a degree of certainty.
Parliament has decided that it is perfectly legal to subsidise the growing of tobacco as we are a member of the EU. We ensure good manufacturing standards for the production of tobacco. Therefore, when it comes to the selling of it, we need to know what is or is not an advertisement. The amendment is geared to describing what is not a tobacco advertisement. The approach of clarifying what kind of things do not comprise tobacco advertisements is adopted in the legislation of other countries and member states of the European Union which ban tobacco advertising. On Second Reading the promoter of the Bill mentioned a number of countries that had banned tobacco advertising. I am not sure why he did not mention Norway where consumption increased after tobacco advertising was banned, but perhaps that did not fit his case. Perhaps the effect was different from the purpose in Norway. We can perhaps debate that later.
The amendment uses the template of the Guernsey tobacco advertising law of 1997. Therefore, it is not a Lord Naseby special; this is something that is already on the statute book. The buzz word now is "template". If you have a template, you are halfway there, or at least you hope you are. I am not sure that the promoter of the Bill is listening to what I am saying, which is a little distressing. Therefore, I shall repeat that sentence. I refer to the Guernsey tobacco advertising

799
law of 1997. Obviously, the promoter of the Bill will have wanted to get hold of a copy of it. I imagine that he already has one; if not perhaps one of his noble friends will make sure that he gets one before he speaks to the amendment.
When the Bill was considered in the previous Parliament the Minister in another place argued that to provide a narrow definition of "advertisement" would risk creating loopholes in the Bill. That is not the view that Parliament has taken on other legislation. I venture to suggest that that is a rather sloppy approach. If I may put it this way, it is a sort of commercial approach, whereas here we act as legislators and not commercial people. At the same time, however, the Minister in the other place confirmed that certain things were not regarded by the Government as advertisements. That may be covered by the letter that is to be placed in the Library. I am perhaps at a disadvantage in that I am not able to go there to collect the letter. In another place one always had a colleague who could nip out to get such things.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I wonder whether I can help the noble Lord. In the letter to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I simply confirmed that statements given by government Ministers during the passage of the previous Bill in the other place still stand.
Lord Naseby: I am most grateful to the Minister for pointing out what the letter states. Perhaps the Minister can recall—I cannot—whether the Government defined what they regard as not constituting an advertisement when that Bill was discussed. Did the Government ever define that? I see from a shaking of heads that it has not yet been defined. However, what is clear is that at some point the Government were of the mind that certain things did not constitute advertisements. That is crystal clear. That stake is in the ground.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord is new to our Chamber and I appreciate that he does not fully understand our traditions. However, it is not customary to speak at such inordinate length on an amendment of this kind. It is customary in this Chamber to speak to the point. I have sat here patiently. The noble Lord looks as if he will continue speaking for quite a while. I just feel it would help him if he knew a little more about how this Chamber typically operates.
Lord Naseby: The noble Lord is entitled to his view.
Lord Peston: I am not expressing my view; I am expressing what we all recognise as part of the great traditions of this great House of Parliament, which is not to speak at inordinate length. If the noble Lord followed the example of his noble friend on the Front Bench, who was succinct and to the point, he would understand how we typically behave in this House.
Lord Naseby: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his view, to which I shall obviously listen. I have already covered one amendment and I do not think
800
that I have been speaking at inordinate length. A fair amount of clarification has been necessary. Even the Minister felt it right and correct to intervene. I gave way to him, which I think is in the traditions of this House. If I was out to rush my speech, I would not give way to anybody, but that would not be in the traditions of this House either. If the noble Lord wants to take a real interest in the Bill, he should bear in mind that I have done a lot of work on it and I believe that a major principle is at stake. I have explained the background, which I shall not repeat on any other amendment. I recognise the traditions of this House just as much as the noble Lord does. That is why I am, unusually, here on a Friday.
Lord Marsh: I apologise for intervening when I have not been here throughout the noble Lord's speech, although I heard him start. I shall say only that, considering the traditions of the House, I was dumbfounded when I came back and found him still talking to the same amendment.
Lord Naseby: With the greatest respect, I am not talking to the same amendment. I started with Amendment No. 3 and I am now on Amendment No. 4. The two could not be more different. I am sorry if the noble Lord missed the fact that there were two amendments.
I was just finishing. At the same time, the Minister confirmed that certain things were not regarded by the Government as advertisements. The list in the amendment would help the House to produce a Bill to establish exactly what is not an advertisement.
Lord Monson: In defence of the noble Lord. Lord Naseby, he has been speaking to two separate amendments. I wonder whether he was consulted about the grouping. I was not consulted and I am pleased that Amendment No. 5 has been degrouped. The noble Lord has a right to speak fully on Amendment No. 3 and Amendment No. 4 Why should he not do so?
Lord Skelmersdale: I must confess that I feel that I have been witnessing the activities of two rather soporific goats. That may be because I have a filthy cold, so I shall curtail my remarks as much as I can.
I am confused. On the one side, we have the Explanatory Notes, which say simply that "advertising" is to have its natural meaning. Bang—that is it; advertising is advertising, full stop. On the other hand, the amendments would broaden the definition. I tend to go along with my noble friends who have tabled the amendments, because of the Medicines Act 1968, which I am sure that the Minister, and possibly even the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, have engraved on their hearts. That Act provides a perfectly good definition of what is and is

801
not advertising. The Minister smiles, so perhaps he is going to use that definition, in which case I do not need to read it out. Is he going to use it in a minute?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No.
Lord Skelmersdale: In that case I shall not be so inhibited.
The Act says:
"'advertisement' includes every form of advertising, whether in a publication, or by the display of any notice, or by means of any catalogue, price list, letter (whether circular or addressed to a particular person) or other document, or by words inscribed on any article, or by the exhibition of a photograph or a cinematograph film, or by way of sound recording. sound broadcasting or television, or in any other way, and any reference to the issue of an advertisement shall be construed accordingly".
That is very close to Amendment No. 1.
The Act goes on to say:
"Except as provided by section 95 of this Act"—
which has nothing to do with the issue—
"for the purposes of this Part of this Act neither of the following shall be taken to constitute the issue of an advertisement, that is to say —
(a) the sale or supply, or offer or exposure for sale or supply, of a medicinal product in a labelled container or package".
I have never heard of that formulation giving problems in the sale of medical products. Why did the Government decide to produce such an incredibly brief description of what the Bill is all about—that "advertisement" should have its natural meaning?
11.45 a.m.
Lord Lucas: If anyone thought that smoking causes shortness of breath, I think that they will be disabused today.
I advise my noble friend Lord Naseby not to pursue his Amendment No. 8, which is in this group, because it would permit web marketing by the use of what is known as affiliates, which would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. I am sure that that is not his intention and I wish to persuade him that it would be inappropriate to proceed with the amendment.
Lord Filkin: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her careful explanation of her amendment and the tone of her presentation. She has attempted to define what should count as an advertisement. The Government do not believe that that would be helpful or sensible.
"Advertisement" should be allowed to carry its natural meaning. It is usual for words to bear their natural meaning in legislation. To seek to qualify them risks creating loopholes.
The principle of the Bill, which we shall return to on a number of occasions, is to set out a broad offence and then provide defences or exemptions as appropriate. The Government's view is that legislation should not provide a comprehensive list of every detailed type of advertisement that might be possible.
802
The decision to let "advertising" have its natural meaning is consistent with the normal principles of drafting UK legislation. This is domestic legislation, not European legislation, so it should follow British and UK principles rather than European practices. I am sure that many of your Lordships would concur with that.
The Bill does not attempt to interfere with the normal business of tobacco companies. Promoting their business by printing their name on a letterhead that is used for individual communication is not the mischief covered by the Bill.
The provisions on brand sharing would enable the Government to consult on the regulations to be made under Clause 11. The regulations would provide the clarity that is naturally sought.
Baroness Noakes: Will the Minister clarify what he has just said? He said that the Government do not intend letterheads and the like to be included, but he also said that that would be covered by the brand sharing clause. How could the brand sharing clause be used to cover examples relating simply to the name of a company on a letterhead, not its association with any other product?
Lord Filkin: I am sorry that I have perhaps not been as clear as I should have been. The two points were separate. There is no intention of interfering with the normal business of companies. Promoting their business by printing their name on a letterhead that is used for individual communications is not the mischief covered by the Bill.
Baroness Noakes: I am sorry to ask the Minister to give way again. If that is the Government's intention, why will they not accept a specific amendment to that effect? As I tried to explain earlier, it is possible that the use of a name could be deemed to be promoting a tobacco product. I believe that companies deserve the clarity, or the certainty, of knowing that using their own names could not possibly lead to problems in that regard.
Lord Filkin: I do not believe that it would be either wise or sensible to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has a point in that there are circumstances in which a company, by using its name allegedly in the promotion of its normal business activities, could have the effect of promoting tobacco consumption. Therefore, we do not believe that it is right to seek to go so far as has been proposed.
Lord Naseby: With regard to what the noble Lord has just said, is the name of a company synonymous with its logo? Today, most correspondence from most companies carries the company logo. It would be rare to see "XYZ Limited" written simply in normal typeface. Usually, a logo appears. Am I to understand that the Minister is saying that the name, logo, address, and telephone and fax numbers are not covered by the Bill?
Lord Filkin: No. I was seeking to make clear that a tobacco company, in pursuit of its legitimate

803
commercial business, corresponding with other companies about its products or business activities and no doubt, in many cases, having its logo on its notepaper, would not be caught by the Bill if it was genuinely going about its normal commercial business. The mischief which would concern the Government if such legislation were to be passed would be if the company sought to use its name in a wider context specifically to promote tobacco consumption
Baroness Noakes: I am sorry to ask the noble Lord to give way again. I am grateful to him. Can he clarify whether that means that he is, in effect, depriving companies of the right to use their own name in the ordinary course of their business?
Lord Filkin: I do not believe that I could have been clearer on the point. A company that genuinely goes about its business has no fear whatever of being caught by the Bill. If one speculated—I regret having to do so but I am trying to make the point clear—that Bloggs Tobacco Company sought to put on its vans "Bloggs Tobacco Company—Cigarettes are Marvellous", it would be argued that that would fall within the Bill. But if Bloggs Tobacco Company merely wrote to others about its normal commercial activities, it would have nothing whatever to fear from the Bill. I do not believe that further interruptions will do other than elicit a repetition of what I have said on a number of occasions.
I now turn to Amendment No. 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. I shall resist—tempting though it is—the temptation to debate the House of Lords or to debate cannabis, which is an illegal drug and continues to be so, but shall focus on the thrust of the amendment.
Amendment No. 3 would remove from the scope of the Bill advertisements which are not intended to promote a tobacco product but which have the effect of doing so. In practice, most tobacco advertisements are intended to promote the product. We think of billboards or whole-page advertisements in magazines, and we think of the millions of pounds spent on sponsorship or coupon schemes peddled by tobacco companies.
Yet the Bill should be comprehensive if it is to achieve fully any aims of reducing tobacco consumption. To that end, in the Government's view, it would need to include any advertisement that might encourage people to start smoking or undermine their resolve to give it up. That is why it is right that Clause 1 sets out two arms to the definition of "tobacco advertisement". It is possible to envisage an advertisement for something else—perhaps a fast car in which the driver is seen smoking an identifiable brand of cigarette as he puts his foot on the accelerator. If such an advertisement is proved to have the effect of promoting a tobacco product, it is right
804
that it should be caught by the e-ban. However, the onus would be on the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the advertisement had that effect.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I am following the noble Lord most closely. I am sure that he is as anxious as I am that the legislation agreed by this Chamber is fair to all. In the context of his remarks, can he give a single example of any pursuit which is not illegal but is prevented from being advertised? This is a major point that worries me. I understand that the noble Lord is striving not to make the matter too difficult for companies. But surely the basic point is that, whether or not we agree with the fact—I am not a smoker and never have been—smoking is legal. How can it then be right to say that one cannot advertise the product?
Lord Filkin: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for what I consider to be a helpful intervention. It reminds us why this legislation was introduced initially by the Government and why the Government are still of the view that it is of central importance. If I remember correctly, in the Second Reading debate on the Bill a comment was made that if tobacco had only now been discovered, it is inconceivable that it would be allowed to be consumed, given that it is a product that kills half of the people who persistently smoke it. It is almost beyond doubt that any government would allow that to happen. But tobacco was not discovered now; as we know, it was discovered in the 16th century.
That goes to the heart of the careful balance that the Government sought to strike when they drafted this legislation. They sought not to interfere with the liberty of an individual to persist in smoking if he or she so wished after, no doubt, seeing all the medical advice to the contrary. On the other hand, they sought to make it as unlikely as possible that people who had not yet taken up smoking would do so. They also sought to make it as likely as possible that those who wished to give up smoking—70 per cent of people who smoke say that they wish to give up—would be helped to do so. That accounts for the nature of the Bill.
Tobacco is a product which is a killer, and 120,000 people a year die from consuming it. Therefore, without wishing to repeat myself, the Government are seeking not to interfere with people if they wish to persist in smoking it; nevertheless, they want to offer opportunities for reducing its consumption. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to return to that basic point.
I turn to the debates about definitions. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, raised the matter of the main definition of advertising as set out in the Medicine Act. In practice, that is very general; the Medicine Act is more than 30 years old. The Bill needs to focus on what is necessary to the provisions and the purpose that I have just set out. We know that the job of the tobacco industry is to promote its product and to make a profit. Naturally, it will be adept at getting around legal provisions. For that reason, the Government structured the Bill that they introduced originally in the way that they did—that is, they sought a general blanket prohibition with some specific and clear exemptions.

805
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, pointed out that in the draft European legislation advertising may be defined. It is slightly novel to hear the noble Lord advocating in this Chamber the benefits of European legislation, but I leave that to one side.
Lord Naseby: I was a member of the European Movement before I joined this House. I remain a committed member and am keen that our country should join the euro and be a full member of the Community. I am disappointed that the Minister did not know that before he made an assertion across the Chamber. I suspect that he was marginally distracted by my noble friend's very worthwhile intervention.
In relation to Amendment No. 3, he was about to explain to me why he was not satisfied only to have paragraph (a) in Clause 1 and why he felt that it was necessary to have on the face of the Bill the word "effect". That word is not definitive in my description. I sought to be as brief as possible. If I had set about making a particularly long speech, we should have been here for a very long time. I thought that I made a very concise speech. Nevertheless, I shall be guided by the Committee. Perhaps the Minister can answer the questions raised in my amendments.
12 noon
Lord Filkin: I hear very clearly and with some trepidation the implied threat to the Committee about speedy processes. I am delighted to be corrected by the noble Lord and to recognise his commitment to a progressive approach to Europe. I accept his point.
I shall seek to answer the noble Lord's second point. Clause 5(2) provides a defence for anyone who innocently publishes,
"an advertisement whose effect is to promote a tobacco product".
It provides that it is a defence for a person who is charged with an offence in connection with such an advertisement to,
"prove that he could not reasonably have foreseen that that would be the effect of the advertisement".
For that reason, the amendment appears to the Government to be unnecessary. The Bill, as introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, contains clear protection against the danger to which the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, drew our attention.
Amendment No. 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, lists various items that should not be capable of being a tobacco advertisement. If the meaning of "advertisement" were circumscribed in that way, there would be a risk of creating gaps in the advertising ban. I therefore advise the Committee that the Government would find difficulty in supporting the amendment.
We heard about the situation in Norway but I do not think that that is particularly germane. We are discussing UK legislation, not Norwegian legislation. In the Government's view, advertising should have its natural meaning, as is the tradition of legislation in this country.
806
In the Government's view, a tobacco product itself does not constitute an advertisement; nor do cigarette packets presented in the familiar way with the logo or colour scheme of a particular brand. However, it might be that if tobacco manufacturers sought to change the design of cigarette packets to make them particularly attractive to potential purchasers or as collectors' items, they could constitute an advertisement. Similarly, if packages were arranged in a shop window in a particular way—for example, Marlboro packets might be arranged in the shape of a chevron—that might amount to an advertisement.
As regards letterheads and suchlike, I refer Members of the Committee to what the Minister for Public Health said in committee in another place in connection with the earlier government Bill. She said:
"Companies promoting their business by printing their name on a letterhead … is not the mischief at which the Bill is aimed".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 30/1/01; col. 26.]
Furthermore, we do not consider inscriptions such as "tobacconist" on the outside of shops to be an advertisement; nor would the name of a company on the side of a van be an advertisement. However, if the van was to have an advertisement for a tobacco product emblazoned on its side, that would clearly constitute an offence.
Paragraph (v) of the amendment appears to seek to limit the scope of the Bill to those tobacco advertisements whose purpose is to promote a tobacco product and to remove from its scope those advertisements which, although not intended to promote tobacco products, have the effect of doing so. In the Government's opinion, they would be a serious mischief, given the potential damage that could be consequent on it. For the reasons that I gave earlier, we do not think that the amendment is sensible.
Amendment No. 8 seeks to circumscribe the definition of "advertisement" by listing some matters that would be excluded from the Bill's scope. Again, that risks creating loopholes. For the fundamental reasons that I gave earlier, it is not, in the Government's view, a wise or sound amendment.
There is no intention to prevent tobacco companies from using headed notepaper or a compliments slip with a logo or crest; they currently do so in the same way as any other business. If, however, they changed their stationery in such a way that it promoted particular brands, and if that was distributed widely to hundreds of thousands of people, it could constitute an advertisement.
To create an exception involving the factual and written information about tobacco products could also create undesirable loopholes. If people want detailed information about tobacco products they are free to contact the manufacturer. Any response so given would, were the Bill enacted, be protected under the exception in Clause 4(1)(b). The most important factual information probably comprises tar and

807
nicotine levels, which is required by law to be displayed on packets. To agree to paragraph (b) in the amendment would permit the possibility of billboards listing the names of tobacco products and it would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. In the Government's view, it is not a wise amendment.
Lord Lucas: I want to pick up the Minister's point that it is a defence under Clause 5(2) to prove that one,
"could not reasonably have foreseen that that would be the effect of the advertisement".
As the Minister pointed out, there is the well-established—but, fortunately, not very frequent—pattern involving an absolute offence and a conditional defence. One can put the prosecution on their mettle merely by producing a reasonable assertion that one did not know and,
"could not reasonably have foreseen",
the effect. However, the comeback to that is to ask, "Did you take the precautions that you should have taken to enable you to foresee what the effect of the advertisement was?". That would involve all sorts of people, including ordinary retail newsagents, those who bulk print magazines and those who duplicate films, who might have to inspect every frame in a film to ensure that nothing in it might be construed as a tobacco advertisement. We shall later come to other effects but it is best that the Minister recognises that Clause 5(2) does not involve an easy defence. One does not simply have to raise a doubt that one could reasonably have known that a tobacco advertisement was involved; one cannot simply say, "Well, how could I have known that?". One cannot do so because the comeback is to ask, "Did you take the necessary steps to establish that it was not a tobacco advertisement?". Such a proof places a large burden on people. It is necessary to look at the burden that one is placing on people in order to be able to say in court, "I reasonably did not know the effect would be to promote a particular tobacco product". As the noble Lord said, that might involve merely someone smoking a cigarette half-way through a film on television.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, put his finger on an important matter but it has exactly the opposite effect to that which he suggested. I am reminded of the great film "Now Voyager" and its marvellous ending, which involved two cigarettes. The point is that anyone who regards that as tobacco advertising neither knows the natural meaning of the word "advertising" nor is willing to appreciate the significance of the clause. The noble Lord is right. Clause 5(2) is absolutely fundamental to all sorts of questions, including those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. However, it seems to cover in a reasonable manner the fears that he raised. Is he really saying that we should stop that Bette Davis film from being shown because of its marvellous ending? The idea is preposterous. If we are to have such a debate this afternoon, we shall never finish.
Lord Filkin: I shall deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the comment of my noble friend Lord Peston. We shall later come to smoking in films. I can give the Committee some relief. We shall still be able to watch "Casablanca" and the distributors of that film have nothing to fear from the Bill.
I understand the concern but I believe that it is misplaced. The courts will not lightly convict people of an offence under the Bill in the proposed circumstances. The prosecution has to put the case but the defence does not have to prove it. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defence has not been established. For the reasons that I gave earlier it is right and necessary—and not unusual —for legislation to be structured in that way. It would not help the noble Lord if I went into more detail at this point.
Lord Clement-Jones: By most standards, this has been an extended debate, although some clearly think it has been relatively short. That does not bode well for the Committee's progress.
Essentially, we have been discussing a definition of advertising: what is an advertisement? The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, admitted at the start of her remarks that it is usual practice—and, effectively, sound drafting practice—to allow words to bear their natural meaning. The big question is whether we should allow the word "advertisement" to have its natural meaning. The Government's judgment when framing the previous Bill and our judgment on these Benches is that there is insufficient ambiguity about the word "advertisement" to agree to amendment of the definition.
Any attempt to delimit the word "advertisement" in the Bill in the ways suggested by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, would risk leaving off the list something that could clearly be regarded as an advertisement. So it would do precisely the opposite of what we all want from the Bill: a reasonable use of the words that would be defined and refined, if necessary, by the courts, if there were dispute. I am a lawyer myself—some Members of the Committee may regret that fact as the Bill passes through the Chamber. Lawyers are used to defining matters such as what is an advertisement.
I know that many good things come from Guernsey, but I must disagree with the noble Lord about the merits of his list. The whole point of not exempting letterheads, as would several of the amendments, is precisely to ensure that we do not start dancing on the head of a pin. The whole idea is to ensure that where something is an advertisement, we catch it. If we start accepting letterheads and so on, and they are used for brandsharing advertisements, we will clearly not fulfil the purpose of the Bill. The question is factual: what is an advertisement? Neither Amendment No.1 nor Amendment No.4 fit the Bill in that regard. I turn to

809
Amendment No.3, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. We discussed intention and effect. The European directive is remarkably close in legal terms to the Bill. The noble Lord quoted the words,
"aim or direct or indirect effect",
from the European directive. Allowing for translation, and for the fact that we are one member state among a large number in the EU, that is spot on. The noble Lord cannot really pray the directive in aid as a reason for deleting the word "effect".
Lord Naseby: The noble Lord confesses that he is a lawyer. Is he really saying that when two definitions are not identical, he as a lawyer, and others of his profession, could not provide an analysis that produced a difference between them? If the two definitions are so similar, why does he not use the EU definition?
12.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: If the noble Lord can tell me the difference between "aim" and "intention" by the end of today's debate, I shall be delighted to hear it.
The amendment would remove from the scope of the Bill those advertisements that are not intended to promote a tobacco product but that have the effect of doing so. Of course, most tobacco advertisements are intended to promote the product. Billboards, whole-page advertisements in magazines, Formula 1 sponsorship and coupon schemes are all part of that process. If the Bill is fully to achieve its aim of reducing tobacco consumption, it must be comprehensive. To that end, it must include any advertisement that may encourage people to start smoking or undermine their resolve to give up.
That is why it is right that the definition has two arms, as the Minister described them. His description of an advertisement for a fast car, the driver of which is seen smoking an identifiable brand of cigarettes as he puts his foot on the accelerator, illustrates the question. The question of effect is again not difficult for a court to elucidate. As the Minister again made clear, there is a defence under Clause 5(2). Of course we shall later debate the question of onus of proof. I am sure that we shall have an extended debate with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others on that subject. But we shall come to that later. The question is: does Clause 5(2) provide a defence to that specific limb of the definition of advertisement? The answer is yes.
I hope that the Committee will agree that it would be counterproductive to create such a loophole. It is just as likely that we will be considering the effect of advertising as that we will be considering its intent. In fact, it will probably be more straightforward to determine its effect than to determine its intention.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, says about the brief that an advertising agency will receive. However, after the revelation of documents to the Health Select Committee, I am sure that no such briefs will be written down. It will be difficult to get hold of
810
a brief for an advertising campaign for a brand of cigarette abroad. We shall not be able to obtain such evidence of intent.
I turn to Amendment No. 8. It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, intervened to speak to that amendment. The words "coach and horses" were used by both the noble Lord and the Minister. There is indeed no justification for granting such a wide-ranging exception to the comprehensive ban on advertising that is envisaged under the Bill. Evidence from the World Bank has shown that for advertising bans to be effective, they must be as comprehensive as possible. I do not propose to accept Amendment No. 8 or Amendments Nos. 1, 4 or 3.
Lord Naseby: The noble Lord will note that I have not yet spoken to Amendment No. 8. That is because I thought that the Minister would respond to it; he indeed responded to proposed new paragraph (a) of the amendment. I was broadly satisfied with his answer, although there appears to be some confusion over the word "logo". I am less clear whether the Bill's sponsor accepts that the words that I have used in proposed new paragraph (a) are not covered by the Bill. That is basically what the Minister said, although I confess that he withheld his position on the word "logo". May I have clarification on that question?
Lord Clement-Jones: The noble Lord certainly may—I thought that the Minister had clarified that endlessly in several answers. I certainly support the clarification given both in the House of Commons and today. The whole idea is that we cannot give a blanket exception for letterheads or logos because the factual question is whether there has been an advertisement—or, later in the Bill, whether there is brandsharing. That is the whole point.
Lord Naseby: The Bill's sponsor says that the items that I have listed in proposed new paragraph (a) are not exempt, because he believes that they could be used. The Minister said that under the previous Bill, they were exempt—with the exception of the word "logo". The Committee requires clarification on that point. I should like to hear from the sponsor of the Bill. After all, it is his Bill and he may have different thoughts from the Government.
Lord Clement-Jones: If the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, reads Hansard on Monday morning, he will find what has been said utterly clear. Basically, the reason that one cannot give a blanket exemption for the use of logos and letterheads is because, in certain circumstances, they may constitute an advertisement or they may be used for brand sharing. I hope I have made myself utterly, stunningly clear.
Finally, there is absolutely no intention to put a schedule to this Bill. I am delighted to hear about "Casablanca", but I hope that no Member of the Committee will put a schedule of films to this Bill.
Baroness Noakes: I am not surprised by the approach taken to these amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the Minister. But I remain troubled by this area.

811
I did not put forward the definition of "advertisement" in order to restrict. Indeed, I said that the amendment included in particular a list of items, which means that other items can be brought within the scope of "advertisements" when coming to be Interpreted by the courts. The purpose of seeking definition on this is for clarification.
I have discussed with the Benches opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the issue of loopholes. One man's loophole may be another man's lack of clarity. Tobacco companies are companies carrying out a lawful business in this country and this Bill seeks to constrain the way in which they carry out that business. I have no problem with that. I am a non-smoking former smoker. But we owe it to those businesses that are involved in tobacco products to be absolutely clear as to what they can and cannot do.
I am concerned at the apparent approach that we must leave the provision as wide as possible so that, with the benefit of hindsight, we can catch the tobacco product companies in whatever way we want after the event. That does not give certainty to people carrying out their business. In particular I shall wish to return to the issue of use of letterheads and logos. Companies need to know what they can and cannot do with their names—names which they may have used on their brands for a considerable period of time.
I do not intend to press the amendment today. But we will want to look at this area again and may bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 4, after "promote" insert "tobacco or"
The noble Lord said: The Bill as it stands bans advertising of a tobacco product, but not advertising of tobacco. So if I created a T-shirt saying, "I like to kiss men who smoke cigarettes", then although I was promoting tobacco and cigarettes I would not be committing an offence under this Bill. I wondered why. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I can help the Committee. I have checked this and the dictionary definition of "product", is,
"thing or substance produced by natural process or manufacture".
The Bill should be read in that context. If we follow that, the definition of "tobacco product" in the Bill would include raw tobacco as well as anything containing tobacco produced in the course of manufacture. On that basis the Bill is satisfactory, although no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will wish to comment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I entirely agree with the Minister. Offences under the Bill can be committed only,
"in the course of a business".
So those who want to enthuse friends about the supposed virtues of tobacco will be free to do so. The Bill does not stop a journalist writing in favour of tobacco—nor should it. It does not matter that the journalist is paid by the newspaper for the article, as long as he is not being sponsored by someone in the tobacco trade.
Thinking the amendment through, it will not add a great deal to the sum of human happiness.
Lord Lucas: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 7, leave out "sniffed,"
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 5 is to exclude from the provisions of the Bill tobacco products which are sniffed. The first thing that comes to people's minds is, of course, snuff. But the amendment will also embrace tobacco products as yet undeveloped which theoretically could be enjoyed in this way. I have no personal axe to grind. I was once offered snuff around 15 or 20 years ago. It did nothing for me and I had no desire ever to try it again.
I first raised this matter on 28th March this year when we were debating an identical Bill introduced by the other half of the Lib-Lab coalition—some might argue the junior half—and my noble friend Lord Patel replied that snuff is by no means totally harmless. Of course I defer to my noble friend's vastly superior knowledge in this field. I am prepared to accept that snuff is not totally harmless any more than whisky is totally harmless. Like so much else, excessive indulgence is much more dangerous than moderate indulgence.
However, research undertaken 20-odd years ago by Russell, Jarvis and Feyerabend, which was funded by the Medical Research Council and the results of which were published in the Lancet of 1st March 1980, pointed out that,
"Snuffing has two major advantages … Firstly there are no products of combustion such as tar, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen. Secondly it cannot be inhaled into the lungs, which eliminates any risk of lung cancer".
It pointed out that snuff does not contaminate the atmosphere, which is good news for those who take passive smoking claims seriously. It concluded by saying,
"Snuff could save more lives and avoid more ill-health than any other preventive measure likely to be available to developed nations well into the 21st" century".
I urge the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the Government to study those findings with the greatest care.
Two sorts of people would benefit from Amendment No. 5. The first are habitual snufftakers—a fairly small number of people I would guess.

813
The second would be a much larger group consisting of people with a severe nicotine addiction which they simply cannot shake off and who want to partake of nicotine in a less harmful way than by drawing tobacco smoke into their lungs. That is what the eminent medical men meant when they claimed that,
"Snuff could save more lives and avoid more ill-health than any other preventive measure likely to be available to developed nations well into the 21st' century".
I beg to move.
The Earl of Liverpool: The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the research carried out by Russell, Jarvis and Feyerabend, published in the Lancet on 1st March 1980. I listened to the extract he quoted but believe I am right in saying that he missed out one section of the article in which I am particularly interested and pray in aid of this amendment. I refer to the section which says,
"Switching from cigarettes to snuff could have enormous health benefits".
Snuff is not an anti-social product. It does not pollute the atmosphere, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said. Therefore I support this amendment.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I rise to respond to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that snuff be defined or that tobacco products which are sniffed should be excluded from the Bill. The Government accept that nasal snuff, although not as harmful as some other tobacco products, can damage health. The connection between snuff taking and cancers of the nose has been suspected for some time. Snuff contains nicotine and its continued use can lead to physiological dependence.
Snuff taking is not a major health problem in the UK at present, mainly because it is such a minority pursuit. That is where there may be difficulty with the medical statistics. Because so few people take snuff and because relatively few people die of cancers to the nasal cavity—some 400 per year—it will never be easy to make a strong statistical correlation. We say "relatively few". Four hundred people dying each year in other contexts—as a result of a train crash, for example—would be seen as a scandal.
Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The Bill in no way inhibits habitual snuff takers who wish to take snuff. They can do so; that is their choice. Similarly the Bill in no way inhibits or prohibits people who currently smoke cigarettes from transferring to snuff; they can do so. However, the view of the Government when they first drafted the legislation, now, sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, before the House again, is that it was sensible to include sniffing in that way. That is not only because, in the opinion of the Government, there seemed to be evidence of an association with cancers, but also because it is conceivable that new tobacco products could be developed and marketed in the
814
future. We would not want to be in a position where the Act then had to be amended to ensure that such products were also covered.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should also clarify that Clause 6 of the Bill gives an exemption for the advertising of snuff and other products within specialist tobacconist shops. However, we do not believe it right to go further. Therefore, it is the view of the Government that the amendment should be rejected.
Lord Clement-Jones: I confess that I have not seen any snuff advertisements recently. I accept that there is no such thing as "passive sniffing"; at least, I suspect not. The Minister put the medical case, which is clearly relative to smoking. It is not as dangerous, but, as he explained, it has its own dangers. Therefore, there is a health risk. The wider policy aspect is also of great importance. We do not want legislation which could be exploited by the tobacco companies using, for instance, a cigarette brand for snuff, or something of that sort, which would exploit the brand by the back door. I am convinced that snuff should be included within the ambit of the Bill and shall not accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: Before I decide what to do, perhaps I may seek clarification from the Minister. He stated that 400 people die from nasal cancer each year. Does he mean that 400 people die each year from nasal cancer as a result of taking snuff or did he mean 400 people in total?
Lord Filkin: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for seeking clarification. I sought to say that 400 people per year die of cancers to the nasal cavity. I was not saying that 400 people die each year from nasal cancer as a result of taking snuff.
Lord Lucas: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would be prepared to write to me with a copy of the scientific papers showing the link between snuff taking and cancer?
Lord Filkin: I shall be glad to do so.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification and to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for seeking further and necessary clarification before the next stage of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, for his support. He is right; I should have emphasised the passage from the scientific report stating that switching from cigarettes to snuff could have enormous health benefits. That is the nub of the matter. We are encouraging people to switch from something which is quite dangerous to something much less dangerous. The noble Lord talked about physiological addiction. However, we are talking of people who are already physiologically addicted to nicotine. Surely, it would be beneficial if they were to switch from cigarette smoking to snuff.
However, I suspect that neither the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, nor the Government have yet had a chance to study in depth the 1980 Lancet report.

815
As I stated in my introduction, I invite them to do so. We may return to this matter at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Naseby Lord Naseby moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert "but does not include a product which is made partly of tobacco (or any of its constituents) and is intended to assist a consumer of tobacco products to stop or reduce his use of such products"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 6 is of serious intent and importance. I am conscious that the Government and their predecessors, through the NHS initially and now more widely, have a number of campaigns to assist people who smoke to quit. That involve products which are placed on the skin, inhaled, chewed, and sucked. There is now even a lozenge on the market.
Most of those products contain nicotine. The intention is that they are used at a gradually diminishing strength or frequency to help smokers to be weaned off their habit. Nicotine is also the most significant component of tobacco. While we would not promote tobacco today if we had the choice, nevertheless it was originally used medicinally. It is interesting that it is suggested that cannabis can also be used medicinally. Nicotine is mainly produced today commercially from tobacco and not by synthesising a chemical.
It is not at all clear, to me at any rate, that nicotine is not a product consisting "wholly or partly of tobacco". If it is to be regarded as being a product consisting "wholly or partly of tobacco", certain nicotine replacement therapy products would fall within the prohibitions within the Bill. When the Bill was considered in the last Parliament in another place, the Minister for Public Health stated,
"[The Government's] legal advice is that nicotine replacement therapy is not covered by the Bill and by the definition in the clause. They are treated not as tobacco products, but as nicotine products".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 30/1/01; col. 28.]
That seemed clear at that time. The Minister stated that it was therefore not necessary to make special provision to exclude nicotine replacement therapy products from the Bill. They were products licensed under the Medicines Act and did not use tobacco or any part of tobacco. The latter part is not quite correct, but certainly they are licensed under the Medicines Act.
It has been brought to my knowledge that there is not a uniformity of opinion in the outside world that that statement is correct. Rather than leave matters in doubt—I do not think that the promoter of the Bill wants these products to be encompassed—it should be made clear that such products are excluded from the Bill. I have not tabled an amendment at this time, although I shall do so if the promoter is unable to. I am
816
looking to him to respond along the lines that products which are licensed under the Medicines Act would be exempt.
The Earl of Erroll: Having listened to the response to the previous amendment, it seems that the purpose of the Bill is to include any product which contains nicotine; and snuff is a tobacco derivative. Having listened also to the response about the letterheads which may or may not be held to be advertising, it seems that the Bill is turning into a lawyer's dream in which everything will be determined by the courts; it is all up in the air. At the end of the day the "small person", such as me, will not be able to defend himself because he cannot afford to do so and the big companies may or may not decide to fight it out in Court.
I would have thought that trying to help people to be weaned off their nicotine dependency was a good thing. Therefore, the amendment is a good thing. Otherwise, I am sure that such products will be caught by the Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Lord. Cigarettes, pipe tobacco and hand-rolling tobacco, to name but three, have something in common. Not only do they have nicotine in common, they also have tar in common. That is why the level of tar in a cigarette must by law be printed on a cigarette packet. Therefore, to restrict our definitions to nicotine would be a great mistake.
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps when responding to the amendment, the Minister or the promoter of the Bill could say from where the nicotine that is used in patches, lozenges or other products which are designed to help people give up their nicotine addiction is obtained.
Lord Filkin: The debate on Amendment No. 6 hinges around the difference between nicotine and tobacco. While I have sympathy with the reason for promoting the amendment, I do not believe that the problem the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, seeks to prevent exists.
The amendment as proposed would exclude from the Bill any product which contains tobacco and is used as an anti-smoking treatment. We are not at present aware of any such product on the market. However, the definition of a tobacco product in the Bill is one consisting wholly or partly of tobacco. That definition means that products which contain a tobacco constituent, such as nicotine, are not covered by the Bill.
There are a number of smoking cessation products on the market at present whose purpose is to help wean smokers off their addiction to nicotine. All those products contain nicotine but they do not contain tobacco. There is therefore no danger that the Bill will prohibit the advertisement of nicotine replacement

817
therapies. I note the noble Lord's question about the source of nicotine and I shall seek to provide written advice on that subsequently.
Lord Lucas: I found the Minister's reply an interesting attempt at a definition; that because the product contains nicotine which comes from tobacco it does not contain tobacco. Will the Minister therefore say that bread does not contain wheat because it contains only flour, which is part of the wheat?
Lord Filkin: I sought to spare the Committee a fuller explanation but I shall offer to give one now. If there were to be legislation affecting wine, which defined a wine product as one consisting wholly or partly of wine, grapes would not be within the ambit of that definition. Although grapes can be a constituent of wine, wine is not a constituent of grapes. In the same way, tobacco consists in part of nicotine, but nicotine does not consist of tobacco.
Lord Clement-Jones: I suspect that the Bishops will be more in tune with the bread and wine side of the argument but I must confess that I was wholly taken with the Minister's exposition. I am satisfied that nicotine replacement products are not covered by the Bill's advertising provisions.
I must respond instantly to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. The Bill is not a lawyer's dream but it is certainly my dream, and I am a lawyer, to get it through. However, I do not believe that it will be extremely difficult in legal terms. Most of the terms used in the Bill are fairly straightforward of interpretation. The noble Earl spoke about the small person afflicted by the Bill. We know very well who is the subject of the Bill; it is the extremely large tobacco companies with huge market capitalisations. They are perfectly able to look after themselves and can employ—
The Earl of Erroll: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out that distributors and others are covered by the Bill. However, the Committee might find that attacks could be made on small businesses, too. It might be perceived as easier to attack indirectly, which has previously been the case in other areas.
Lord Clement-Jones: There are trade associations for that kind of activity and I am certain that the tobacco companies will as far as possible ensure that their means of distribution are kept open.
The Minister gave the lie to the amendment. If there were a genuine point about nicotine replacement products there would be a problem, but because the Bill is framed in terms of tobacco we do not need to have an exception in respect of products licensed under the Medicines Act, or whatever is the correct phraseology. In the circumstances, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
Lord Naseby: I am grateful to those who have taken part in the debate, in particular the noble Earl, Lord
818
Erroll. The promoter of the Bill, in casting aside the noble Earl's points, has been a little too flippant. When he says, for instance, that the means of distribution will be kept open at any cost, the suggestion is that he would like to close down every form of distribution. If that is his wish, perhaps he would be bold enough to say so openly.
I must also reflect on the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, because I remember the Town and Country Planning Act. Someone in Parliament suggested that what would happen in terms of challenging advertisements was crystal clear. It never was crystal clear; it never became crystal clear; and the legislation has been persistently challenged.
My Amendment No. 6 was not as vague as the promoters suggest; as I said, it was specific in relation to the Medicines Act. I am grateful to the Minister for making it clear that no product that is or will be available—"will be" is equally important as "is"—which is designed to help people to be weaned of tobacco will be in any way affected by the Bill. That is a most important point and not one to be considered as flippant. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1. line 7, at end insert—
"( ) For the avoidance of doubt, in this Act 'promotion' does not include a display of tobacco products."
The noble Lord said: There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who has been listening to the debate that the purpose of the Bill is to prohibit the advertising of tobacco products. Nothing more and nothing less. However injurious to health some of those may be—and obviously I am not now thinking of snuff—they are not, as far as I can gather by remarks made by Ministers here and in another place—to be banned at the point of sale. Unfortunately, I believe that by using such a wide definition of advertising they could be. Perhaps I may say in passing that Members of the Committee will be delighted that this is the last of a series of amendments which investigates the meaning of various words.
On and off for the past 30 years, I have been engaged in selling, so I come from a different angle from my noble friend Lord Naseby. That activity has included printing catalogues—obviously an "advertisement", which the Notes on Clauses describe as having its natural meaning. We shall discuss that later. However, I have no idea what "promotion" means. When in the course of business I take my plants to a flower show and put them on display there may be two reasons. If my display is of items which are not currently available but have to be ordered for future delivery, it would constitute promotion of my products in a general sense and, more germanely to today's discussion, an advertisement, too.
If, on the other hand, the display is of items which can be taken away then and there, it is in the nature of a shop. It could be argued in the broadest sense that I

819
am advertising my wares just as much as in a catalogue or on the website or, as in the first case, for future sales. I am most certainly promoting them. But if I do not promote them, I cannot sell them and I go out of business.
There is no difference between what I have been doing with plants and what the corner shop does with cigarettes and other tobacco products. I trust and believe that that can be made clear in the regulations, but it is, I hope, common ground that regulations should normally be circumscribed, as they are in Clause 4(2). However, I do not believe that that is the appropriate place in the Bill for the amendment. The Bill should state at the beginning what it does and does not cover and in that connection I want to congratulate the drafters of the Bill on not putting the definitions clause towards the end where we so often find it in legislation. The matter should be clear and I hope that I have shown the Committee that it is not.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said earlier that displays set out in a particular way—for example, in the form of a chevron or whatever—would be advertising. Yes, it would. However, that would be the effect of the advertisement, not the promotion of the product. I do not believe that that is a useful argument to use on this occasion. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll: I rise to support this amendment which again clarifies the situation. Having heard the Minister refer earlier to a chevron, this is a valid point. Products should be visible so that one knows what is being sold; otherwise, it is very awkward. One does not seek necessarily to drive tobacco under the counter as if it is an illegal substance. Tobacco should still be available to members of the public to be bought legally. Therefore, I do not see a problem here. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this is concerned with the distribution of tobacco which will, I am sure, be protected by the tobacco companies. The point that I made previously, which the noble Lord probably appreciates, was to do with the distribution of advertising materials electronically, in printed form and so on. Tobacco companies would not be particularly interested in investing in such advertising and distribution of printed and electronic material. That was the reason I appreciated the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is not the intention of the Government to drive cigarette retailing under the counter; nor that the product should be banned at the point of sale. In general the Government are happy with the way in which tobacco products are displayed in shops. We do not want unnecessarily to increase the burdens on small businesses; nor do we expect any significant change in the way in which tobacco products are commonly displayed in gantries either in the corner shop or supermarket. I believe the noble Lord agrees that it would be possible to abuse that, and that is why we have the contingent ability to bring forward regulations if we discover that there is a need to plug loopholes. The intention is that this matter would be dealt with by affirmative regulations. We
820
believe that we have achieved the right balance and that essentially the kinds of gantry displays that can be seen in many tobacco retailers are perfectly all right.
Lord Clement-Jones: I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has achieved his purpose in this probing amendment; namely, to see what is intended under Clause 8. The Minister has been very helpful in making the position entirely clear. The question is whether there is future abuse. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, would admit that, if suddenly there was a succession of flashing neon signs and other such abuse of display, that would be a far cry from the matter not being under the counter; it would be demonstrating tobacco products for all the world to see in the manner of advertising. Effectively, Clause 8 is designed to ensure that display does not turn into advertising. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, was perhaps more solicitous of smaller distributors. However. all of them have their own trade associations and I am sure that there will be very clear conduct by them to make sure that they do not push the Government into producing regulations in this area. If they behave responsibly, there is no reason that they should be prejudiced by Clause 8. In those circumstances, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am not in the least surprised that it is not accepted; it was not intended to be in the first place. I begin to gain the impression that a good deal of the responses of Ministers hinge on the regulations which could be made in certain circumstances. I recall that during Committee stage of this Bill in another place Ministers said that they were working on draft regulations and would be able to produce them by the end of the debate on the Bill. As far as I know, that never happened. It would be extremely useful both to the Committee and, at later stages, the whole House if noble Lords could have some idea in writing of what the various regulations would be likely to say.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I shall endeavour to be helpful. However, in relation to regulations on displays, is not the point that in a sense this is a preventative clause to give us power in future to produce regulations if there is evidence that the current position, for example on gantries, is being abused in any way? It may be difficult to anticipate what exactly would be in those particular regulations. The safeguard is that they are affirmative regulations.
Lord Skelmersdale: I accept that. But one cannot take an amendment of this kind, which will be withdrawn, in isolation. The clause goes on to say,
"whose effect is to do so".
The flashing gantry referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, obviously would have that effect. I do not believe that the courts would be disabused of that answer. I am grateful for the Minister's comments on these regulations, which may or may not be required. I do not believe that they will ever need to be made, simply because of Clause 1 (b) of

821
the addendum, as it were, to the definition of "tobacco advertisement". Be that as it may, I shall look at what the Minister says about other regulations during the course of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Prohibition of tobacco advertising]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 9, after "business" insert "knowingly"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 9 is the first of a series of amendments that I have tabled which deals with the reversal of the burden of proof. I hope that I shall do so well with this amendment that I do not need to move future amendments, or, if I do, that I can speak to them only briefly. We went some way down this route at Second Reading—I regret that I was unable to be present—when towards the end of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, dealt with this subject:
"In effect, the defendant need raise only 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".—[Official Report, 2/11/01; col. 1709.]
That is a fair comment as far as it goes. The reversal of the burden of proof is not that common and, thankfully, in this country it is indulged in only infrequently. The Minister was kind enough to answer a Question for Written Answer in which he produced 10 examples in the past 15 years where it had been done in individual provisions of other Acts. It places on the defence a burden which should normally be on the prosecution. Although the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was correct to say that the burden could be cast back on the prosecution, that is only half right. It is no good my saying in defence of an allegation under this Bill that it was a tobacco advertisement but I never looked and so I did not know. The reversal of the burden of proof places on the defendant an obligation of care. He must do what is reasonably necessary to put himself in a position where he can reasonably deny that he knew, or did not suspect, that something was a tobacco advertisement. He cannot just deny it. Otherwise, there would be very little point in the reversal of the burden of proof. It is not such a weak device.
Looking at some other offences that are subject to the reversal of the burden of proof, running through them is this thread that the defendant must have done whatever is reasonably sufficient to put himself in the position where he can present a reasonable defence of the absolute offence with which he is charged. It is not that easy to escape from.
Therefore, the question that arises is whether it is reasonable to place on the persons referred to in the subsections the obligation to put themselves in a position where they can mount a defence against the
822
absolute offence with which the Bill burdens them. In Clause 2(1), to which the amendment refers, I suspect that the answer is yes. That is probably the weakest of the amendments which I have tabled. It is reasonable to ask someone in the business of publishing to have care to make sure that they are not publishing a tobacco advertisement. That person should look through what is submitted to his newspaper or magazine to make sure that he is not only not publishing a tobacco advertisement but anything which might have the effect of being one.
None the less, the basic structure is there in the Bill. What we must agree is whether it is right to place that duty of care on the defendant rather than a duty of proof of intent on the prosecution. While I beg leave to move the amendment, it is not the one that I want to push.
1 pm.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Lord sits down, he said that it was a general argument that he put forward under this rubric but that it applied to all his other amendments. I was hoping that he would give an example—he is very good at that—of a case that may trouble us. All he did was to give an example the other way around of a case that would not remotely trouble us. In other words, I have been trying to follow what fear he has. Can the noble Lord give an example of someone who perfectly innocently—I gather not in terms of an ordinary advertisement—promotes cigarette smoking? Would it be someone, say, in a discussion on television who was simply saying, "Oh, well, I am well aware of the fact that people enjoy smoking"? Is that what he has in mind? Would they have to say, "Well, I was not knowingly promoting smoking at that point"? If that is his fear, again to use my favourite word, it is preposterous.
Lord Lucas: I am troubled by the fact that I have been thinking about this matter since I tabled the amendments. I probably would not have chosen this amendment to start with. My next amendment refers to Clause 2(2). I have some particular concerns about it. That gets at someone who prints an advertisement. If the noble Lord has ever been into a print shop engaged in printing a magazine, all that is being checked is that the colour registration is right. The stuff comes in through one door, is put through an immense industrial process, and goes out through the other. The process does not and should not involve checking whether or not they are printing a tobacco advertisement or indeed one for anything else. It is not their business to do that. It is just a print shop.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord is now being extremely helpful. He is saying that one is in the printing business but one has no interest or concern about what is being printed or—specifically within the context of the Bill—no interest in the fact that it might be, first, an advertisement, and, secondly, an advertisement for

823
tobacco products. That is so far-fetched that I find it very difficult to see why we are even debating an amendment to a serious Bill of this kind in those terms.
Lord Lucas: The reason is that the Bill specifically makes it an offence to print tobacco advertisements. It is an absolute offence. In order to escape from that offence one has to prove that one did not know and had no reason to suspect that it was a tobacco advertisement. That is not just a matter of saying, "I didn't look". I have been to a couple of barristers practising criminal law on this matter. The law is well established in relation to this absolute offence and conditional defence. One has to show that one took proper care and reasonable precautions to make sure that one was not printing a tobacco advertisement. So the Bill as it stands is placing on the printers the requirement that they must look at everything they print to make sure that it is not a tobacco advertisement. That I find ridiculous.
Lord Peston: I do not want to prolong this matter. I am not an expert on printing. But if, for example, what was being printed was pornographic, is the noble Lord saying that one says, "Well, I just print. I don't look at words or pictures"? One would say the same if the material was defamatory or contained racist matters. I do not understand the noble Lord's conception. He uses printing as an example, arguing that the printing business somehow needs special treatment because it is never concerned about what it prints but is only concerned about typefaces and what it looks like and so on. This is so far-fetched and there are so many other important issues that we have to debate that I wonder why he presses the matter. I equally wonder why I bother to interrupt. But that is another matter.
Lord Lucas: We can continue the discussion after the amendment has been moved. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps I may speak in support of the amendment of my noble friend and possibly assist the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The issue is about where the burden of proof in these offences lies. It is a crucial matter. In relation to Clause 2(1), the offence, as drafted, simply requires the prosecution to prove that there is a tobacco advertisement and that it has been published. Those are relatively easy matters for the prosecution to prove. They must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Let us return to the discussion on earlier amendments where we demonstrated a lack of clarity about what a tobacco advertisement is. It is quite possible that a company did not know it was publishing a tobacco advertisement which was subsequently brought within the definition of advertisement in the course of a case. It is quite possible to publish a tobacco advertisement without knowing it was one.
The issue is not that there are not defences under the Act, but how the burden of proof works, as my noble friend Lord Lucas tried to explain. It is relatively
824
straightforward for the prosecution to prove factual matters beyond reasonable doubt. It is much more difficult to prove as a defence that one did not know something, or that one could not reasonably have seen something, because proving a negative is, if not logically impossible, actually an extremely difficult thing to do. So the issues that arise here are that the burdens are being unnaturally reversed in this particular case. As my noble friend pointed out, it is not the normal formulation that one creates an absolute offence and then throws the burden back on to the defendant to prove that he did not know or did not do something. It is normally the other way around. That is why it is right for my noble friend to have tabled these and the other amendments which focus on this very specific point.
Lord Monson: Can the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, confirm that he intends to move Amendment No. 10 separately from Amendment No. 9? The amendments are not grouped together. The case for Amendment No. 10 seems to be overwhelming, the case for Amendment No. 9 less so.
Lord Lucas: The noble Lord is quite right. We should be paying attention to Amendment No. 10. What I was hoping to establish and to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was the nature and effect of the reversal of the burden of proof. If we can come to some agreement on that and understand how the Bill will operate in practice it will be a good deal easier to get through the many amendments of mine and those tabled by other noble Lords which address the consequences of the fact that the burden of proof has been reversed in the Bill.
Pace the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I should like to remain as theoretical as possible on the amendment because I do not have a practical point to make. We can come to the practical point about printers on the next amendment. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, say because I suspect that I may need to rejoin battle. With this amendment I should like to establish the principles on which we address all future amendments on the subject.
The Earl of Erroll: I thought the noble Lord was responding to just that one point made by my noble friend. I want to make a point about printers and absolute offences.
Lord Lucas: I shall be moving that amendment.
The Earl of Erroll: A large firm of printers which is just churning work through is not going to read all the pages because that is done elsewhere. A print shop receives electronic copy. It will not be checked or anything like that because that is the responsibility of the person providing the copy. It will go through the machines and people will check that the print quality is all right. The material will be bound, bundled and possibly posted straight out without any human

825
interference. It is purely a mechanical process. Printers are not publishers and they are not the people who check the content. That is a very valid general point.
I turn now to the absolute offence. I shall give an example. Many years ago when some of the first cannabis smoking legislation was introduced, it became an absolute offence to own a property on which cannabis was smoked or drugs were taken. A woman who lived in Spain owned a property in Oxford. Agents let the property to student tenants. The agents maintained the property which the woman never visited. At some point the police arrested the students for taking drugs.
As it was an absolute offence to own property on which drugs were taken, the woman was prosecuted. As a result I believe that the law was changed because it was felt to be so unfair. But there was no defence against the charge even though the woman could not possibly have known that drug taking was occurring. That is the nature of absolute offences. I do not like them and have objected to them before in relation to the wearing of riding helmets. There was the same kind of problem. There are no defences. I shall be very interested to hear the response to this amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I had wondered why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, had not grouped these amendments. Now we discover that he wishes to hear the first response and then have another try. In essence, a balance is being drawn in the Bill in a number of places. It seeks to be quite vigorous and tough in relation to tobacco advertising, which is absolutely right. It also seeks to be fair and to avoid loopholes. I believe that anyone who has considered the discussions on tobacco advertising and some of the papers which have leaked from the tobacco industry will recognise that the question of loopholes is very important.
If one looks at the effect of the noble Lord's amendment one sees the problem. It could allow an "ostrich" type defence for someone who closes their eyes to the likelihood that he or she is involved with a tobacco advertisement. But there are sufficient safeguards. The noble Lord is right to refer to one of the defences in Clause 5(2) which states that it is a defence for a person who could not reasonably have foreseen the effect of the advertisement. The noble Lord referred to a list of 10 Acts which were included in a Written Answer. My understanding is that there are many other Acts which contain similar provisions.
The fact is that a criminal prosecution has to establish the guilt of the individual beyond reasonable doubt. It is a high standard of proof. The obligation means proving not only all the ingredients of the offence, but also negative any defence put forward. So in effect all a defendant need do is to prove the ingredients of one of the defences on the balance of probabilities which the prosecution must rebut. If it cannot do so, the prosecution will not have discharged the burden of proving the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. On that basis the accused will undoubtedly be acquitted.
826
I believe that the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, have the balance right in setting out what are the exact provisions under which a person may be prosecuted, but also setting out a number of targeted defences. I do not believe that that is unreasonable.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: In essence we are arguing whether the treatment under the Bill of a person in those circumstances is proportionate to the problem we are trying to remedy. I believe that the language used in changing the burden of proof is not particularly helpful in these circumstances. I do not believe that it is accurate because the defences under Clause 5 are not the same as shifting the burden of proof. That is because of the way in which the onus can revert if an arguable case for such defences is made. That is a very important point.
Let us look at some of the other Acts that have used a very similar type of offence followed by the defences available. I refer to the Food Safety Act, the Consumer Protection Act, the Children Act, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, obviously has had notes on all those Acts which use that particular technique. The issue is policy. The Minister has explained the legal way in which it operates in court. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said it was a question of how a person, under the provisions of Clause 1 and so forth, will be able to present a reasonable defence.
I was taken by the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke about the "ostrich" aspects of the matter. It is not good enough for someone to close their eyes as to whether there is an advertisement in whatever it is they are producing, be it a newspaper or print material. The Bill goes further because if it is the standard practice of a printer to print pornography, racist material or smoking advertisements without checking the content then he may, even in those circumstances, have a defence because he did not know and had no reason to suspect. I suspect that a canny QC would say, "It is not the practice of the print industry to look at anything they print. They only look at the colour separations, your Honour". That is a possible defence.
The Earl of Erroll: He may not be able to afford a QC!
Lord Clement-Jones: That may be so, but there are some jolly canny younger barristers as well! In all the circumstances I believe that the provisions we have in the Bill are proportionate and that those canny younger barristers will be defending the printer if that is needed. I believe it is shocking if they do not look at their material, but if that is the custom of the trade they will be defended perfectly adequately.
I urge the noble Lord not only to withdraw the amendment but also those which apply to printers, distributors, newspapers or coupons and all the various aspects. We are having an important debate. The question is whether we can save 3,000 lives a year

827
and if that is the case, it is worth having a Bill which has provisions of this kind with very reasonable defences available. My answer and that of the Minister is clearly yes.
Lord Lucas: I am very grateful to both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I believe that we have reached agreement on the format of absolute offence and defence. In other words, the Bill puts a duty of care on the potential defendant to make sure that he or she is not committing an offence. I see both noble Lords nodding. I hoped that we would agree on it and I am content to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Prohibition of tobacco advertising]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 9, after "business" insert "knowingly"
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 10, we come on to the particular. We have two possible scenarios. Someone has printed a tobacco advertisement. It has a nice glossy picture and happened to incorporate in some part of it a piece of silk material with a cut in it, though it was not obvious that it was in any way a tobacco advertisement, but might be taken to be that. We can either have an offence where the prosecution has to prove that the printer did this knowingly, or one where the printer has to prove that he did not know and had no reason to suspect the content. In doing that, he will have to prove that he had systems, which meant that he had to look at every single thing he was printing with a view to deciding whether it was or might constitute or have the effect of a tobacco advertisement.
It seems to me that the process of printing, whether in-house as part of a publishing operation or as part of a separate operation, is not something where that burden of care should be placed. There is no reason why a printer should have to go through every page of what is printed. If they knew they were printing tobacco advertisements or indeed racist material, as doubtless many printers of racist material would do, it ought to be possible for the prosecution to prove it. So I do not mind an ordinary offence, a "knowingly" offence, against a printer. If he is involved in a conspiracy to produce a tobacco advertisement—a truly heinous crime—then he should be strung up for it! But I do not see why an ordinary printer, going about his ordinary job of just taking in a disk, should be penalised. The printer does not check what is in it: he just gives me back a book and he is concerned over how the print appears on the page—if it is square on the page and if the pages do not fall out when you hold the book up by its cover. That is about the limit of it.
There is absolutely no reason why he should check it, for instance, for libel. A book that I publish might well contain a libel, but why should the printer be liable? He is not meant to check it for libel. It is not an absolute offence. If he knew it was a libel, fair enough; but otherwise why should he have to go through every page of it to check that I am not libelling some school or some headmaster. It seems to me that the burden of
828
care should not be on the printer, qua being a printer. If the prosecution can prove that he knew, fair enough; otherwise I believe the printer should escape liability under the Bill.
The same should apply to a distributor. I think of the ordinary corner shop selling magazines and one of those magazines contains a tobacco advertisement. Is it being suggested that every single corner magazine shop has to go through every edition of every magazine on its shelves to make sure that it does not contain a tobacco advertisement? That is what the Bill provides at the moment. It imposes a duty on these people who are far too far down the chain to be of any real significance in checking. I really do not think that should be the case. It is fair enough to bring in the middle people—those who devise an advertisement—because they are involved in the intellectual process of putting an advertisement together. I believe they ought to share the publisher's liability under Clause 2(1). But I do not believe that the two other classes of person should have this duty of care imposed on them. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I support the amendment and in fact would go a little further than the noble Lord. Lord Lucas, and say that I think the devisers ought to be included as well. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said it would be shocking if publishers were not looking through their material. Well, really! How can publishers go through every single page of everything they publish in the course of a year, a month or a day? It is nonsensical. I have a particular interest in this issue in that the brother of one of my daughters-in-law, who runs a printing firm in Nairobi, was thrown into prison because he printed some election material for the opposition party which contained something that offended either the ruling party or President Moi: I am not sure which. But of course he did not write the material, he did not edit it or draft it: he simply printed it. I am not even sure whether it was in English or Swahili, although he does speak some of the latter. This has some relevance in this country because of course printers inevitably print a lot of foreign language material as we are home for members of the EU and the wider world. The man to whom I referred was eventually released—I am glad to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, helped over the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, dealt adequately with distributors and whether the Bill would apply to a newspaper delivery boy, who, technically speaking, would be a distributor.
As for devising, I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has it wrong. A copywriter would be devising advertisements, would he not? Some years ago I worked in a London advertising agency. If a London copywriter drafts advertisements which he knows are to be published in the United States, Australia, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, which are not part of the United Kingdom, how is he to know if subsequently those advertisements appear in a United Kingdom publication? I believe that the word "devise" should certainly be included. This is an important amendment and it is a pity that it has coincided with

829
the lunch-hour, so to speak. If the noble Lord does not feel it right to press it further today, I hope he will certainly do so at a later stage.
The Earl of Erroll: This is an extremely important issue. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has great faith in trade associations. I am sorry to say that I do not. They are not all wealthy and if you have the great weight of some very expensive QCs on one side and the other side cannot afford nearly such expensive people, sometimes justice is not done. It is a heavy burden for a small company with few resources to attack a large company with large resources.
That places yet another burden on a small business. Suddenly it needs to have more people to do all the reading, to show that it did show care.
We do not need to impose more burdens on small businesses. That is the obvious point for certain people who feel strongly that these things should be stopped at that end, because it is the soft under-belly. The provision could cause many problems for certain small traders. I support this amendment.
Lord Peston: I rise partly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, because I am learning something about the printing trade these days and its relationship to corporate responsibility. His amendment leads to a request which may be relevant to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to which we shall come shortly. In Clause 2(2) there appear the words,
"which is published in the United Kingdom".
In normal English I read that to mean a tobacco advertisement which is published in the United Kingdom. Therefore I ask my noble friend the Minister this question. As producing cigarettes in the United Kingdom is still a legitimate business, to my regret, and British tobacco companies can still go around killing people abroad if they cannot kill enough in this country, can I assume that they can still do all their advertising work here although it cannot be published in the United Kingdom? Does that get over part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, as to who is responsible? Am I right in assuming that the expression "which is published in the United Kingdom" has real meaning and limits the clause to what happens in the United Kingdom even though the work may happen in the United Kingdom?
Lord Skelmersdale: I do not think that this has anything to do with electronic media. We have not yet reached the parts of the Bill that deal with electronic media, which are scattered willy-nilly throughout the legislation. One of my objectives is to bring them together in due course, but not while we debate amendments in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has raised a point which I had forgotten about since it was last discussed in your Lordships' House some two years ago on another Bill; namely, where material is published. Newspapers and periodicals are often published abroad because it is cheaper to do so. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in wishing to know whether
830
this seeks an intended exclusion for those kinds of magazines, periodicals and so forth. If that is the case, then it is wrong.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We have strayed a little from the thrust of the noble Lord's amendment. In all legislation, we come to one issue that we did not think would be explored to any great extent, but then many happy hours are spent discussing it. I realise that the organisation of the printing trade will exercise noble Lords over a considerable time. Having been both a publisher and a printer for a trade association—I add that comment for the noble Earl, Lord Erroll—I can tell the Committee that I always looked very carefully at what was being published and printed. In general, one would always expect printers to put in place systems for protecting themselves in the course of their business. That would mean instituting checks on the material that they print. However, no doubt we shall learn a great deal more about the printing trade as we progress through the legislation.
I also accept that we need to be proportionate as regards burdens that are placed on small businesses. Through better regulatory procedures, the Government have sought to ensure that those burdens are reduced. I know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been particularly forceful in ensuring that each government department puts in place a process for reviewing carefully how the regulatory burden can be reduced. Nevertheless, the tobacco companies are large and well able to look after themselves and their own.
At all times when considering the Bill, we need to strike a balance between the absolute necessity of ensuring that tobacco advertising is banned and being careful to check that no loopholes are introduced. I repeat, the history of the behaviour of the tobacco industry reveals that it is extremely clever at finding loopholes. Given that, I believe that the construction of the Bill, with targeted defences in place, is the right way to progress. It is right that the provisions should apply as much to printers as they do to the other parties involved in the advertising and promotion of tobacco.
The defence contained in Clause 5(1),
"that he did not know, and had no reason to suspect",
that the advertisement was to be used to promote a tobacco product is strong. It is clear that in a criminal court it would be a question of fact whether the accused had reason to suspect. None the less, the onus of proof would be put on the prosecution if the defence raised an arguable point.
I was interested in the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he referred to the circumstances of a corner shop proprietor. Could that proprietor reasonably be expected to look through every page of all the publications displayed in his shop? In that case, the defence in Clause 5(7); namely,
"that he did not know, and had no reason to suspect",

831
holds good. I do not think that such a proprietor would be expected as a matter of routine to check through all the publications on sale in his shop. However, if it was pointed out to the proprietor that a tobacco advertisement was included in a publication, then he would have a responsibility to do something about it.
I suspect that there will be disagreement across the Committee on this matter. However, I believe that the construct of the Bill is right and strikes a fair balance. The targeted defences are robust and the prosecution would have to work hard to secure a conviction.
The Earl of Erroll: Before the noble Lord sits down, on reading the clauses in the Bill I should like to raise a point as regards the difference between publishing material and printing it. I believe that there is rather a muddle here. Sometimes we refer to printing and sometimes we refer to publishing. The publisher of material reads and checks it, but does not imprint it on to paper. A printer may well not be involved in any way in the editorial process. In a particular case, I am not sure whether the Bill would seek to punish the publisher or the printer.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I should apologise because I believe that my comment to the effect that I have been both a publisher and a printer may have confused the Committee. Of course I accept that the task of publishing material is different from that of printing it, although sometimes one person may undertake both tasks. However, the point I wish to stress is that I do not think that the constraints being placed on printers by the provisions of the Bill are unreasonable.
Lord Clement-Jones: Oppressive on the small printer, or proportionate—that is the question. I agree that this is a serious issue. I freely admit that my own printing credentials are not of the highest: I have a duplicator in my basement. However, I understand the issues being raised in regard to the provision.
Having been a libel lawyer, I am slightly baffled as to why it is believed that the constraint imposed by the Bill is in some way novel for those involved in printing material. As soon as it is made clear that printed material has been communicated to someone else, and it transpires that the material is defamatory, a printer must demonstrate that he has put in place certain defences, otherwise he would be brought before the civil courts on a charge of libel. In those circumstances, the test is rather more oppressive than simply that the prosecution must show beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of a criminal offence.
If printers do not check the content of the material they undertake to print, then they are making a serious mistake. Noble Lords will recall that one of the softest targets for Jimmy Goldsmith and others who in the past have sued Private Eye has been Pressdram, the printers of the magazine. Printers have been well aware of their duties for many years; probably for the past 300 or 400 years. I stress that this is not a novel constraint. Suddenly to erect the word "knowingly" as
832
a totem for the purposes of the Bill and to declare that a small printer now has to face novel duties is quite wrong. We must be crystal clear about the ordinary duties of a printer. One would no more apologise for a printer who published pornographic material than one would for a printer who produced material that was racist in content.
I feel strongly that, because the constraint is not novel, it is perfectly appropriate that it should be included in the Bill. The defences laid down in Clause 5 confer on all parties proper redress. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the role of a "deviser". How could an advertisement promoting tobacco not "knowingly" be devised? Would it be done during a long sleep over the weekend? It is perfectly clear whether an advertisement has been devised. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has erected his argument on the back of the role of a printer, but it would be extremely difficult to erect it on the back of any of the other occupations set out in the Bill.
Lord Monson: Let us suppose that a draftsman is asked to create a design on a piece of silk, but that any wording to accompany the final design was to be undertaken by someone else. It then transpired that the piece of silk was to be used indirectly to advertise Silk Cut cigarettes. Would such an individual be in danger of being prosecuted under the provisions of the Bill because he had contributed indirectly towards an advertisement used to promote a tobacco product?
Lord Clement-Jones: Clause 5 provides plenty of comfort, even for a junior barrister employed by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. He would have a lengthy list of possibilities from which to choose. I suggest to noble Lords—including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who has made a perfectly proper case—that they should look through the defences. They will see that they are extremely wide in ambit.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may take him back to the discussion we had earlier about advertisements. We were trying to obtain clarity as to what is an advertisement. The noble Lord described that a printer may have to go through the whole copy in order to avoid the libel laws, but it is not easy to understand why that should apply if, for example, a printer is producing a letterhead which in some circumstances may not be a tobacco advertisement and from what I understood earlier in other circumstances could be a tobacco advertisement. Given the resistance of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the Minister to being specific about what is or is not an advertisement, we may be imposing potentially significant burdens on printers, distributors, publishers and devisers.
Lord Clement-Jones: I perhaps have more confidence in our judges than the noble Baroness. That is precisely the reason for having the ordinary meaning of the word "advertisement" in the Bill. If you have a very technical meaning, you should not expect a printer, a publisher, a deviser in his sleep, or whoever

833
else you choose as an example, to understand what is an advertisement. If they have to go through three schedules to the Bill in order to find out what is an advertisement, that is precisely why a specific definition would be wrong. We prefer the ordinary meaning, because if a judge is then faced with a printer who says, "That is what I understood an advertisement to be", as sure as not the judge will agree.
Lord Lucas: Let me start with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, did not address—that is, the one about the corner newsagent. I was interested when the Minister said that when a newsagent is told there is a tobacco advertisement in a magazine—and he opens it and he sees it—he should do something about it. That is what "knowingly" means. Once he has been told, he knows. Once someone says, "I told him", there is the proof that he knew what the prosecution wants. That is the offence for newsagents as I would like to see it. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, did not address the issue of newsagents at all.
Returning to the underlying principle of my amendment, why should people who do not have any part in the decision-making process—by way of creating, publishing, funding or in any other way taking executive decisions—in relation to an advertisement have a liability of care? I agree that if they take part knowingly they should commit an offence. But why should they go about their lives making sure that they do not commit an offence?
If someone chose to attack my printers for liability, my printers would have resort to their terms and conditions, which state that I would have to pay. That is fair enough because the attack would be a back-door way of getting at me. But here we have a criminal offence where the printer can be imprisoned for two years. That is not something the printers can get around by the transfer of liability or an insurance policy. It is much more serious than the mere transfer of a civil liability. We are dealing potentially with giving people or organisations criminal records and prison sentences. I just cannot see why. What kind of loophole would be created if printers were left out of the reversal of the burden of proof if we made it "knowingly" for printers?
I support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the question of "devise". Anyone who takes an active part in creating something should take care to know what it is they are creating. But on the issue of printing, my disk goes into the printers and its contents are on the machines half a day later. Printers do not have time to read the book. The whole process of printing would slow down if they had to read everything. The reading is done by the publisher; the responsibility is taken by the publisher. The sanction of the criminal law should lie on the people who take the decisions, who pay the money, who are making the investment in an advertisement. It should not lie on people who are merely performing a necessary process which follows on that, either the printer or, as has been said, the
834
newspaper boy, who would be a distributor under the Bill. Presumably he will have to read every newspaper he is delivering in order not to be liable for committing a criminal offence.
That is taking the matter to ridiculous extremes, but the criminal law should not even potentially attack those people because they are not playing a crucial part in the chain of creating a tobacco advertisement. They are no more guilty than a person who buys a magazine containing a tobacco advertisement. Are we all supposed to read a magazine before we buy it to make sure that it does not contain a tobacco advertisement?
This kind of heavy liability should be carefully targeted on the people who make a difference. It should not impose duties and obligations on people who have nothing to do with the whole process.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will in due course withdraw his amendment. His argument is that particular individuals—whether it be a newspaper proprietor or printer—are mere conduits. I believe that is the word for which he is searching.
Lord Lucas: No. Newspaper proprietors clearly fall under Clause 2(1); they are publishers. But they are not printers. Printing is done by the little machine on my desk; it is merely "data in, print out". A big printer merely does that on a grand scale and makes sure that it is done well. Publishing is where the mind has an effect on what happens. I do not expect my printers to tell me that I have a comma in the wrong place or that there is anything wrong with my copy. I expect them merely to do the job that I gave them to do and produce the books. That should not bear the burden of checking everything for a tobacco advertisement.
The Earl of Erroll: It may help the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, if he spoke to the Minister afterwards about the difference between printing and publishing. They are quite different tasks.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the noble Earl for that guidance. I was a libel lawyer for six years, so I do understand the difference. But it was very helpful nevertheless.
The Earl of Erroll: I thought the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said earlier that he knew nothing about what went on inside printers works.
Lord Clement-Jones: My printing credentials are limited. A horny-handed printer is perhaps the best description.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the clarification. Despite the number of amendments he has tabled, he is arguing for something which is highly specific to the printing trade, to the printer. He is arguing that the printer is a mere conduit.

835
We have to make a choice in legislation which is designed to protect public health. The question is whether printers should be treated as mere conduits. As far as I am aware, they are not treated as mere conduits in any other legislation of this kind, whether it be in relation to racist material, pornographic material or civil or criminal libel. Libel can be a criminal offence which involves a somewhat unpleasant process.
I do not accept that on occasions printers are the poor, ignorant dupes of publishers. They have a duty to check the material in a reasonable way. They have a range of defences available under Clause 5 which have been fairly disclosed by the Minister and I hope by myself. It is not a novelty to have printers subjected to this kind of duty. The Bill does not create a precedent. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: Just to be clear, does the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, aim those same strictures at the corner newsagent?
Lord Clement-Jones: Yes. The corner newsagent has similar duties in technical terms. It is highly unlikely that a single corner newsagent will have the full might of the law placed upon him. Who will sue the corner newsagent for distributing Private Eye, for instance? There is a degree of proportionality, I hope, about who is prosecuted and in what circumstances. But technically that is the case. However, corner newsagents will also have the benefit of extremely useful and helpful defences under Clause 5. So the situation is similar.
They have to understand that they are in business and that they cannot put out hard pornographic magazines or racist material; they have general duties. They should not be in business unless they are in a position to fulfil their obligations. The Minister was right to talk about small businesses and about making sure that regulation is not oppressive. But I do not believe that the regulation under this Bill will be in the slightest bit oppressive. The defences are there, and it is perfectly feasible—indeed it will happen—for the onus of proof to be pushed back on to the prosecution in these circumstances, using the benefit of Clause 5.
The Earl of Erroll: For clarification, perhaps I may ask about the example of a corner newsagent who sells a magazine that is printed and published abroad. The magazine is not about tobacco advertising—this is where the provision differs from that relating to pornographic or racist material; however, the advertisement is buried somewhere in the middle of its 20 or 60 pages. My knowledge of law is not good enough to know whether in those circumstances the corner newsagent would be liable for prosecution. Would he be legally responsible if he displayed such material for sale?
Lord Clement-Jones: That is a very good question. It is proportional in the way these matters operate. Clearly, in the way that one can tell from a magazine
836
cosver whether it contains hard porn, tobacco advertisements would be pretty obvious. If a newsagent sells 350 publications, he would not be expected necessarily to have to go through all of them to see whether they contained a tobacco advertisement. But if the advertisement is on the back or the front cover, it is reasonable to expect him to see it. The way in which the Bill is framed is extremely sensible in that respect. This is not an oppressive piece of legislation. The newsagent is protected in the way the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Lucas: That has been a helpful exchange. I certainly understand the noble Lord's position much better than I did. I suspect that I still disagree with him. However, I shall do him the honour of reading what he has said in Hansard, and also what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): Before calling the next amendment. I must advise the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 12 due to pre-emption.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) It is not an offence under this section for a person to distribute or to cause the distribution of a tobacco advertisement by electronic means if the activity of the person is limited to the technical process of operating and giving access to a communications network over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored for the sole purpose of making the transmission more efficient, or is limited to providing the hardware and software to enable the transmission or distribution."
The noble Lord said: The arguments that we have just heard on printers and publishers apply even more to Internet service providers. With this amendment, we begin a whole series of amendments relating to electronic media.
As the Minister and I discussed briefly at Second Reading, Internet service providers are anxious that the legislation will not create a precedent by making them liable for what are effectively actions by third parties. They are understandably concerned that the Internet should be regulated as little as possible by United Kingdom authorities to assist the growth of e-business in this country. Indeed, the Government want to make Britain the major e-business country in the European Community.
I had the pleasure of being a member of your Lordships' Sub-Committee B of the EU committee during its discussion of e-commerce policy development and co-ordination in the EU. It was made clear that the Government will do everything in their power to promote everything to do with websites and electronic media in general and to make sure that they continue to expand.
I accept that the Bill as it stands provides a possible defence for an Internet service provider in Clause 5(5) that he was unaware of an offending advertisement. But as soon as he is made aware, he is regarded as

837
having published the advertisement or having caused it to be published. Unless he removes it, he is at risk of having committed an offence.
The word "conduit" was mentioned in connection with publishers. The Internet service provider can only be described as a conduit. I am sure that I do not need to go into the details of how a website is published. But one thing is certain: the Internet service provider simply provides a service for something that he cannot even see.
That said, there is an even greater problem; namely, that Clause 2(3) of the Bill means that even suppliers of computer hardware—for example, screens and keyboards used by a tobacco advertiser or by members of the public who access a tobacco advertisement that is transmitted electronically—would be caught. Noble Lords may say that that is all right in the context of the Bill. But even worse than that, so too would the supplier of a land-line telephone, a mobile telephone or WAP phone. It is pretty silly that such providers should have to take steps to prevent further distribution of an advertisement in order to avail themselves of the defence under Clause 5(6). The question is whether this matter has been discussed with Oftel—which government departments in general would be well advised to do.
The purpose of these amendments is principally to address the concerns of Internet service providers who, merely by being the conduit or providing the means of transmission of a tobacco advertisement, will have committed an offence under the Bill as it stands. My proposed replacement subsection should, I hope, mean that the provision of the means, either by hardware or software, of access to the Internet and/or a website is excluded from the offences under Clause 2(1) and Clause 2(2) of the Bill.
The amendment would not interfere with the Bill's intention. It would still be an offence to distribute a tobacco advertisement in electronic form. The offence would be limited to those persons who initiated transmission—in other words, those who keyed in the information for transmission direct to third parties or to a website where it could be accessed by third parties.
A further consequential amendment would be the deletion of subsection (5) of Clause 5. I refer to Amendment No. 39, to which I would have put my name had I been quicker off the mark. As I understand it, subsection (5) provides that Internet service providers are not to be taken to be publishers or to have caused an advertisement to be published.
It subsequently occurred to me that subsection (6) of Clause 5 should also be deleted, as it is specifically aimed at parties such as Internet service providers. Anyone else accused of distributing a tobacco advertisement can still rely on the defence in Clause 5(4) that he or she did not know that what they distributed was a tobacco advertisement. That point has been made several times during the course of our discussions today.
I said in an earlier intervention that one of my objectives, since the Internet service provisions were so complicated, was to have them included in a discrete section or series of clauses. That remains my intention. However, for the moment, I should like to know exactly where the Government stand on the idea of publishing by Internet service providers. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Amendment No. 12 was supposed to be grouped with this one, as it relates to exactly the same territory as my noble friend's amendment. I agree entirely with what he has said. There is a real risk that this part of the Bill is likely to create a legal absurdity and I hope that the Government will listen carefully.
I can understand why Internet service providers should have to fall within the ambit of these prohibitions. Even though ISPs are mere conduits of information and cannot— indeed should not—be required actively to monitor such information, they will need to be required to take appropriate action if it is brought to their notice that they are facilitating the distribution of an illegal advertisement. I have no problem with that. The problem I have is with the idea that manufacturers and suppliers of the hardware and the infrastructure on which an advertisement may be displayed or distributed should be made liable. The difficulty, as my noble friend explained, relates both to computer hardware and to mobile phones. But I am troubled also that BT, which owns the wires down which electronic information is transmitted, should in any sense and in any circumstances be seen as being culpable for what those wires may carry.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will no doubt tell us that BT has a defence in law under subsection (6) of Clause 5. I understand that BT cannot be expected to be aware of what is distributed over its network. But what if it is made aware of what is being distributed? Clause 5(6)(b) states that,
"having become aware of it, he was not able to prevent its further distribution".1
I should like to hear the noble Lord's interpretation of the words "not able". It seems to me that BT would be physically able to prevent the further distribution of the material in question by disconnecting part or all of its network until the offending material had been removed. But that is hardly the real world. It is wholly unreasonable and impractical. BT is not in a position to exercise any real control in that sense. But that is not what Clause 5 states: it uses the words "not able". I believe that a network provider such as BT should be excluded altogether from the scope of the sanctions in the Bill and that the same should apply to the manufacturers and suppliers of computer hardware.
2 p.m.
Lord Peston: I am always astonished at the imagination of the inventors of amendments. It never remotely occurred to me that hardware in the form in which we have discussed it could possibly be included. I go back to my now favourite subject of printers. It

839
had not occurred to me that the producers of printing machines would be capable of coming under the ambit of the Bill. I refer to the producers of the electrical plugs that go on to the printing machines. The matter gets more and more ridiculous the more you follow the worries of the Committee.
In my opinion the Bill has nothing to do with physical equipment. I should be interested to know what the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, have to say about that: it had never occurred to me that the measure concerned physical equipment. It concerns services. The question arises: should there be this imposition placed on those who provide services in this area to accept their responsibilities? I believe that the answer is absolutely yes. Indeed, my concern as regards subsection (6)(b) of Clause 5 is that it goes too far in the other direction and that there is a let-out for someone to claim that he or she was unable to prevent certain action.
In preparation for today's debate I spent some time searching the net. Several of the participants in today's proceedings are some of our leading "surfers". I searched for a cigarette advertisement but I could not find one anywhere. If I had found one on a site of your Lordships, I assume that I would have to draw it to the attention of PDVN as the people responsible for allowing me to access a cigarette advertisement. PDVN would say that it could not prevent the advertisement's distribution and, therefore, it should remain. I see that that is a valid argument in that case.
However, let us assume that it was the other way round and the tobacco companies had a website via some ISP on which they put their advertisement. Let us go further and assume that that is happening abroad. It seems to me that one can put firewalls around those matters and prevent their distribution. Some Members of the Committee will know more about this than I do. Much of the row over paedophilia on the web concerned the need to stop those people advertising what they do and setting up their networks on the web. In that case no argument was put forward in terms of fundamental liberties on the part of ISPs with regard to tackling that matter. However, I speak not as an expert on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is right to raise the matter. I agree with him more generally that the whole question of electronic transfer applies to a great deal of the issues that we discuss on all kinds of subjects in this Chamber and it is as well to get the matter clarified. However, I do not believe that we need go further than getting clarification from the Minister. However, I should like the Minister at least to reassure me that these people are not given too easy a way out by enabling them to say, "It is nothing to do with us. We cannot do anything about the fact that loads of cigarette advertisements are being placed on the net and you will get to them while looking for something else. We are glad the matter has been drawn to our attention but that is too bad".
Lord Lucas: Given the chance, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that ISPs should be put
840
at least on the same basis as a newspaperboy and made to take care over what they distribute. Sadly, not so long ago we passed an Act which made it a crime for an ISP to know what it was passing over its network. They are not allowed to look. If they knew what was passing over their network, they would be committing a crime. So this Bill makes it a crime for them not to commit a criminal offence.
Lord Peston: So far as I know, they are not prevented from looking at the websites that they themselves are putting out. That is not what the legislation decided. That would mean that people who work for an ISP company could not surf the net and, so far as I know, the legislation does not say that at all.
Lord Lucas: They are not permitted to look at the traffic over their network. They are, of course, permitted to look at the sites. If an advertisement came in by e-mail, they could not know until they were told. Once they have been told, of course, they have an ability to do something about it.
I should like to give the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, free rein to refer to any of my later amendments that I have not talked about yet in replying to this matter. It does raise the whole subject and what is said may remove any necessity for me to speak to later amendments. I always encourage that. ISPs are, within limits, a special case. I agree that they should have proper responsibility but we must respect the fact that they are a conduit. They are not a publisher by and large. They are also subject to severe restrictions on what they are allowed to do and look at. It is really only the security services that have the ability to see what is passing through an ISP's network.
The Earl of Erroll: I wish to lend weight to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. I have seen this situation occur already as regards the Internet and libel provisions. A nice heraldic website was closed down because some people who did not like what it said about bogus titles threatened to sue the ISP on which that site was kept. The ISP had no axe to grind on the issue and the threat of prosecution was enough for it to prefer to close down the website rather than run the risk that the person who published the site on its servers would lose the case, which would bring the ISP down as well.
It is simple when what we are dealing with is clearly tobacco advertising. The problem comes in paragraph (b), which says,
"whose effect is to do so".
Because that is subjective, we could end up with all kinds of problems. If one person wanted to attack another's website, he could threaten the ISP by suggesting that it was hosting something illegal. The great example is a picture of some silk with a cut through it: is it an advert for Silk Cut, or it is an innocent picture? Such a provision can be misused by people with ulterior motives to a far greater extent than some of us realise. It is easy for us sitting in our ivory tower to argue intellectually, but I am afraid that the real world is not so honourable and the cost of

841
justice is so high that for most people it is out of reach. We have to be very careful how we frame our legislation.
The Earl of Northesk: I was unable to participate at Second Reading, so I should inform the Committee that I am a member of the Lords and Commons Pipe and Cigar Smokers Club. With that interest declared, it is not surprising that I support my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale in his amendment. I shall make only a few general observations.
I acknowledge and respect the ambition to future-proof legislation in the face of technological developments. In some respects, that may explain the current drafting. However, such an ambition needs to be founded on the correct baseline. I sometimes feel that the understanding of IT matters in government circles and more widely in Parliament is not as extensive or wide-ranging as might be desirable. I hasten to add that that point is not a criticism, but is made in a spirit of helpfulness.
In his introduction to the amendment, my noble friend alluded to some of the difficulties and anomalies that the drafting will give rise to. That illustrates my point. The amendment addresses those anomalies without in any way harming the thrust of the Bill's intention.
At Second Reading, many noble Lords referred to relevant European directives. My particular interest is Directive 2000/31/EC on certain legal aspects of information society services. I suspect that we shall return to the issue quite often in Committee. In this context, consistency of legislative approach towards IT within the single market is desperately important. There is a strong argument for transposing the terms of the directive word for word into UK law.
No doubt the Committee will return to the theme on later amendments. It is enough at this time to say that the potential inconsistencies between the directive and the current drafting of Clause 2(3) should, if possible, be avoided. As the Internet Service Providers Association has noted in its submission to the Department of Trade and Industry on the directive:
"A proper implementation is significant for the UK to remain one of the leaders of e-business in the EU—a poor implementation could result in many new businesses choosing not to locate in the UK, but rather offer services to the UK from a non-UK base. UK companies would then be disadvantaged when competing in the Single Market with companies based in Member States where a more accurate transposition had taken place".
The problem is that the cumulative effect of imposing what could be described as a harsher regime of regulation on UK internet service providers, not only in this Bill, but also through the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, referred to by my noble friend Lord Lucas, and certain elements of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which we shall debate shortly, raises a real prospect that ISPs will migrate elsewhere. That would be harmful to the interests of the UK economy.
On a slightly less serious note, I also take this opportunity to echo the plea of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. It might have been more convenient had
842
all the IT elements in the Bill been drafted together in a single clause or set of clauses. I cannot help feeling that adopting such a practice for future Bills with IT elements would make for easier understanding of legislation, particularly by those with an interest in the subject.
Lord Filkin: In my naivety, I thought that Amendment No. 11 would be shorter and simpler to deal with than Amendment No. 10, given the detail that we had gone into. However, some interesting and important points have been raised.
As noble Lords know, the intention is to create a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising in all media, whether new or traditional. The Bill expressly covers advertising in the electronic media, with appropriate targeted defences.
The Government believe that the Bill will also comply with the European e-commerce directive. I take the important point made by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, about ensuring consistency between legislation as far as practicable, for the reasons that he pointed out. If, as we believe, it does that, the liability of intermediaries will be limited to circumstances in which there is knowledge of illegal activity and corrective action is not taken expeditiously. Members of the Committee will see that the Government's original draft Bill captured the spirit of that in Clause 5(5) and (6).
I am grateful for the acknowledgement of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that it is important that Internet service providers fall within the scope of the Bill for the reasons to which he alluded. The way in which we have sought to address that is to set out in Clause 5(6) very clear defences for such people. It provides that anyone charged with an offence of distributing a tobacco advertisement by electronic means will have a defence if he can prove that he was unaware that what he was distributing, or caused to be distributed, was a tobacco advertisement or that, having become aware of it, he was not able to prevent its further transmission.
We were invited to comment on a number of potential hypothetical circumstances in that context. The first was the example of the computer hardware manufacturer who had sold a PC which was then part of the chain of process which led to an illegal advertisement being transmitted. We do not believe that it is conceivable that the computer hardware manufacturer could possibly be caught by the Bill. Such a situation is so remote from his power or understanding that it seems completely implausible that he would be liable.
The situation is not so simple in relation to a telephone company. However, again, the legislation as drafted is reasonable. I should perhaps have touched on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, concerning ISP providers. If I assume, for the sake of argument, that he is correct that such providers are not able to inspect the traffic that flows through their networks, then they cannot possibly be caught because they will have the defence of being unaware of what was being transmitted. Therefore, on that leg they are perfectly safe.

843
If either ISPs or telephone transmitters did become aware of what was happening to their networks, the action that they would take would be fairly straightforward and reasonable. It is not conceivable that they would not write to Imperial Tobacco Group or whoever it was and point out, through a lawyer's letter, that they believed that they were being put at risk because they were being asked to transmit what they considered to be illegal activity. In those circumstances, one might consider that that would lead to the principal taking action so that the agent was no longer at risk. I do not want to speculate further on that point. However, it seems to me that in such cases there are perfectly reasonable redresses, as provided for within Clause 5(6), to defend the agent from the actions of the principal which put them at risk.
Because of those clear defences and because, for reasons that we mentioned previously, of the importance of avoiding loopholes, which I trust no Members of the Committee want to see, it seems to the Government that it is right and reasonable to keep those who provide the means of transmission within the scope of the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I believe that very important issues are at stake here. Of course, I have some sympathy with those who are connected with the new media because there is little precedent in this area. We have a new e-commerce directive, which many people welcome, and it is important that we ensure that we march step in step with the contents of that directive.
However, I hope to demonstrate to the Committee that the amendment would be out of step with the e-commerce directive. The original government Bill, whose wording I have taken wholesale for the new Bill, is almost entirely consistent with the directive. As the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, pointed out, the terms of the European directive involve knowledge and corrective action not being taken expeditiously. That language in the e-commerce directive is reflected in the defence in Clause 5(6).
What the directive does not say is that ISPs are a mere conduit. They do have responsibility for the websites which they host. One has only to look at the AOL case which, I believe, involved Nazi memorabilia. Perhaps it was Yahoo!; I do not recall which ISP it was. Of course, those providers have a duty. It is not at all consistent with the e-commerce directive to try to delete wholesale the abuses of an ISP in those circumstances.
Therefore, while I understand the concerns of noble Lords, I certainly do not believe that that is the right way forward. It is important to ensure that the defence in Clause 5(6) is apposite and properly drafted, and so on. Currently I do not believe that anyone has put forward the argument that it is not properly drafted.
844
In terms of the way in which Clause 2(3) is drafted, I, like the Minister, find it somewhat extraordinary that people could believe that the provisions would cover the hardware—the means of transmission. That could be defined as lines or radio waves rather than the actual equipment.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, was concerned about the effect of the second limb on the advertisement, and he was worried about whether it would be reasonable for an ISP to be trapped by the provision. Clause 5(2) contains a perfectly respectable defence, which deals entirely with that matter. It states that it is a defence for a person to,
"prove that he could not reasonably have foreseen that that would be the effect of the advertisement".
The more that I consider Clause 5, th2 more attractive it becomes—that has happened during the course of our debate. I hope that Members of the Committee accept in good faith that I and the predecessor draftsman who produced the government Bill are tying to do the very best by ISPs and to ensure that we maintain our international obligations.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am rather stunned; I am not sure whether my powers of invention were being praised or criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. When I read a Bill, various things occur to me. Clause 2(3) states:
"Distributing a tobacco advertisement includes … providing the means of transmission".
When I saw that phrase I thought, "How wide should that be?" I am not lawyer, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, so I do not begin to know the answer. However, it struck me that the provision could be extremely wide. That is why I tabled the amendment.
Lord Peston: I was certainly praising the noble Lord and I was implicitly criticising myself. It never remotely occurred to me that any of those matters could possibly be connected with the clause. I entirely accept that it is me who is being thick and the noble Lord who is showing all the subtlety of thought that the Bill requires.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is just as well that the noble Lord is on that side of the Committee and that in front of him is the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, who was in the same position when he suggested that the amendment would be dealt with quickly and easily. Clearly, it has not been.
To be serious, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As I said, this amendment is at the beginning of a long series of amendments relating to the Internet. I am not entirely sure that, with or without the EC directives to which my noble friend Lord Northesk referred, the arrangements are quite right yet. However, I cannot possibly make a decision at this stage. We have a whole lot of amendments to go through. On the certain understanding that I shall bring something back on Report that takes into account our discussions today—and possibly on another day—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 16, leave out from "form" to end of line and insert "or participating in doing so".
The noble Earl said: I have in effect already spoken to this amendment, which is grouped with my Amendments Nos. 91 and 92. Before turning to those amendments, I want to come back to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on one point. He effectively said that we all know what we mean by the phrase,
"providing the means of transmission".
However, his trumpet call so far today has been that we should rely on ordinary meaning. To do so in some circumstances in relation to the Bill could land us in a heap of confusion. I was glad that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said that he will revert to the matter at a later stage. Turning to Amendments Nos. 91 and 92, we must understand what we mean by some of the terms contained in the Bill—in particular what I would class as technical terms such as Internet service provider and website. It is not enough to say, as the Government appear to be saying, that enforcement authorities and the courts should be left to decide on the interpretation of such terms.
Once again, that is an issue of principle: whether the Bill should aim to provide as much legal certainty as possible; or whether it should leave people feeling unsure about what the law actually says and find out only when a court convicts them.
I make no special claims for the wording of my amendments—no doubt it can be bettered. The point is whether there is some provision or none. Clause 7, which we shall debate later, allows the Government to amend any part of the Bill in consequence of developments in technology. If we do not define terms such as Internet service provider, we have no means short of a court judgment to determine what those terms could be taken to capture, and therefore no means to determine what might amount to a development in the technology. That is unsatisfactory.
The fact is that, in some people's eyes, "Internet service provider" includes almost anyone doing anything over the Internet. Many people spend time getting information onto someone else's computer in some way or other. They are in a real sense Internet service providers. The same applies to the world-wide web: that is also an Internet service provider.
Even the term "website" leaves room for all kinds of argument. If I download a picture of a tobacco advertisement from a website onto my computer, am I guilty of an offence? The Minister may say that I am not, but the Bill appears to say something different. We must understand what the term "website" means. Where does a website "exist"? That is a complex, almost philosophical question, which admits varying interpretations.
Even if the precise wording of my amendments is not perfect in the eyes of the Minister and the Bill's sponsor, I hope that they will be sympathetic to my general points. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll: Perhaps I may briefly expand on that point, which is a good one. Earlier, I used the words "Internet service provider" in a rather general way. I was thinking of people who hosted websites. An ISP can equally be someone who simply gives access to the Internet, but does not host the sites that are visited.
Equally, there are proxy servers. It is normal now to have mirror sites and proxy servers all round the globe to give people faster access. Someone may therefore post a tobacco advertisement on the main site in America that will immediately or on a regular basis be mirrored to several other locations around the world—of which one, two or more may be in Britain. As that is an automatic process, people would not know what was entering their proxy server. That will have to be carefully considered, because there is no intervention in that process; it is automatic.
I have two other brief points to make. First, in reply to a point about accessing raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, if he used google.co.uk, he could access 1.5 billion Internet pages. I say that to give the Committee an idea of the scale of the problem—of how many pages are out there. Secondly, on the subject of clarification, when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, makes one of his useful clarifications, does that have the same subsequent legal weight as a statement made by the Minister, which carries some weight afterwards and commits the Government to a certain course of action? Do we have to have some of the clarifications of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as to websites mirrored by the Government Front Benches?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Clearly the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, cannot speak for the Government.
A noble Lord: Not yet!
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It will be a very, very long time. I have already commended the noble Lord on the excellent draftsmanship which he brought to this Chamber.
Perhaps I can pick up on the general point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I regard the ISP providers as an important part of this country's economy. Clearly we want to support their well-being. I met the trade association with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, at the time of the Second Reading of this Bill when it last appeared before your Lordships' House. At that time we discussed Clause 5(5), which was the question as to whether ISP providers should be defined as "a publisher". I had some sympathy with the points raised at that time and I know that we will come back to discuss those matters in more detail later. But in the way the amendments have been grouped we are

847
perhaps putting the cart before the horse. However, I have no doubt that we shall have an interesting discussion on that issue.
I listened with great care to the points raised by the noble Earls, Lord Howe and Lord Erroll. But I caution against going down the path of two types of definition, partly for the reason that they raised in terms of people's understanding. If we try to define terms like "website" or "Internet service provider" as of now, we run the risk of including something that in one or two years' time will not be what people understand by those terms or of excluding something which in future will perform the functions of a website or Internet service provider.
As with the word "advertisement", which we have already debated, it is sound legislative practice to let a word bear its natural meaning. Also, I believe the term "website", which was specifically referred to, is understood to mean a location on the world wide web identified by a web address. A website consists of one or more pages of information or data in a form intended to make them readable by the person accepting it.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, also mentioned Clause 7. I fully accept that that allows us to take account of developments in this fast-moving area of business. It is possible under that clause for the Government to come back and suggest amendments. I know we are to debate Clause 7 later, but I would not have expected it to be used frequently. In a sense, I am arguing for a degree of flexibility in terms of the wording used in relation to websites and ISPs because there is a problem in having too tight a definition.
The backcloth to all this is that, if the pace of change moves so quickly that even that provision does not cover the position, if this Bill were passed, the Government would be able to bring regulations before the House to try to ensure that any major new development was covered by the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones: I can add little to what the Minister had to say. I promise to do a search against the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, on google immediately, just to enjoy myself over the weekend.
It is a mistake—the Minister is entirely right—to set the definitions in concrete. The commercial reality of the web is shifting and flexibility is needed. I am surprised that the industry is behind this move to have further definition. I do not believe it would serve the industry's interests to have too rigid a definition enshrined in legislation. As the Minister pointed out, Clause 7 gives the ability to alter the terms of the Bill if we find ourselves in a situation where the terms used in the Bill, "in an electronic transmission", do not serve our purpose. I believe that the Bill has the necessary flexibility. If the noble Earl, Lord Howe, gives us the choice of something or nothing, as he did at the beginning of his introduction, I suggest that we choose nothing.
Earl Howe: I was looking forward to an occasion when I would be able to say that there is not a cigarette
848
paper between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I think this is a case in point. I shall go away and consider whether or not the term "advertisement" has a natural meaning. I suspect that there is a sense in which it does. However, the question I pose is whether "Internet service provider" and "website" have natural meanings. I am not convinced that they do. It seems to me that one man's flexibility is another man's legal fuzziness. Do we really want a situation where someone could be, in all innocence, providing a service to someone else and is suddenly classed unwittingly as an Internet service provider. I am not sure that that is the right way to go about things.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I wonder whether he agrees that in a sense there is a hierarchy of options here. By trying to get the definition too tight, we leave insufficient flexibility for the future. While Clause 7 is available, we do not want to take a hammer to crack a nut. In a sense, we need a sufficiently broad definition to allow the Bill to come into being and to be conducted properly. Clause 7 is very much a backdrop, rather than having to be used on a frequent basis, because the pace of change moves so quickly.
Earl Howe: I understand the point the noble Lord makes. The very point I seek to make is that we do need a broad definition, as he puts it. There is no definition in the Bill. In the context of what I believe are new and fairly technical terms I think that it is perhaps a mistake not even to make a stab at this. I shall reflect with great care on what has been said in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skehnersdale Lord Skehnersdale moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 1, line 17, leave out "who does not carry on business" and insert "whose place of establishment is not"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 13 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47 and 53. A few moments ago, my noble friend Lord Northesk talked about the e-commerce directive. What he did not say was that it was adopted by member states in June last year and comes into effect, I understand, on 17th January next year; in other words, before the Bill is likely to become effective law.
The amendments are to ensure that the Bill. and in particular the ban on the transmission of tobacco advertisements by electronic means—including a ban, as we have heard, on the provision of the means of transmission—is consistent with that directive. Clearly, the purpose of the directive is to facilitate commerce over the Internet. Under Article 3, those who trade on the Internet are obliged only to comply with the laws of member states "where they are established". That is the important point.
Other member states are not allowed to impose further regulations on their activities. The Bill purports to restrict Internet advertising by anyone who carries on a business in the United Kingdom. However, a person who carries on a business in the United Kingdom may quite easily have a place of

849
establishment in another member state where tobacco advertising on the Internet is, for a short time only, permitted, that short time being until a new tobacco advertising directive is adopted.
There is not a very good history at present on tobacco advertising directives. One has in mind the activities which go on in Germany and elsewhere. However, I have no doubt that in due course members of the Community will sign up to a tobacco advertising directive, which is right. The amendments are necessary to ensure that the Bill complies with the e-commerce directive.
Interestingly, the Government have produced two lines of thought. As regards the earlier amendment, they said that they did not want to be tied in too closely to a directive. As regards the previous amendment, they quoted and praised the directive. I am not sure where I am and on that basis I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: I rise to support the endeavours of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale in respect of the three amendments. My noble friend explained the thinking behind them far more eloquently than I could, but at the risk of trying the patience of the Committee, perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I revert to the theme of accurate transposition of the EC directive.
In passing, I merely suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that there is a divergence of view as to whether the provisions on the face of the Bill are consistent with the relevant directive. I am certainly not convinced on the point and my understanding is that the ISPA is equally unconvinced.
I repeat that we should not underestimate how important it is that legislative measures in respect of the Internet are consistent with the directive and thereby throughout the single market. To my mind, these amendments serve that purpose. For that reason, as well as the convincing argument of my noble friend, I welcome the amendments.
Lord Lucas: If the Minister chooses to address my Amendment No. 54 at the same time, I shall be content.
Lord Filkin: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for explaining to the Committee what lies behind the amendments because we were scratching our heads to try to ensure that we understood them. I shall respond to why the Bill is currently drafted as it is and acknowledge the important point of ensuring that any legislation is compliant with European legislation which will predate the Bill were it to pass.
Lord Skelmersdale: Does the Minister realise that the score is now 1:2 on that front?
Lord Filkin: I did not sit down or give way and I have therefore not granted the point! I am seeking to be courteous and to grant that the amendment is worth inspecting.
850
The amendments address provisions in the Bill which make it clear that it does not have extraterritorial effect. We do not want it to do so and we have sought to make it clear in that respect. It keeps out of its jurisdiction people who do not carry on business in this country but who are involved in the transmission of tobacco advertisements by electronic means, which is seen here.
Our concern about the amendment is that it seeks to replace the clear and easily understood phrase "carry on business" in the United Kingdom with a less satisfactory alternative. What is meant by "a place of establishment"? A person may have more than one place of establishment and even if he is established on one place only outside the United Kingdom, he might trade here in addition to his country of establishment. In that case, the Government would clearly want to ensure that he was caught by the prohibition on tobacco advertising.
I now turn to Amendment No. 54. We believe that it is unnecessary. While we are sympathetic to the intention, the phrase,
"carry on business in the United Kingdom".
implies an actual presence here. That requires a presence in the UK and it is an unnatural meaning, even in these days of the Internet, to say that someone is carrying on business in the UK when they are not in the UK. People have been doing business over the telephone for years and one would never say that because you bought something from someone abroad over the telephone that someone abroad was carrying on business in the UK.
As regards what would amount to the carrying on of the business here, the courts have held that a person carries on business in England where it has a branch only here. Furthermore, one could say that a person or body would be carrying on business in the United Kingdom whether it had its main office or only a branch in this country. The wording of the Bill makes clear that an undertaking which does not carry on business in the UK will not be guilty of an offence even if, for example, the website is accessed and the prices of tobacco products are displayed here.
Finally, the Government are consulting on the European directive and in due course will bring forward regulations. The Government expect these provisions to be fully compatible with the directive.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I do not seek to argue with the position as stated by the Minister. I was interested in the observations of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, about the divergence of view in the industry as to whether the Bill complied. I have looked at this matter quite carefully. I am aware that certainly in the world of e-commerce there are some difficult thickets, not least the application of some of the conventions as well as the directive. I believe that the wording of the Bill is entirely consistent with the principle of the country of origin set out in the e-commerce directive, and that is entirely as it should be. That is the argument put forward by the Government for the wording in their

851
original Bill. If anything, it is a rather more precise use of words than in the e-commerce directive and is preferable in some ways, because use may well be made of multiple websites which are related much more to where business is done rather than the technical place of establishment. That is probably closer to the intention of the e-commerce directive than the place of establishment. The very least that can be said about the arguments made in this regard so far is that the case is unproven.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful for the comments of both noble Lords and my noble friend Lord Northesk. I would have thought that the place of establishment of a business was well understood in law. I have a business established in my home. That business has a registration number and all the rest of it, and its place of establishment is quite clear. If I had a business in Caen, for example, under French law no doubt I would need a registered business address as in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that the place of establishment is likely to cause any problems. I well understand why the EU directive uses the phrase "the place of establishment".
As far as concerns the Internet, I begin to worry when the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, say that this will do for the moment; there may well be new laws round the corner and we just have to cope as best we can for the moment. We shall arrive at that particular moment a little later, but it does not appear to me to be a very satisfactory arrangement. However, I have heard the remarks of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I did not quite understand the noble Lord's argument which I shall read in Hansard very carefully. I hope that I do not need to return to the subject at Report stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Advertising: newspapers, periodicals etc]:
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Advertising: exclusions]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert "irrespective of the means by which the communication is made available"
The noble Lord said: Clause 4(1)(a) excludes a tobacco advertisement,
"if it is, or is contained in, a communication made for the purposes of the tobacco trade and directed"—
this is the important part—
"solely at persons engaged in any capacity in that trade (even if they are also engaged in another trade)".
Why one needs the words in brackets I am not entirely sure. We might get to the bottom of that in due course.
With the exception of the words in brackets, I thought that the exclusion was quite clear. At least I thought that until I discovered that in discussions with publishers which took place during the previous Session of Parliament the department apparently said that if a trade publication, which is made for the purposes of the tobacco trade and directed at persons engaged in that trade, happens also to be available by retail sale—say, on news stands—the exclusion would not apply. That view was confirmed at the time of consideration of the Bill by Members of another place.
That interpretation of Clause 4(1)(a) is, to say the least, somewhat questionable. There is something rather different on the face of the Bill. Clause 4(1)(a) states that the inclusion is available if the tobacco advertisement is,
"made for the purposes of the tobacco trade"—
fine—
"and directed solely at persons engaged in any capacity in that trade".
It says nothing about the means by which the tobacco advertisement might be available or whether it might accidentally or unintentionally be seen by members of the public, not in the tobacco trade and to whom it is not directed.
The trade publications about which this subsection is concerned and which are directed at relevant trades and solely to persons in those trades are generally available by way of subscription or are provided free of charge by mail to persons in those trades, as happens with virtually any trade magazine. However, there are some publications which are also available by way of retail sale and are stocked generally in small quantities by retail outlets. I am told that that is for the convenience of persons in the trade who do not necessarily subscribe to the publication or whose interest is only occasional or who desire an additional copy.
The publications and their contents have no appeal to the general public and are not purchased or read by the general public; at least I would be very surprised if they were. Yet, if what has previously been said by the department were to be followed by a court, offences would be committed under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill by the publishers, distributors, procurers of advertisement and the sellers of any trade publication which contained a tobacco advertisement and which was available by retail sale.
The point is whether the Government's advice still stands. If so, I am sure that we need an amendment to Clause 4(1). I am given succour in this view by an analogous recent case considered by the European Court of Justice. That was also relevant to other provisions in this clause. I say analogous because it is not identical. It concerns alcohol rather than tobacco. The case is The Swedish Consumer Ombudsman v. The Gourmet International Products AB. The latter published a magazine in Sweden entitled Gourmet. It is available by subscription. Ninety per cent of its 9,300 subscribers are traders, manufacturers or retailers. Ten per cent are private individuals. The magazine is also available by retail sale.
The subscribers' edition of the magazine contained three pages of advertisements for alcoholic drinks, one for red wine and two for whisky. Quite why they were chosen I do not know. The pages did not however appear in the edition of the magazine sold in the shops and intended for the general public. The Swedish ombudsman responsible for consumer protection applied for an injunction restraining the publishers from printing an advertisement which was contrary to national provisions aimed at reducing the health risks involved in alcohol consumption. To that extent it is analogous to the Bill because we are talking about the health risks associated with the consumption of tobacco.
The Stockholm district court considered that an interpretation of the treaty provisions was necessary. It stayed the proceedings and referred the matter to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. That caused total chaos. The publishers argued that the proceedings were based on legislation contrary to Community provisions on the freedom of movement of goods, Articles 30 to 37 of the EC treaty and the freedom to provide services under Articles 56 and 59 to 66.
In giving his opinion I am told that the advocate general's view was that a ban which extended to advertising in specialist food and drink magazines was disproportionate. He considered that those individuals who chose to read a specialist magazine were highly unlikely to be incited to drink more alcohol as a result of the advertisments that it contained. The position of someone purchasing such a magazine was likened to that of somebody who had specially requested advertising material from a producer.
The European Court of Justice subsequently found that the prohibition on advertising constituted an obstacle to trade between member states which was prohibited by Article 30 of the treaty. However, such an obstacle could possibly be justified by the protection of public health under Article 36. But the ECJ considered that, whether the prohibition on advertising was proportionate and whether the objective could be achieved by less extensive prohibitions or restrictions, it was a matter which the national court was better able to investigate. Therefore, as I have said, the original difficulties with the Swedish Act caused future chaos and neither the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, nor myself want that to happen to this Bill.
The proposed amendment therefore deals with the situation simply by making it clear that, while a publication or communication must remain one made for the purposes of the tobacco trade and be directed solely at persons engaged in any capacity in that trade, in the case of a publication such as a trade newspaper or periodical it may be made available by free distribution, subscription or other means.
I take this subject seriously. If this amendment is not acceptable—I agree that it is somewhat inelegant and I have presented it somewhat inelegantly this afternoon—I believe that some amendment to the Bill will be required. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I speak to Amendment No. 26 which has been grouped with the amendment of my noble friend. The purpose of the amendment is very simple. In broad terms it is to prevent the law from making an ass of itself.
I recently travelled with my family on a restored steam railway line at Matlock, Derbyshire. It is a wonderful experience, at least for anyone who enjoys nostalgic rides of that kind. I confess to being a complete sucker for them. Much of the line, including the stations on it, has been restored by volunteers.
One feature at several of the railway stations caught my eye. On the station platforms were a number of those old tinplate advertisements for cigarettes such as Players and Senior Service. Those are two that I noticed. Although those advertisements are old they are not placed there with any thought or aim of attracting new customers to those brands of cigarettes. Nevertheless, they clearly meet at least one half, if not both halves, of the definition contained in Clause 1. Their purpose, when created, was to promote a tobacco product. Indeed, some might say that their effect could also be to that end. In some cases the tobacco product in question is still on the market. But even if the particular brand in the advertisement is no longer on the market, it could conceivably be argued that those advertisements have the general effect of casting tobacco products in a favourable light.
Whatever the merits or demerits of the Bill as regards its central aim and purpose, I believe there comes a point when we ought to recognise absurdity when we see it. Old or antique advertisments for cigarettes—most of them long since forgotten, I dare say, by the cigarette manufacturers who commissioned them—should not be treated as though they were genuine advertisements. There should be no danger of them being treated in that way. If the Bill has the effect of making the display of such advertisements illegal, then I believe that that is complete overkill.
I have therefore framed an amendment which is designed to exempt these historic kinds of advertisements while at the same time ensuring that only these kinds will be exempted. In other words, my intention is in no way to create any sort of wider loophole. I trust that the amendment does not do so. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be sympathetic to the aims of the amendment which I have tabled.
Lord Monson: I must admit that I had not realised fully what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was getting at in Amendment No. 26, but now that he has explained it I fully understand and wholly sympathise with him. His amendment is admirable. I hope it is not resisted but, if it is, perhaps he could compromise and change the figure to 40, or something like that.

855
The other point to be made here is that many advertisements will be for cigarettes that are no longer available. I do not know whether people still smoke Woodbines in this country, or Craven A and Senior Service. I suppose they do still exist although I do not know whether anybody still smokes them. Perhaps advertisements for tobacco products which are no longer available in the United Kingdom could be left in situ.
Lord Filkin: I will respond to Amendments Nos 17 and 26, which have just been spoken to. Clause 4(1)(a) provides that no offence will be committed if a tobacco advertisement is contained in a communication made for the purpose of the tobacco trade and directed solely at people engaged in that trade. This would apply, provided that conditions were satisfied, to trade journals and magazines, mail shots for tobacco companies to retailers and handouts at trade exhibitions. This is clearly not exclusive, and there may be other forms as well.
Any communication, however, must be directed solely at people who engage in the trade, and this would be a matter of fact in all cases. However, it would not matter if a curious member of the public picked up and read a trade journal in a library, provided the journal was directed at the trade. Therefore we do not believe that there is the danger behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
Turning to Amendment No. 26, as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in essence the Government agree that it would be absurd if historic advertisements in museums, for example, were caught by the Bill. We do not believe that that is the case and therefore we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Such items will not generally fall within the definition of "tobacco advertisement" in the first place and so there is no need for any exemption. More technically, the cut-off date of 30 years could prove difficult to enforce, and intrinsic value might be difficult to define or interpret.
The central aim of the Bill is to catch not historic tobacco advertisments but active, current advertisements. Clearly, there could be circumstances where, to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, an historic advertisement for Senior Service was taken out and used again to re-promote a new brand called Senior Service. That would be a different case, but in the circumstances referred to by the noble Lord there would be no risk of the Bill catching people in that way. Because of that, we do not believe that there is a need for the amendment as proposed.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, he will be aware that many shops all over the country, but particularly in London, sell replicas of old posters: art nouveau or art deco ones, and so on. Students like to decorate the walls of their rooms, and some posters might contain advertisements, say, from the 'twenties or the 'thirties for Gauloises and Gitanes, which are
856
still available in the shops. They might have different packaging, but they are still available. How would these be dealt with?
Lord Filkin: Speaking off the cuff, I would have thought that in those circumstances what was being purchased in the shop and what was being advertised was not tobacco but historic advertisements of tobacco products and therefore not caught by the Act.
Lord Clement-Jones: The two amendments being debated here are rather different in their impact. I am still a little baffled by the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, tabled Amendment No. 17 in the first place. The splendid Swedish case he mentioned turned rather more on interpreting the word "solely" than on examining the means of communication. Perhaps that is only a comment on the legal case, but I think the difficulties faced by the Swedish courts were caused by the game of legal ping-pong between the various jurisdictions concerned with the case. I am sure that it would serve as a good guide to action in the present case. Surely the issue was whether "solely" means exactly what it says.
The clause as it stands picks up the widest possible range of communications. It is a broad provision and in that respect must be satisfactory for those who will need to rely on it. I feel that it has all the merits of being inclusive as opposed to exclusive.
As regards Amendment No. 26, the descriptions of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, induced nostalgic thoughts of railway journeys over the weekend. However, I am happy to rely on the Minister's assurance that only extinct tobacco product advertising for brands such as Woodbine and Senior Service—when the noble Lord mentioned that brand, it took me back to my own smoking days—will be permitted. It is reassuring to learn that that kind of advertising will continue to adorn railway stations around the country, which no doubt many noble Lords will see when travelling at the weekend.
The Earl of Liverpool: Perhaps I may refer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. If replicas or copies of old advertisements were, in effect, available in shops for sale to the public, those pictures would not be caught by the Act. I wonder whether, for the benefit of the Committee, the noble Lord could confirm that once more.
Lord Filkin: I do not believe that that was what I said, but if I did then it was not what I intended. What I sought to make clear was that if an historic cigarette advertisement was being advertised for sale in a shop selling memorabilia and someone purchased it, the transaction would not concern tobacco but a piece of historical memorabilia. For that reason, I would not have thought that such an advertisement would be caught by the provisions of the Act.
The second example I gave was that if, for example, an ingenious tobacco manufacturer took an historic advertisement for Senior Service and then began to re-manufacture Senior Service products and market

857
them, that would be caught by the Act. In those circumstances, the producer would be seeking to advertise and retail tobacco products rather than to advertise and retail memorabilia about tobacco products. Those were the distinctions that I sought to make.
The Earl of Liverpool: I am grateful to the noble Lord. However, I do not quite follow the argument. Is he saying that members of the public could go into a shop in which hundreds of posters might be rolled up in a corner and from which buyers could make a selection? I do not refer to re-manufacturing a Senior Service product; rather that the public will be able to buy a replica of an old poster which could be hung in a room at university or elsewhere. Would that be acceptable and not be caught under the legislation?
Lord Filkin: As a matter of common sense, I would expect that to be the case; namely, that it would not be caught under the legislation. An individual purchasing an historical poster advertising Players No. 6—to change the tune a little—would not be caught under the legislation. However, one must be mindful of creating loopholes in the Bill. For that reason, I should point out that if a company took an old advertisement and used it actively to promote cigarettes, it would be caught.
In effect I have repeated what I said previously in a way that I hope is clear.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is not helpful that the amendments have been grouped. They cover two totally disparate points.
I was not going to dilate upon the subject of old cigarette advertisements tins which were taken off barns years ago and now have a certain rarity value. I was much more interested from my background—here I declare an interest as a mail order trader—in mail order catalogues. However, as the debate has gone somewhat awry, I shall reserve my comments on that point until later.
I observed what the Minister said about Clause 4(1)(a). I accept, to an extent, that the mischief being created is the mischief that happens in the United Kingdom. Therefore, if a place of business is outside the United Kingdom, it may happen that the mischief would not be caught by the Bill.
I have never gone into the Bill from a position where I am against it lock, stock and barrel. Of course I am not; I want to make it work. I do not want it to be challenged in the courts, either here, in the ECJ, or, even worse, under human rights legislation. But all these things are possible in the future. The more we can limit that, the more everyone will be better off. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 19, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Earl said: One of the persistently worrying features of the Bill, to which reference has been made a number of times today, is its vagueness. All the way through, we find far too much in the terminology and phraseology that leaves room for legal uncertainty. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, defends that on the ground of pragmatism, but it is disturbing. When we come to Clause 4(1) we see another case in point.
Clause 4 relates to permitted exceptions or exclusions from the purview of the Bill in terms of who is liable for an offence of publishing a tobacco advertisement. The exclusion permitted for publications, the principal market of which is not in the United Kingdom, leaves us asking all kinds of questions.
How is the term "principal market" to be defined? The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has made a very good stab at an answer in Amendment No. 29. He suggests that the UK should not be considered the principal market where fewer copies of a publication are sold here than are sold abroad. That is a perfectly sensible proposition.
But, of course, it is not the only way one could interpret the phrase "principal market". If, at home, I produce an apple pie for lunch and carve up three-quarters of it among six other people, leaving a quarter of the pie for myself, my family may well say that I have given myself more pie than anyone else. Am I therefore the principal market for that pie? There is no certainty.
Whatever one's interpretation of the meaning of the term, there is the separate question of where the principal market for a publication happens to be at any one time. Some newspapers are transmitted by satellite for printing in individual countries. The text of a newspaper can be substantially the same in every country, but sometimes not completely identical. Is it the same publication or several different ones? Publications such as the Financial Times or USA Today originate, by and large, from a single source, but they are physically printed all over the world. The magazine Hello is a Spanish publication, with an English edition that circulates outside the UK. How do we define the principal market for Hello magazine?
We live in a global economy where products and publications flow freely across international boundaries. Where does one market begin and another one end? And over what period do the Government and the noble Lord envisage calculating the circulation of a publication so as to quantify the number of copies sold? Is it a period of months or years, or might "principal market" be defined in relation to a single edition of a magazine? That seems to me very troubling.
The Minister in another place said at Third Reading of the government Bill:
"We have not provided a specific quantification of what 'principal market' might mean because it will vary in different circumstances".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/01: col. 219.]
That is not the kind of statement that publishers will find helpful. It is like the character in Lewis Carroll who said that the words he used would mean whatever he wanted them to mean.
In these circumstances, there may be some publishers of international magazines who will not want this kind of uncertainty. They will merely set up abroad, where they will not fall foul of the UK law. On the other hand, a UK distributor of a Spanish magazine that carried a tobacco advertisement could be prosecuted here if the UK were the principal market for the publication. Does that mean that special UK editions would need to be printed? Looking at matters in that light, it seems strange that the UK is attempting to legislate separately from our partners in the rest of the EU.
All these uncertainties seem to prove one thing. We are dealing with a Bill which is not just about health, but about international competition. I very much hope that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be able to shed some helpful light on these matters, so that we are least a little clearer about what this part of the Bill is telling us. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Government's intent in drafting the original Bill was not to seek to hinder the importation of foreign publications which carry tobacco advertisements so long as their principal market was outside the UK. It is a commonsense point of view which suggests that the principal direction of the Bill has to be publications published in the United Kingdom. Nor does the Bill seek to hinder the importation of foreign publications which carry tobacco advertisements, so long as their principal market is outside the UK.
I have listened with interest to the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. It is true that we have not provided a specific quantification in terms of a "principal market", because it will vary in separate circumstances. For example, the term may vary according to whether a magazine has five markets or whether it has only two. I accept that in a sense the noble Earl asked that question. It could be argued that if a company has 40 per cent of its sales in the UK and the remaining 60 per cent in half a dozen other countries, the UK might well be said to be the principal market, even though less than half the total sales are here.
We return to an argument that threaded its way through our discussions earlier today; namely, the balance between what the noble Earl describes as "vagueness" and the intention of those who drafted the Bill to avoid loopholes. The risk if we define the term too tightly is that there will be loopholes. That would mean that we should not have the ability to bring the perpetrators to book. That is why, necessarily, it is not possible to define the term as tightly as the noble Earl would wish.
860
The noble Earl posed a more general question about international action. Work is being undertaken in relation to the proposed EU directive. This is focused on trans-national advertising. The Government, alongside other governments, are also working within the WHO towards a much clearer understanding and agreement between many countries. I hope that through that we shall reach a position where there is as uniform a provision as possible of these kinds of activities. In the end, it is difficult to define, in the way the noble Earl suggests, down to the last "i" and the last "t" and I am not sure that the Bill is best served by seeking to do so.
Lord Clement-Jones: I very much accept what the Minister said. I adopt entirely the same approach as the noble Earl, Lord Howe. It is a question of mischief in a sense. What is one trying to do through the Bill? It is designed to be an inclusive Bill to avoid the loopholes that could arise. The more one defines—Amendment No. 29 of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would be guilty of that to a considerable extent—the more loopholes one finds. In ordinary parlance, and certainly if one is a businessman, it is important to know what one's market is but one does not necessarily define it in terms of being a majority or a minority. It probably constitutes the bulk of one's readers or the readers to whom one's product is mostly directed. Of course, one will know the numbers, so to speak, in terms of the readership of the magazine. However, that is a matter for pragmatic interpretation at the time, as it were, rather than for some sort of formula that one can establish in the Bill.
On the other hand, I do not think that it is difficult when faced with the question of, for instance, where the Financial Times principal market is, to be able to determine that despite the fact that it has printing presses and editions in a wide variety of different countries. It is a practical matter at the end of the day. I do not think that it is too difficult to discern the answer when faced with a practical problem. To that extent I entirely agree with the Minister. I do not believe that in practice foreign owners of publications would be put off from allowing their publications into the UK simply because there is not some sort of rigid definition of the situation.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I am not at all sure that I accept that this is a question of loopholes in the Bill. It is a question of providing some sort of certainty to the business community.
I do not think that this debate has advanced that cause any further. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, believes that publishers are entitled to at least a general steer in the direction of a definition here. If it is—as the Minister indicated—a question of going back to my example of the pie and saying that the person with the largest slice constitutes the principal market, even though there may be many

861
other people with much smaller slices, why cannot we say that in the Bill? Alternatively, why cannot we go down the route proposed in Amendment No. 29? I do not see the problem here. I do not see it as a question of loopholes.
Nevertheless we have another opportunity to come back to this matter should we so wish. I shall, of course, reflect—as I always do—on what has been said. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We are almost at 3.30. I think that it would be a convenient time to adjourn the House. I beg to move that the House be resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past three o'clock.

  House of Lords Reform
  House of Lords Reform
  Personal Injury Cases
  Personal Injury Cases
  State of Emergency: Concept in Law
  State of Emergency: Concept in Law
  Northern Ireland: Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland: Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland Police Service: Lateral Entry
  Northern Ireland Police Service: Lateral Entry
  Northern Ireland: Casualties
  Northern Ireland: Casualties
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Energy Crops
  Energy Crops
  Rural Payments Agency
  Rural Payments Agency