Sitting of 1 March 2002

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

  HAMMOND INQUIRY REVIEW
  Resolved,
  That there shall be laid before this House a Return of the Review of the Conclusions of the 2001 Review by Sir Anthony Hammond KCB of the circumstances surrounding an application for naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja in 1998.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

  Achievements of the National Lottery
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  9.33 am
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I welcome the opportunity to debate the achievements of the national lottery and to take account of the Select Committee report on the operation of the national lottery published in March last year.
  The national lottery is all about dreams. Some are glamorous, such as the new car, the yacht or the exotic holiday, and some are personal, such as support for the family or the funding of a career change. Other dreams are essential for the health and vitality of the community, such as the new arts centre, the new pavilion or the restoration of a local landmark. Whether people are spending winnings or working out what the good causes can do for them, the lottery relies on firing the imagination of millions of people up and down the country and inspiring their ability to dream. It is vital that everyone involved in the lottery remembers that and does as much as possible to fan, not extinguish, that fire of enthusiasm.
  Every week, six out of 10 of us spend at least £1 on a lottery ticket. Since its launch in 1994, the lottery has become part of our national life and a major force in improving the quality of life. It is fair to recognise the amount of cross-party credit that is due for its success. The key challenge is to maintain public confidence. Although the Government and the Opposition have taken different approaches to the national lottery, a strong body of consensus underpins it, and that consensus is cause for public confidence.
  The lottery has surpassed all expectations. It has become one of the most successful lotteries in the world. More than £12 billion has been raised for good causes and more than 100,000 awards have been made. The success is evident in the wide-ranging and varied projects that it has funded from the national flagship projects such as Tate Modern and the Eden centre, to the funding of sports events for people with disabilities, to new dance studies and the refurbishment of football pitches.
  948
  In many ways, the lottery is succeeding in meeting the needs of our diverse lives and interests. Instead of hanging around on the streets after school, children can pursue worthwhile interests and activities in the after-school clubs that are funded by the lottery or take advantage of the new sports co-ordinators to develop their interest in sport. People of all ages can improve their health by visiting one of the lottery-funded healthy living centres. Anyone can enjoy the parks that have been restored with funding from the heritage lottery fund.
  However, the landscape is changing as our lifestyles are changing. Things are now possible that would have once seemed out of reach. We can be proud of the lottery's success. Sales of games have totalled nearly £36 billion. It is worth considering why the lottery has been so successful. It caught the public's imagination early on with high-profile big cash winners. That caused the public to take the national lottery to their heart; they believed that they really could be winners. Our system is well regulated. It strikes a good balance between allowing fun games at the soft end of gambling while ensuring that young people and the vulnerable are protected. People from all parts of our society enjoy playing it. For those reasons, the lottery has become part of our national life. It is good fun for good causes.
  We have an efficient operator in place, but we have no grounds for complacency. We need constantly to consider ways to improve and therefore strengthen our national lottery. The market is changing, as is the technology available to deliver the lottery, which is why this is the right time to review its structure and regulation to ensure that we continue to achieve the maximum return for good causes. I welcome the opportunity to set out some of the matters dealt with in the review and the reforms that we need to address.
  When we came to power in 1997, the Government wanted to make the lottery responsive to the needs of the whole population, acting and responding to criticisms that lottery funding was too often for the articulate few rather than the silent many. Large, well-resourced organisations were adept and experienced at securing funding, but the fruits of the lottery were passing entire communities by in too many parts of the country. People feel strongly that lottery money is their money and that it should support the things that they think are important, and we agree with them. So we delivered reform by making the lottery more accessible and responsive to people's needs.
  We introduced a new good cause and created a new distributor—the new opportunities fund—that in turn has funded new initiatives in the areas that concern people most: health, education and the environment. We also changed the distributors' powers and responsibilities so that they could become more strategic and pro-active and work together better, made the application system less bureaucratic and more user-friendly, and pushed more decisions closer to the grass roots. We encouraged distributors to ensure that all parts of the UK have access to funding. We also gave them scope for reducing social and economic deprivation, highlighting the need for much greater emphasis on people, activities and access.
  Those changes have yielded important success in the way in which money is awarded. The number of small grants—under £5,000—to community groups has more than trebled since 1998. Some 41 per cent. of all grants have gone to the 50 most deprived local authorities. The percentage of revenue funding awards has increased from

  949
  9 per cent. to 31 per cent., and more money is being invested in people and activities, rather than just buildings.
  Lottery distributors have made significant advances in simplifying the application process, especially for smaller grants. They have launched a national telephone helpline to point callers to the right distributor for their project, and have undertaken to overhaul application forms. The awards for all programme, which involves a single distributor bringing together many other distributors, has been a tremendous success and has made lottery funding accessible to community groups throughout the country. UK-wide, it has awarded nearly £123 million to some 38,000 projects. The programme is also making money available for projects to celebrate the golden jubilee. We are encouraged by the enthusiastic take-up of that opportunity by extraordinary people throughout the country, who want to do extraordinary things for the jubilee.
  Area-based schemes such as the community fund's Brass for Barnsley, which distributed £3 million to local voluntary and community organisations, have proved successful in distributing lottery money where it is needed most. I am sure that hon. Members can point to ways in which the national lottery has helped to regenerate and revitalise urban and rural areas in their own constituencies.
  The Millennium Commission, which I chair, has injected more than £300 million into regeneration projects in places such as Belfast, Bristol, Coventry, London, Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The Millennium Commission awarded some £46 million to help stimulate construction of the millennium stadium, in Cardiff. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge on this St. David's day that the value of that award will be even more apparent when we beat Italy tomorrow and the renaissance in Welsh rugby begins?
  Tessa Jowell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's welcome intervention. The millennium stadium will give many causes for celebration, not least as an example of the investment of lottery money.
  Many other large-scale city developments have acted as a catalyst for further regeneration, triggering investment by commercial companies and thereby creating an even greater impact. Indeed, the Millennium Commission's programme of lottery-funded projects has generated some 7,000 jobs. However, as I said, maintaining public confidence is crucial. The lottery has been a success in so many ways, but there are no grounds for complacency. Public confidence in the lottery's integrity is key to its continuing success. Against that background, we must face some crucial challenges if we are to maintain the critical bond of trust between the public and the lottery.
  I want to run through the key headlines for the programme of reform that, as I announced, I intend to initiate. The high level of funds in the national lottery distribution fund is rightly a cause for public concern. People ask why good applications are rejected as money appears to languish unspent, and some accuse Government or distributors of seeking to capitalise on the interest raised.
  950
  I want to take a moment or two to debunk a few myths. While lottery money continues to flow to the good causes, balances will never stand at zero, and nor should they. Lottery income is by its nature uncertain and distributors are right to hold on to a certain level of funds to cope with the inevitable fluctuations. They have commitments to the causes that they fund and cannot overdraw, but money held in the distribution fund is largely committed to projects. Awards have already been made and distributors are waiting for applicants to draw down the available funds. In fact, total commitments by all distributors stand at £3.82 billion, which is £290 million more than is held in the NLDF account. In one sense, therefore, they have not underspent at all. In reality, they have overcommitted, and interest received from the balance goes straight to the good causes.
  Having said all that, I do not consider it right for money to sit needlessly unspent while some parts of the country lose out on lottery funding. A balance must be struck between managing money prudently and putting it to good use now, when it is needed. Action can be taken to speed up the flow of lottery funds. The steps that I am discussing with distributors include setting deadlines by which applicants must draw down funds, providing funds to help them manage their projects and get them under way more quickly, and committing funds further ahead to prevent them from silting up.
  No one expects lottery balances to reduce dramatically by tomorrow, but I made it clear in firm terms to the distributors whom I met that excessive prudence makes no sense. They agree, and they accept that reducing the balance is an important priority. They have made absolutely clear their responsibility for achieving that aim, and they expect balances to halve by March 2004. I shall hold them to account in that regard.
  On licence renewal, although the new Camelot licence began only a few weeks ago, the time is right to review the lottery's licensing and regulatory framework. I aim to publish a consultation document before the House rises for the summer recess to ensure effective competition for the next licence.
  On the size of projects, as I said, since Government reforms in the 1998 legislation, a change of emphasis has been made from capital to revenue projects. I welcome that, because as a result more money is getting out to communities for smaller, people-based projects. However, the people to whom I have spoken have made it clear that there is still value in both large capital projects and small, more community-based ones. Some of the more ambitious capital projects have provided communities with facilities that they could never have dreamed of before the lottery intervened.
  The important thing is that those projects, large or small, are seen to deliver value for money and to offer improvements to people's lives. I have asked the distributors to evaluate carefully the results of the projects that they fund, so that the lessons learned can be applied to subsequent funding policy.
  Lottery funding should not and will not substitute for Government spending. The point is not what the Government could fund, but what they will fund. I accept that there is a fine line to be trodden here, and it needs to be navigated in a way that maintains public trust and confidence. The Government have never been able, and indeed have never aspired, to fund everything from the

  951
  Exchequer. We fund cancer equipment, for example, but the demands are infinite, and so much more can be provided for local communities with the help of the voluntary sector, as has always been the case. Much more has been made possible by the introduction of lottery funding, and the lottery can do things that the Government cannot. I hope that we will begin to define those distinctions a bit more sharply in the review that I have announced.
  The lottery is a fund for innovation, and lottery money should be available to take risks. We like to focus on the lottery's big successes, but nobody pretends that every last penny has been spent as wisely as it should have been. I hope that we can create a sense that lottery funding is venture capital for community enrichment. We have to accept that such a role means that distributors must be willing to take risks.
  A further problem, which is often identified as an obstacle to the most effective operation of the lottery, is the overly bureaucratic distinction between the role of the different distributors, so a more joined-up lottery must be another objective. The lottery was designed to build on the experience of existing funders such as the Sports and Arts Councils, as well as creating the new ones, bringing us to the present total of 15 distributors, UK-wide. I am sure that there is value in such a diverse funding system, which builds on and develops particular areas of expertise, but there is also a need to ensure good co-ordination between distributors.
  It is frustrating when people tell me that good projects have come to nothing because they have fallen between the remits of various distributors or they involve two or more distributors. It is vital that distributors work together more effectively when considering applications or providing advice to potential applicants. The awards for all programme, to which I referred to earlier, has been an encouraging example of such co-operation, but we need to be able to do more.
  Another key challenge is to ensure local equity in the distribution of money. The lottery has always been open to all parts of the country and to all sections of society. The problem is that some areas, and some of the groups that live and work in them, are much more adept than others at identifying opportunities and applying for funding. Certainly, there seems to be a small-town problem, and we may well hear examples of that in the contributions of hon. Members this morning. There are areas that do not have an established infrastructure and funding network, and there is a risk that they will lose out on their fair share of lottery funding.
  Mr. Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend is referring to broad categories of areas with specific problems. Will she comment, in particular, on the problems faced by former coalfield communities? I know that her Department has done a great deal of work on those problems, as have all the funding bodies, but significant problems still face those communities, which attract only about 60 per cent. of the average funding received by other constituencies.
  Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are making progress in redressing the imbalance in the lottery allocation to coalfield areas. The trend is in the right direction, but there is still progress to
  952
  be made. I recognise that we will be judged by whether or not the allocations, in time, become equitable. As I made clear when I addressed the coalfield communities conference last year, we need to consider carefully the way in which we build the capacity in some of those communities to tackle the obstacles to making good applications and navigating through the necessary processes. The Government's commitment to addressing the problems to which my hon. Friend referred remains as firm as it has always been.
  That is an example of our desire to change the lottery to a proactive, rather than a reactive, fund, seeking out applications where they are not forthcoming and helping applicants and local communities with what, in many cases, may seem to be daunting paperwork. There is an important role for Members of Parliament here, and I commend the efforts of many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in fulfilling that role on behalf of their constituents. There is also a role for voluntary organisations and local authorities in ensuring a fairer distribution of lottery funding.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My right hon. Friend mentioned the role of Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) introduced a private Member's Bill in the last days of the last Parliament to amend the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 to allow the national lottery charities board to make endowments. Has that particular glitch in the legislation been ironed out, or is it one of the issues that will be addressed by the consultation paper that she mentioned?
  Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is right. We have signalled our support for the proposed change to extend, particularly to the community fund, the power to make endowments. That will require legislation at the appropriate time, and it is one of the changes that I propose to address in the consultation document.
  Lottery distributors can begin to address the problem of inequity by building on the initiatives, a number of which are already under way, to target funds at those areas that have received less than the amount that they should rightly regard as their fair share. It is still a matter of huge concern for many, including Members of the House, that some deprived areas are chronically underfunded by the lottery. The time is right to develop a more targeted approach to reach those areas that are deprived—they are among the most deprived in the country—and receive less than their fair share of lottery money. Until that happens, areas at the bottom of the lottery league table will never be able to catch up with those that have the capacity and the experience to make bigger, more successful applications.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: My right hon. Friend knows that my constituency is in the bottom 10 in terms of getting lottery awards. I welcome her fair share initiative, but I have a problem with its targeting. She announced yesterday that fair share money is intended to be targeted, which is welcome, but I do not believe that it will benefit my constituency and lift it out of the bottom 10. The figures for my constituency bear no comparison with those for neighbouring constituencies, and to target the money on a borough area will do nothing to lift Doncaster, North out of the bottom 10. In fact, even if my right hon. Friend were to allocate £1 million today to

  953
  Doncaster, North, it would merely move into the bottom 20. Will she explain how she will redress the obvious imbalance?
  Tessa Jowell: It might reassure my hon. Friend to know that my constituency spans two of the most deprived areas in the country—Lambeth and Southwark—but will not benefit from the fair share programme that I announced in a parliamentary answer yesterday, nor will the similarly deprived Sheffield, Central constituency of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, who is to wind up the debate. My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his constituency and the rights of his constituents, many of whom live in deprived circumstances, to get their share of lottery income. If he is patient, I hope to address his points specifically.
  In June last year, I announced our intention to introduce a new targeted initiative to inject millions of pounds of lottery funding into deprived areas that had not received their fair share. Yesterday, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), I was pleased to detail the 51 local authority areas in England that the community fund and the new opportunities fund have decided will benefit from the initiative. Fair share will begin in April 2002, and during the next three years the community fund aims to commit about £80 million of its income to programmes that fall within the terms of eligibility for the initiative. The new opportunities fund will allocate a further £50 million so that it, too, can contribute. In England, the new opportunities fund will target £39 million of its already announced transforming communities initiative money on the English fair share areas. In addition to fair share, the community fund will shortly announce £10 million fund to help rural areas that have been chronically underfunded by the lottery.
  To respond to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), I recognise that although fair share will make an important contribution in those 51 areas, it is not a panacea for all the problems. Some areas will still need and deserve a more equitable share of lottery money. However, I am confident that fair share will make a tangible difference to the 51 deprived communities whose claim on lottery funding has not been realised fully.
  Mr. Bryant: I am sorry to have to press again the issue of coalfield communities, but I often hear Ministers announce new money for rural areas, or for metropolitan areas, and coalfield communities often lose out because they are neither one nor the other. No one would have lived in the area had it not been for coal, and the result is straggling communities that feel rural—everyone in my constituency lives within 250 yd of some sort of farm—but do not attract rural money, and are not metropolitan either. They tend to fall between two stools.
  Tessa Jowell: I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured to learn that of the 51 areas announced yesterday, 11 are in coalfield areas. That benefit is in addition to the initiative and continuing drive to improve coalfield communities' access to lottery funding that I mentioned earlier.
  Chris Grayling: There is a clear need to ensure that lottery funds are distributed equitably.
  954
  Often, better-off areas are more articulate in making bids than deprived areas. However, one of the lottery's founding principles was that it should be separate from Government and the distributing bodies should take the decisions. Will the right hon. Lady assure the House that the step that she is taking does not compromise that principle, or create a mechanism of Government-engineered investment in certain communities?
  Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The legislation is clear. The Government set the legislative framework in the National Lottery Act 1998, which made changes to the operation of the lottery consistent with the Labour Government's priorities. It is for distributors, operating at arm's length from Government, to implement the legislation. I assure the House that there is no question of political interference or of fixing lottery funds distribution. That is a matter for the distributors consistent with the powers given to the Secretary of State in legislation that is debated by both Houses. That is what the relationship should be and what it will continue to be.
  There is an urgent need now to get fair share money out to those whom the community fund and new opportunities fund will benefit. We all know how much communities can achieve when they are empowered to decide their own priorities and get on with things. We all want fair share to achieve that. In three years, I want all of our most deprived areas to be getting their fair share of lottery funding. To achieve that, the efforts of all the lottery distributors will be required. That is why I shall ask distributors other than the community fund and the new opportunities fund to look long and hard at those areas that have received less of their funding in the past. It is clear that different areas lose out in respect of different good causes. A flexible approach is needed on the part of distributors, and our approach should be the same: we should aim to tackle disadvantage and reduce the wide variation in the amount of lottery money per head received by each area.
  I pay respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) and to the work that he and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North and for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden)—he is not able to be here today—are doing to identify the obstacles to lottery funding in their constituencies. There is a group of hon. Members of different parties working in the interests of their local communities. I met them in January to discuss how to remove the obstacles surrounding other communities that have received less than their fair share of lottery funding. I shall meet them again after Easter to review progress and to identify practical steps that can be taken.
  I hope that the House shares my judgment that the lottery has been a resounding success. It allows people throughout the country to dream. Its tickets are habitually bought by individuals and syndicates, and it grants a lifeline to the communities it reaches, whether as a £10 prize or as a £100 million grant. It has touched the lives of millions of British people, even though it is less than eight years old. Any eight-year-old is shaped and continues to be shaped by his experiences, and the lottery is no different. It needs to be given more freedom and, in 1998, it was. It now needs to begin to exploit that freedom. It needs to be nimbler and more responsive, and

  955
  encouraged to develop new and better ways of achieving its goals. I am not prepared to stand and wait for that development to happen over many years because communities are impatient for change, as are the Government.
  Fair share is an expression of the Government's determination to deliver more equity in distribution now, as well as insisting on longer-term improvements. Three-year plans are all very well, but they do not help people who are impatient and in need now. I want support for the imaginative and essential projects that local communities, for whatever reason, have struggled to fund. I want to start now.
  I want distributors to use the powers that they were given in the 1998 legislation to help people to apply for funds. I want to ask people to apply for funds, and I want them to work together to make people believe that the system that pays those funds is simple and fair. The only mystery about the lottery should be which numbers come out of the machine. I want more delegation of cash resources and of decision making to the local level.
  The lottery cannot make everyone a millionaire but, as Secretary of State, I can and will insist that while the games may work on the rules of random chance, the distribution of the cash raised for good causes in communities the length and breadth of the country does not.
  10.11 am
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to respond on behalf of the official Opposition to this welcome debate on the achievements of the national lottery. I personally welcome the Secretary of State on one of her rare appearances at the Dispatch Box, having missed an interesting debate on Ofcom on Second Reading and a debate on the earlier Select Committee report on the subject.
  Today we celebrate the national lottery as one of the lasting achievements of the Major Government, as it was launched in November 1994. It has raised £12 billion for good causes, and £36 billion has been spent on tickets. We also welcome this first major debate on the lottery.
  I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Camelot, whose lottery is consistently ranked among the top lotteries in the world in terms of efficiency and returns to good causes and Government. The lottery duty paid to the Government over this period has been £4.2 billion; retailer commission has reached £1.8 billion; and the total of prizes across games has reached more than £7.3 billion.
  Like the Secretary of State, I congratulate the distributing bodies. The Arts Council and others; the community fund; Sport England and others; and the national lottery fund each distribute 16 per cent. of the total, while the Millennium Commission distributes 20 per cent.
  During the second licence period, it is estimated that the national lottery will help to create and secure in the region of 121,600 jobs. The national lottery has made more than 97,000 awards, benefiting thousands of communities across the UK.
  The overall size of a jackpot ticket is in the region of £2 million, and the overall average amount going to jackpot winners is £639,301. I would like to declare an interest, in that having purchased a lottery ticket on normal weeks, I do not seem to have become a jackpot
  956
  winner. About 60 per cent. of the adult population plays the national lottery generally. The average spend per week is £3.32 and there are approximately 36,000 national lottery retailers throughout the UK.
  As the Secretary of State has suggested, every constituency in the land has benefited, and Vale of York is no exception. The Leonard Cheshire foundation received £146,000 from the community fund; a playground at Newton-on-Ouse received £37,000; Topcliffe and Asenby village hall received £5,000; Topcliffe playing field received almost £5,000; Stillington village hall received almost £5,000; and Thairsk hockey club received just under £2,000 from Sport England.
  Nationally, by September 2001 the Sports Council across the UK awarded nearly 17,000 grants, worth nearly £1.6 billion. It is important to recognise that the lottery fund contributed to the success of Great Britain's team at the 2000 Olympic games in Sydney, where Britain won 28 medals, finishing tenth in the overall medals table. At the Paralympic games, Britain won 131 medals, finishing second in the medals table. At the recent Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Britain had its best result since 1934, and I add our congratulations on their magnificent achievement, which was recognised on Monday.
  Before we get carried away by the huge successes and achievements of the national lottery, let us pause to consider the fact that there are disappointments under the stewardship of this Secretary of State and this Government. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo)—who leads for the Opposition—said at Question Time on Monday, with reference to a written answer from the Minister for Sport on 13 February, that:
  "lottery-funded spending on sport had fallen by one third since 1997—a drop of more than £100 million a year".—[Official Report, 25 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 427.]
  If it is correct that more than £3 billion in unspent lottery funds is sitting unused—the Secretary of State alluded to this—the rejection of proposals such as that from the university of Hertfordshire to build an Olympic-sized swimming pool is, as my hon. Friend said on Monday, profoundly discouraging for budding sportsmen and sports fans, and undermines the chances of future Olympic success.
  It has come to my notice that there is a category of young athlete, aged 16 to 18, who currently do not qualify for any training funds under the sports fund. I take this opportunity to make a special plea that they should qualify in future.
  An earlier disappointment, to which the Secretary of State referred, was the setting up of the new opportunities fund. On 7 April 1998, the former Prime Minister and right hon. Member for Huntingdon, John Major, said in a debate on the National Lottery Bill:
  "A small part—or perhaps not so small; we do not yet know—of the New Opportunities Fund will use lottery money for what I envisaged would always be tax-based expenditure. I have no problem with some elements of the New Opportunities Fund, but expenditure on children's play, coaching in literacy and numeracy and science and technology—all of which are worthy areas for expenditure—should properly be tax borne. The lottery is substituting for what we all, including the Secretary of State, know should be tax-borne expenditure. That is a source of grievance to us and to the distributing bodies … Those areas of expenditure are not, not, not in the original sprit of the lottery."
  Tessa Jowell: The hon. Lady refers to the record of the previous Prime Minister and to his comments that funding

  957
  for certain activities now funded by the new opportunities fund should be tax borne. Why did the previous Government never take steps to fund such activities from tax?
  Miss McIntosh: The right hon. Lady will recall that, particularly in relation to health, we had a year-on-year increase in spending.
  Tessa Jowell: Rubbish.
  Miss McIntosh: It is very well for the right hon. Lady to say that, but I stand by my Government's record. Subsequent to the eloquent intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), it is a source of concern to the Opposition not only that lottery funds are being diverted from the good causes for which they were originally intended, but that the Government appear to be intervening to set objectives for lottery distributors.
  Also in the debate in 1998, John Major said:
  "They"—
  this Government—
  "infringe the principles that Labour demanded of the previous Government when the original Bill went through the House … The Government are raiding the lottery, raising the fear that they will do it again—and possibly again and again."
  —[Official Report, 7 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 189-90.]
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss McIntosh: Why not?
  Mr. Steinberg: Is the hon. Lady saying that if we had a Conservative Government in 20 or 30 years' time, they would stop that sort of expenditure and not keep the new opportunities fund, which has given millions of pounds to constituencies throughout the country for many different schemes, which would never have been paid for by the taxpayer, neither under this Government or the previous one?
  Miss McIntosh: I fear I would be ruled out of order if I set out the objectives of a future Conservative Government. When the time comes, we shall have plenty of opportunities to discuss our priorities.
  The raiding of the lottery for causes that were always intended to be funded from general taxation is deeply regrettable. General tax spending is substituted by money raised through the generosity of ordinary people who purchase lottery tickets week in, week out, in the belief that they may win the jackpot—in the Secretary of State's words, their personal dream—safe in the knowledge that they are contributing to good causes. Their trust should not be abused.
  That money is not public money—it is not taxpayers' money—and the two should not be confused. Even the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who, regrettably, is not in the Chamber today, has been known to refer to lottery money in that
  958
  way. Let us recognise and rejoice in the generosity of national lottery players, who raise funds for good causes which, historically, taxpayers' money has not reached.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's refinement of the definition of the principle of additionality and her further commitment to it. The principle that lottery money should be additional to existing public expenditure is as relevant today as it was in 1994. Even now, good causes are under threat from another direction. The Budd review on the deregulation of betting shops and other gambling outlets could pose a threat to the national lottery and money raised for good causes. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will have received, as all Opposition Members have, many heartfelt representations from lottery distributors about that.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Pinner Wood school in my constituency has just received an £18,000 grant to run an after-school club. Is the hon. Lady's party committed to abolishing the new opportunities fund? Will she make a commitment today, or has she secured a commitment from her education and Treasury spokesmen, that her party would match from general taxation the money that would be lost by schools like Pinner Wood to fund after-school clubs, which were not being provided when this Government came to power?
  Miss McIntosh: I repeat the commitment that we made when the lottery started and welcome the Government's devotion to a successful concept. I hope that when the Minister for Sport makes his winding-up speech, he will give a commitment to the principle of additionality and that there will be no further raids on the lottery coffers.
  Chris Grayling: Does my hon. Friend recognise that in many parts of the country groups that are taking advantage of finance through the new opportunities fund traditionally received much greater support from the local authority? As she will know, local authorities this year are under increasing pressure because they are underfunded for things like teachers' pay. Discretionary spending for grants to the kind of schemes to which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) referred cannot come through local authorities because of that underfunding.
  Miss McIntosh: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point which shows how shire counties in particular have suffered in this year's spending round. I shall return to that subject later.
  This week, the Government almost broke with their recently established tradition of burying, or causing to seep out, bad news on Fridays. An announcement on the English fair share areas could have been made during departmental questions on Monday, so we have to ask ourselves why the Secretary of State held it up until yesterday in a written answer to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson). My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk received that information via his fax machine at approximately 4.08 pm, and the Secretary of State elaborated further on the scheme today.
  Tessa Jowell: With great respect, the hon. Lady must do better. She has been abandoned by the Opposition spokesman, who is away from the House, to handle this debate. As Secretary of State, I am here. The hon. Lady,

  959
  having chosen a debate on the lottery in Government time to raise the issue, will have to give a better explanation of why answering a parliamentary question yesterday to clarify the position on fair shares can possibly be described as burying bad news. The 51 areas that will benefit from the scheme will regard it as a reason to celebrate this weekend.
  Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her assistance. In announcing the fair share agreement in her written answer and her opening remarks today, she referred to her announcement on 27 June 2001. I wish to spare her blushes, but one must ask why it has taken nine months for an announcement originally promised on 27 June to seep out in that elaborate form. Following the targeted lottery initiative announcement on 27 June, one is tempted to ask why the Secretary of State has waited so long to make yesterday's announcement. What reason for such a long delay can there possibly be?
  Tessa Jowell: I must put the hon. Lady out of her agony. The announcement about the fair share areas was made in today's debate and a parliamentary answer was given yesterday, because the programme will start in April. The announcement is timely; it is properly timed for the start of the programme by the new opportunities fund and the community fund at the beginning of April.
  Miss McIntosh: If an announcement had been made in January, the programme could have started in March. If an announcement had been made in September, it could have started in November. However we shall not debate the meaning of the word "timely" because that is not why Members are here.
  The written answer to which I referred—it has been expanded on by the Secretary of State—refers to direct support in respect of 51 of our 100 most deprived areas. The community fund and the new opportunities fund have analysed areas that receive less than the average amount of funding from the community fund and from other lottery distributors collectively. Those areas are to receive direct support from fair share. I congratulate the community fund on targeting money on the most deprived areas in that way. The Secretary of State mentioned that £80 million of community fund money will be targeted. I gather that £10 million will subsequently make its way to rural areas, but it should be made clear whether that money is additional to the £80 million or part of it.
  I also congratulate the community fund on following the Secretary of State's request that it simplify its procedure. It has pioneered the one-stop shop and even taken advantage of the popular radio programme "The Archers" to explain how the procedures will work. I urge her to go further and to encourage other distributors—especially those concerned with heritage and the arts—to make efforts to put similar money into the fair share initiative.
  I add one note of caution. I recognise that the majority of the 100 most deprived areas are not rural—the list given in the written answer speaks for itself. I welcome the fact that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) will benefit. None the less, Barking and Dagenham, Barnsley, Darlington, Doncaster, Kingston upon Hull, Peterborough and Portsmouth—the list goes on—could hardly be described as rural. I gather that the regional sparsity factor
  960
  is one of the indices used to create the relevant criteria, so I make this plea: the fair share initiative, which appears from the written answer mostly to represent urban areas, for the reason given by the Secretary of State, should be matched by the Government with a similar rural initiative. I add to that plea a request that the Government examine exactly how the rural indices are arrived at and calculated.
  The Secretary of State may not be aware that Thirsk is now among the 10 per cent. most deprived areas in the country, according to a recent newspaper report; yet Hambleton district would not be considered in the same way. The Government must address that conundrum. They have failed to do so today. I invite them to work with the Countryside Agency to identify and assist areas such as Thirsk, which have been especially badly hit by the foot and mouth crisis. Such areas need the benefit of such a rural scheme.
  The Secretary of State did not seem to welcome my appearance at the Dispatch Box. She will have noted that I am the official Opposition spokesman for the lottery. I mentioned that I would welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am glad to see her recognise from a sedentary position that this is an important subject.
  The Secretary of State referred at some length to underspend and the £3.82 billion that is committed. She said that in one sense, such money is not underspent but overspent, as it is committed. A very alarming report was published in The Mail on Sunday on 24 February, referring to a scandal of a £3.6 billion cash mountain that the lottery chiefs are sitting on and cannot give away. I am not entirely persuaded by her explanation. Is it true that there is such a mountain? If so, it is indeed a scandal, but if such reports are not true, the Government should not allow their press machine to go into overspin. If the article is correct, this will not be the first Secretary of State who has had to apologise this week for not being entirely straight with the House and the British public.
  In that context, I should like to refer to the answer given by the Minister for Sport yesterday to a written question tabled by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). The answer contains two tables, one of which lists all the distributing bodies. Rather alarmingly, it gives the amount held in the lottery distribution fund in millions of pounds. The balance of outstanding commitments is also given. Perhaps the Minister will give some more sense to the table.
  Tessa Jowell: I should like to be absolutely clear about what the hon. Lady is saying. Is she suggesting that any of the information that I have given to the House this morning is misleading or incorrect? Does she accept that I made a clear distinction in respect of the important difference between balances being committed and spent? The distributors are not allowed to overspend, but they can overcommit.
  Miss McIntosh: I am grateful for that clarification. I was trying to say that that the Secretary of State has not made the position entirely clear and that even the written answer is misleading in many respects. I welcome the opportunity for elaboration on that point; perhaps it can be further clarified later in the debate.
  We are also considering this morning the first report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. The report, which was published in October 2001, is an

  961
  excellent recognition of the national lottery's contribution to the life of the nation. I want to draw the House's attention to three points in relation to the report. First, conclusion (v) states:

  "We see no justification for the view that the Lottery is a tax, whether on the poor or anyone else. The purchase of a National Lottery ticket is a wholly voluntary decision, which players make to take part in the dream of winning a large amount of money."
  I note that the Government welcome that conclusion. Secondly, conclusion (xxvi) states that the Committee was
  "disappointed that the Government saw fit to exclude the question of the National Lottery's regulation from the current Gaming Review Body."
  It goes on to state:
  "This issue should therefore be considered by the review of the selection process announced by the Secretary of State."
  I want to express my disappointment that no mention was made of that point in respect of the review and reforms on which the Secretary of State has announced that consultation will occur before the House rises for the summer. Finally, in conclusion (xxxvi) the Committee states that
  "the Government must allow the good causes to evolve and consider changes in the future."
  The final conclusion states:
  "We expect the Government, in considering the good causes, to adhere to the principles under which the Lottery was established and ensure that it continues to enhance the quality of life."
  I commend the report to the House. I also welcome the review, reforms and consultation announced by the Secretary of State. The Opposition hope to play a full part in the process.
  I would welcome a clearer definition of additionality. I have mentioned the concept of underspend or overcommitment, and I believe that the great British public would benefit from greater clarification in that regard.
  In conclusion, we seek an undertaking from the Secretary of State that she will restore the clear separation between lottery funds and taxpayers' money, and that the procedures through which the public apply to the lottery distributing bodies for funds will be streamlined to ensure that they are as user-friendly and efficient as possible. We want the Government to admit that they are responsible for a £100 million drop in lottery-funded spending on sport. I am sure that the whole House will unite in condemning that drop. I repeat my plea that all young athletes will qualify in respect of training, including the category of 16 to 18-year-olds, whom I gather do not currently qualify. Perhaps the Minister for Sport was not aware of that point.
  We seek an assurance that the suspected £3 billion underspend will be confirmed as a firm spending commitment, that the national lottery will operate as the Conservative Government envisaged—free from Government interference and run for the benefit of good causes, big and small, across the country—and that there will be a proper balance in the distribution of funds by all the lottery bodies and distributing bodies between rural and urban areas, recognising the devastation suffered in rural communities as a result of the on going farming crisis.
  10.40 am
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: We are always quick to criticise and complain, but we rarely offer congratulations. That is why I wanted to speak in the debate. I am sure that we all dream of being a winner in the national lottery, and I am equally sure that most people have some experience of the many excellent and worthwhile projects that have come to fruition as a direct result of the revenue generated by the national lottery and disbursed by the distributing bodies to support good causes such as sport, arts, charities and heritage.
  It is too easy to sensationalise the more dubious awards that have been made by the distributing bodies. We all have our own views about how lottery money could be better spent, and on worthwhile projects which we think it should be used to assist. I admit that I have shared such views on many occasions—for example, about the huge amounts spent on projects that I regard as elitist.
  We all have our own opinions about the amounts spent on the more questionable projects on which the media have focused, including the millennium dome. Although I understand the well-intentioned aims of the project, I admit that I joined many other people in pondering the many other laudable schemes that could have been assisted with the resources that were spent on the dome. However, I believe that the smaller, perhaps less sensational schemes have made a real difference to people's lives.
  Very few hon. Members could honestly say that their community has not received some form of assistance from one of the good causes for a local project. Those range from relatively small schemes to the much bigger initiatives. The fundamental point—let us be quite clear about this—is that without the income generated by the national lottery, such schemes would not have been possible, and those who benefit from them would not be doing so.
  Let us think about the projects funded for arts provision; valuable and important heritage schemes; the improvements and developments that have been made possible in sport; and the excellent charitable schemes that have been realised as a direct result of the national lottery. All hon. Members could cite several examples to demonstrate my point.
  We all have our own ideas about what we will do when—or, perhaps more importantly, if—we win the lottery. When we pay our £1 or whatever, we all think of that with great relish. However, we probably do not think twice about the approximately 28 per cent. of the revenue generated from the sales that is handed over to the national lottery distribution fund, and how that money is being used. The lottery has made a real difference not just to the lucky winners who scooped the millions or the thousands, but to everyone who has benefited directly or indirectly from projects funded by the six distributing bodies.
  Numerous community groups, sportsmen and women, and arts groups, not to mention charities, have been the recipients of financial assistance that has allowed excellent work and projects to be initiated, and in some cases to continue. New sports facilities have been built, equipment has been purchased and excellent development work has been undertaken. Many arts projects have been funded, and restoration schemes have ensured that local treasures have been safeguarded for the future.

  963
  Community associations and groups have been rewarded for their valuable efforts, ranging from schemes for toddlers and young children right through the spectrum to the more senior members of our society. Schemes are being funded from which everyone throughout the country can benefit. Yes, we can all criticise, but perhaps it is time that we all took stock and realised just how much revenue is being ploughed back into every city, town, village and community as a result of the weekly flutter that most of us have.
  I wanted to speak in the debate to highlight some of the achievements that have made a difference in my constituency, City of Durham, which is obviously the place closest to my heart. I hope that after I have described some examples, the lottery funds do not dry up! We have done quite well in Durham up to now.
  A first-class specialist gymnastics facility, which will provide a much-needed centre of excellence for the gymnasts in the area, has been made possible. I know that the facility will make a huge difference to gymnasts in Durham and the region. For years its development has been an aspiration. It is questionable whether that would have been fulfilled without the input of £320,000 of national lottery funding. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) spoke about the Olympic games. Who knows, we might see a future gold medallist as a result of that gymnasium.
  Another excellent facility that has been opened in my constituency is an indoor bowling facility, which was made possible as a result of £450,000 of lottery funding. The new building provides a centre for bowling development for all members of the community, young and old, and has led to a huge growth in bowling in the area. Both of these projects, incidentally, were also funded by grants from the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, for which I am extremely grateful. That organisation still has an important role to play in the distribution of grants to local organisations. We should not forget that, while we are congratulating the national lottery.
  In 2000, Durham Sport, based in City of Durham, became the first sports partnership to receive £100,000 of revenue funding from the sports lottery fund for its active sports programme. The programme will lead to more young people taking part in many kinds of sport, more coaches being trained to deliver sporting activity to young people, and more junior clubs being developed to retain young people in sport. All hon. Members are aware of the recent reports about increasing obesity in young people and concerns that the country is not producing sufficient high-class performers. The programme in Durham will address both those important issues with the support of the national lottery.
  To tackle the needs of the more senior members of our society, Age Concern in County Durham has been the recipient of £208,000 of funding via the National Lottery Charities Board, as it was then, which has made possible the establishment of offices in various locations in the county. That has enabled the organisation to work more effectively at local level, mapping existing provision, identifying unmet needs and working towards the development of new services.
  As a result of lottery funding, the Durham Light Infantry museum has been refurbished, remodelled and its exhibits redisplayed. The museum, managed by the county council's arts, libraries and museums service, is a
  964
  major tourist draw in our historic city. The £1.5 million refit has attracted considerable critical acclaim. The museum, which is set in the parkland of Aykley Head, is now fit for the 21st century. The remodelled displays and associated activities programmes are focused on the family, especially younger people and school parties. The Durham Light Infantry Regiment may have been disbanded in 1968, but its history is indelibly linked with the identity of my constituents. The staff are therefore ensuring that future generations understand their spiritual inheritance.
  Durham county council is a firm believer in the value of cultural services to the local community. It may be some years since the small village of Cassopcum-Quarrington was mentioned in the House, but I can report that its local history society, with the support of the national lottery, has established a mobile visual display outlining the history and past events of the parish.
  This comparatively modest initiative is contributing to a regionwide digitisation project managed by the county council, which is entitled "Tomorrow's History". It is creating a local heritage database covering every community in the north-eastern region, from Berwick to Guisborough and from Haltwhistle to Hartlepool. That would not be happening without the national lottery.
  Community initiatives in the villages of Brandon, Shincliffe and Bowburn in my constituency have greatly benefited from the regional initiative. The same project has encouraged the Durham Dialect Association to survey communities spanning all age groups to illustrate the survival of the local vocabulary, pitmatic included. The expression "Whey aye, man" will, I hope, continue to be used for many years to come.
  Age Concern has contributed to "Tomorrow's History" on intergenerational work for senior citizens. It is collaborating with school children on local history topics. Once again, that is because of the national lottery.
  I shall mention work that is going on in other small villages throughout my constituency—for example, Bearpark, New Brancepeth and Ushaw Moor—as a consequence of new opportunities fund moneys that the arts, libraries and museums department is utilising to broaden community access to learning, working with local community associations.
  Last summer, archaeology was actually brought to life in a small village called Coxhoe, with a "time detectives" local equivalent for youngsters as part of the learning strand of the new opportunities fund. This, and many other schemes, are countywide, but of immense benefit to my constituents. For example, the elements drama development programme is encouraging youth theatre, commissioning new work and stimulating the touring of professional plays in the rural areas of my constituency.
  Last year, a new play, "Set in Stone" explored the harrowing account of a Durham first-world-war soldier, who was shot at dawn for alleged cowardice. Thankfully, this man's name is now remembered in the rolls of honour, the evidence leading to his death being questionable to say the least. The national lottery has helped to right an 80-year-old wrong.
  Last year, the arts, libraries and museums department established "The Forge", an arts in education development agency, again with the benefit of lottery funding, this time through the regional arts lottery programme. I cannot speak too highly of the work of this organisation in local

  965
  schools, for example. It is providing the springboard for collaboration with the recently established Sunderland and Durham creative partnership that I hope will encourage more creative activity among schoolchildren in the area.
  There are six libraries in my constituency and the county council's policy is clear: libraries are the hub of community activity. I shall quote from the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who said:
  "Libraries contribute to four of this Government's most important policy objectives. They underpin education, providing essential support for schoolchildren, students and lifelong learners; they enhance public access to the world's storehouse of knowledge and information; they promote social inclusion by helping to bridge the gap between those who can afford access to information and those who can't, and increasingly have a role to play in the modernisation and delivery of public services."
  Lottery funding has enabled libraries in my area to play their full part in meeting those objectives. Investment from the new opportunities fund has enabled the provision of additional PCs, scanners and printers, the extension of an upgraded data transmission network and, most importantly, the training of all library staff to the European computer driving licence standard. All the libraries in County Durham have had free internet access since 1998. They are the base for lifelong learning programmes in association with local colleges. They provide mediated information and advice, and are the hub of community activity.
  All in all, the national lottery has stimulated new ways of thinking, new collaborations and exciting new initiatives. I believe that the Durham pleasure gardens, which fell into disuse in the early years of the century, could well be restored, at least virtually, through a partnership between the archaeology section of the arts, libraries and museums service and its Northumberland counterparts, because they are jointly developing virtual models of archaeology sites in the north-east, again with the assistance of lottery money.
  On something entirely different, only last weekend, a new bridge—the first new bridge for more than 40 years—was erected across the Wear in Durham. The Millennium Commission, Durham city council and Durham county council are funding that £460,000 bridge, which links Framwellgate Waterside with the Sands, as part of the city's millennium city project. The bridge would never have been possible without national lottery funding.
  Of particular significance to the people of Durham, and to those who are fortunate enough to have the opportunity to visit such a magnificent city, is the Durham millennium city development. This wonderful and fantastic scheme has transformed the city centre. It will be a legacy to the efforts of all those involved in bringing it to fruition, and to the significant funding input from the national lottery via the Millennium Commission. There was a grant of more than £13 million from the commission, which has been matched by the local authority.
  I hope that when Members visit Durham they will also visit that new development. It has regenerated an area of the city that was little more than a car park on a derelict site for more than 30 years. The development has acted as a catalyst for the redevelopment and improvement of
  966
  the central part of Durham. I am sure that many Members have fond memories of Durham. Only yesterday, I was away with members of the Public Accounts Committee; two members of it were at Durham university. Many Members know Durham well, including the city. When they revisit, I hope that they will see what I am talking about.
  The scheme includes the fantastic Gala theatre, the state of the art Clayport library, a new tourist information centre, a visitors' centre, access to information and advice for everyone, and space for community groups. The city council, in attracting investment for the development, has realised a dream for the people of Durham. That development has been a local Labour party manifesto item for as long as I can remember or for as long as I have been in politics, which is 30 years. Now the scheme has come to fruition.
  The Gala theatre has been designed as multi-purpose building. It can house theatre shows but it converts to a dance hall, a conference centre or an exhibition hall, to name but a few uses. It is a venue for everyone for seven days a week, from early morning to well into the evening. At long last, it will give the people of Durham the opportunity to experience different forms of entertainment without having to travel out of the city, which they have had to do for many years.
  On the opposite side of the Millennium square is the new Clayport library, which will offer a huge range of facilities. The lifelong learning centre will provide ideas and opportunities for learning or leisure, work or hobbies, stimulation or relaxation. It occupies three floors, with full access for the disabled to all levels. Here we can learn, brush up on our IT skills, browse for a book from the 18,000 volumes that are on loan and explore online the catalogue of the county's 800,000 stockholdings. Information can be sought from a mixture of traditional reference works or from the latest in electronic formats, and visitors will feel at home in one of the 60 study places. A community resource centre, incorporating office and meeting facilities for community and voluntary organisations, provides community services in one easy to access location.
  I must declare an interest because I have recently moved my constituency office into the new building. The development has given a much-needed facelift to what was a rather drab part of the city, and the careful selection of facilities will ensure that the people of Durham can really benefit from what it has to offer for many years to come.
  One of the potential knock-on effects includes an increase in revenue from visitor activities, as the facility will offer the many visitors to the city a number of further opportunities. I do not need to state that the additional permanent local jobs that have already been generated and will be generated by the scheme are very much welcomed.
  Durham city council's endeavours to implement an extensive redevelopment programme, geared to the regeneration of the city centre, have been especially apparent in recent years, with a number of key projects being completed. The realisation of the Durham millennium city project was a significant part of that regeneration, which would never have taken place without the crucial funding offered by the national lottery. It was always a dream that would never be accomplished; now, thanks to the national lottery, it has been accomplished.

  967
  Just as Durham cathedral has been a magnificent landmark in the city, the millennium city development was a wonderful way to mark the beginning of the new millennium.
  I have mentioned only a few examples of the many excellent schemes that have been made possible in Durham as a result of national lottery funding; I could have gone on to mention many more. I am personally aware of the huge difference that the national lottery has made to the facilities and services that are on offer to my constituents in a wide range of areas, including sport, recreation, arts, heritage projects, education and projects affecting the lives of entire communities. Virtually everyone in my constituency has benefited from the national lottery in some way. That is a significant achievement in anyone's terms. I hope that it will last for a long time to come and that we will continue to benefit from national lottery grants.
  11.1 am
  Nick Harvey: Since its launch in 1994, the national lottery has been of great benefit to many people. The money that it has raised has allowed much regeneration in our communities, enhanced the lives of many people and improved all our constituencies. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) paid a heartfelt tribute to what it has achieved in his constituency, which I visited for the first time a few weeks ago. I do not know how many of its treasures can be directly attributed to the national lottery, but if it is helping to keep the city as wonderful as it is, it is clearly doing good.
  Such achievements should not be underestimated. Hon. Members have already mentioned the sums of money that have been raised. However, in many cases the value of the projects that have been funded by lottery proceeds cannot be calculated because of the lottery's success in unlocking other forms of finance, triggering many projects that would not otherwise have happened and which therefore go beyond what the lottery has directly funded or stimulated.
  Although the national lottery is a relatively new creation, we must be aware that it is likely to have a limited lifespan. The experience of lotteries elsewhere around the world is that however successful they may seem to be for a considerable time, in the end they inevitably roll over and implode. No one can predict with any certainty how long they will last. Indeed, our own lottery has shown some diminution in ticket sales, and we cannot afford the luxury of believing that it will last for ever, continuing to generate the revenue figures that it has so far enjoyed.
  We must ensure as best we can that we maximise ticket sales and thereby the investment that the distributing bodies are able to make; that the lottery operates in a manner that is fair, accountable to the punter and protects the vulnerable; that the distributors have extracted the best value for money from the funds that have been made available through ticket sales; that that money is administered in the best and most efficient manner; and that investment is maximised in every sense. In short, we must ensure that we make the most out of the lottery because, like all good things, it will eventually come to an end. Whatever money is raised, and however it is raised, it is most important that we spend it wisely.
  968
  The funds raised for good causes—28p in the pound for every ticket sold—are distributed between arts, sports, charities and heritage, and education, health and the environment. Historically, arts, sports, heritage and charitable causes have been low down on the Treasury's list of priorities.
  When we look around, we can all see examples of what the lottery has achieved. Mention was made of the millennium stadium in Cardiff, which I visited on Sunday for the Worthington cup final. It is a fantastic stadium and it was wonderful to see a full house. The atmosphere that is created when a match is played with the roof closed is extraordinary. That would not have happened without lottery proceeds being made available, and the same can be said for much of what has been achieved in the arts, sport and heritage and for charitable causes.
  The same cannot be argued in respect of health and education. Those are high up on the list of voters' priorities, and they expect the Government to fund services in those sectors appropriately and adequately. We have already talked about additionality. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) challenged the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on whether she would want finance to be withdrawn from after-school clubs. After-school clubs are clearly an adjunct to the education system, not one of the core parts that have traditionally, as the average member of the public would expect, been paid for by the taxpayer. If those are the sorts of new opportunities that the fund is creating, that is consistent with the original aims and objectives of the lottery.
  However, when one starts to consider using the new opportunities fund to pay for hospital equipment, which the man in the street would expect the Government to fund from Exchequer revenues, one begins fundamentally to stray from the original purposes and objectives of the lottery. When the new opportunities fund was established, the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said:
  "The principle is clear. Lottery money must not replace Exchequer spending".—[Official Report, 7 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 166.]
  The Secretary of State touched on that this morning when she said that lottery money should not and will not be a substitute for such spending. She acknowledged that there is a fine line to be navigated. There certainly is, and in some cases the new opportunities fund has ended up on the wrong side of it.
  Chris Grayling: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the new opportunities fund may become an excuse for the Government not to consider funding certain areas? One example is the hospice movement, where the voluntary sector has traditionally played an important role in appeals—such as that for the Shooting Stars hospice, which was so memorably not visited by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). The Government should consider providing additional support in that area, but it is easy for them to use the new opportunities fund as a smokescreen for not doing so
  Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that echoes my worry about the current scope of the new opportunities fund. Welcome as the additional expenditure may be, it is not the right place for it to come

  969
  from. That is not only a matter of principle, but central to my point about all good things coming to an end, including lotteries and the funding stream that they bring with them.
  The Government are using lottery money to fund their commitment to cancer care through the £150 million living with cancer programme, which the public may not want to think is contingent on lottery funding for its existence. The principle of additionality—that any funds created by the lottery should add to, not substitute for, services provided by the Government—was enshrined in the original legislation. At best that is being ignored, and at worst abused. That was the point that the hon. Gentleman was making.

  Time and again, the Government pledge themselves to universal access to health—a comprehensive NHS that cares for all regardless of ability to pay—and, rightly, attack plans to make the less fortunate pay extra for their health care. The Government commit themselves to broadening the spectrum of education and to improving the infrastructure in our schools. Those are laudable objectives, but they should not be paid for by siphoning off funds that lottery players think are going to the original good causes. Such funds should not be pumped into the health service and education, which the public think are being financed by general taxation revenues. That is the most regressive form of taxation. Certainly it is not in the spirit in which the lottery was originally set up.
  Of course those extra forms of funding are welcome, but in the long term they are not a right or sustainable method of funding. Are we to presume that the scanners, the new breast screening equipment and the cancer prevention projects funded by the new opportunities fund would not have gone ahead otherwise? If teaching our teachers and librarians to use the computers and the internet is funded in that way, would it never have happened without lottery funding? If so, although those may be among the biggest achievements of the national lottery, one would have to say that the lottery was propping up public services that the public would expect to be provided by Government.
  What would happen if the lottery funding eventually dried up? Surely the cancer care would not be withdrawn from the NHS and the teachers withdrawn from the training programmes. The lottery funding is not a long-term answer to the long-standing funding problems from which both the health and the education system suffer.
  The new opportunities fund was set up to focus particularly on the needs of the most disadvantaged—an aim reiterated both in its list of key objectives and throughout the mission statement for its projects. However, four of the 81 most deprived districts in the UK received no new opportunities fund money in 2001, and 33 of them received less than the national average. Of the 80 districts that received more than £10 per head, not even half appear on the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions list of the most deprived districts. Clearly there is a problem, and I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State acknowledge it this morning. I hope that the initiatives announced yesterday will begin to make serious progress in solving that problem.
  970
  Once the funds reach the distribution bodies, how should they be distributed? When I tabled questions, I received the answer that the prompt payment of grant by distributors to successful applicants was "desirable". In my opinion, it is more than desirable, it is essential. We all understand that when funds are committed they cannot necessarily be paid at once, because proper performance of what the bid entails has to be achieved to the satisfaction of the distributing bodies first.
  We cannot be glib and pretend that there are simple solutions, and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has entered a dialogue with each of the distributing bodies to try to address the serious problem that has built up. The reserve funds of the distributing bodies have continued to grow—by almost £150 million since December 2000—and now stand at almost £3.5 billion. That is more than a quarter of the £12 billion that the lottery has raised since it began; the equivalent of almost two years' net income has not yet been distributed. One understands some of the reasons why that has happened, but there is a clear need for action to sort it out. I hope that what the Secretary of State is now proposing will succeed.
  The amount going to the distributors has been falling every month, and one can understand that that may cause a cash flow problem in the fulness of time. I do not believe that the present situation is the result of an attempt to manage a cash flow problem, but I hope that if the trend continues—we all hope that it will not—such a problem will not arise in the future. We all hope that Camelot's new plans will begin to reverse the trend.
  In many cases, the lottery distributors do a fine job of distributing funds, and also provide excellent advice to project leaders, not only about how to make their bids but how the projects can be carried on.
  Community sports clubs would benefit, and their financial affairs would be made much easier, if they were given the tax concessions for which they are now campaigning. I welcome the sounds that the Minister for Sport was making at Question Time on Monday, and if it is possible to persuade the Charity Commissioners to allow clubs to act as if they were charities, but in a less bureaucratic way than the rest of the charity movement has to endure, that would be welcome. If it could be pulled off, I suspect that many other charities would look on with envious eyes and wonder whether such an arrangement could be extended more widely.
  When grants are provided by distributors, the promises that applicants make and the contracts that they sign must be upheld. Where they are not, we should have no hesitation in trying to recover moneys. I hope that in the case of Wembley, with the unfortunate saga that has dogged it in recent years, that will not ultimately prove necessary.
  As the lottery pledged the money for Wembley so long ago, it is a great pity that more progress was not made, and it was not possible to find a solution to the Wembley conundrum in time for the World athletics championships to be held there in 2005. It will be a supreme irony if a stadium, which we are now told will be compatible with athletics, opens either for the cup final in May 2005 or the charity shield in August of that year—because that will be a month or so either side of the very athletics championships that we hoped would be conducted at Wembley. However, there is now a new plan on the stocks for Wembley; we must wish it success and hope that the

  971
  athletics capability will come to fruition, and that in the fulness of time we shall see a major athletics tournament conducted there.
  Very few of the projects would have gone ahead at all if it were not for the success of the lottery and its high sales. Camelot has done an exceptional job in operating an efficient lottery; ours is consistently ranked among the best and most successful lotteries in the world. Dwindling sales are a concern, but we must hope that the sales improvement programme that Camelot is now putting together will lead to a significant improvement.
  The Secretary of State made a series of remarks about her plans for the future. For example, before the summer recess she will issue a licensing consultation document, and I look forward to seeing that and commenting on it. As she said, additionality is a fine line to navigate, and I hope that we shall debate further exactly where that line is to be drawn.
  The recognition that local equity needs to be improved is welcome, and I hope that the plan announced yesterday will enjoy success. The Secretary of State has already been asked about amending the legislation to allow endowments, and she said that the Government would do so. It would be useful to have the facility to do that, but endowments are an expensive way of bringing a funding stream into a project, so I hope that using lottery funds in that way will not become widespread.
  The Secretary of State said that she wanted to see devolution of decisions to the most local level possible. We all welcome that, but I cannot understand how, at the same time, the same Department is beginning to devolve decision making in sport, yet appears willing to smile on a movement in the opposite direction in the arts. I hope that in the end, the Government will not agree to that movement.
  The national lottery has achieved a great deal. However, we cannot assume that funding streams can be sustained at the current level indefinitely, so when we decide how to use the money we must avoid the mistake of making any essential public services dependent on lottery proceeds.
  There is a great deal to celebrate. I hope that in the coming months we will be able to consider the various suggestions that the Secretary of State has made today about how the lottery can be improved, that we will find ways to sustain and improve it, and that there will continue to be a lot to celebrate for many years to come.
  11.19 am
  Mr. John Grogan: It gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate. I want to draw on four different areas of my experience to make four different points on the lottery. First, from my experience as a constituency Member, I want to draw local lessons from the operation of the lottery in Selby, which might have a wider resonance. Secondly, as a keen punter, I want to consider the impact of the gambling review on the lottery. Thirdly, as chairman of the all-party BBC group, I want to consider television coverage of the lottery, which is becoming an issue again. Fourthly, drawing on my experience in the previous Parliament on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs—incidentally, hon. Members may be interested to know that the average spend on the lottery, and on the football pools, in Northern
  972
  Ireland is greater than anywhere else in the United Kingdom—I want to conclude with a few remarks on the lottery in Northern Ireland.
  Before I do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will allow me one preliminary remark. Yesterday, I attended the memorial service commemorating one year after the tragedy at Great Heck. It was an extremely moving service in Selby abbey. Coming down on the train last night, I heard that there had been a similar accident at Nocton, south of Lincoln. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all hon. Members present in sending our deepest sympathy to the bereaved family and our best wishes to all those who were injured in that crash.
  To return to the lottery and to the local lessons in Selby, it is interesting that, in my constituency, £5.6 million of lottery grants have been given out in recent years—a total of 156 awards. Forty of those awards have been made in the past 14 months. That is no accident. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport mentioned that in some smaller towns the councils and the voluntary sector have got their act together to try to provide advice to voluntary groups and sporting groups on making lottery applications.
  When I first became a Member of Parliament, I was astonished that one of the first things my office was asked to do was to help out with a lottery application. I was therefore keen to support the efforts of Gill Cashmore of the Selby association of voluntary services and Steve Shaw-Wright of the town council to obtain professional advice. That has worked—the Selby association of voluntary services now has a full-time funding office. Indeed, just before Christmas the local evening paper contained the extremely welcome headline: "Midas Mike aims to make a million for good causes". "Midas" Mike Dunne said:
  "I have been trained to hit the right notes and tell the charity fund managers what they want to hear. The great thing from my point of view is that I am helping groups who have found applications quite daunting in the past. And the quality of life for people that benefit can be raised tenfold by even a small grant. I love this job, and over the next two years I want to become a millionaire fundraiser."
  He has certainly made a difference in the Selby area.
  The new opportunities fund has been mentioned not least by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who is a fellow North Yorkshire Member. I have looked carefully at new opportunities fund funding in my constituency, which has been almost exclusively concentrated on after-school clubs and holiday clubs in villages that would not have had a hope of having such facilities and opportunities previously. Hemingbrough—a very rural village—has recently been funded for 16 before-school and 24 holiday places for children aged between three and 11. The beekeepers club in Fulford in my constituency and Space Base in Riccall provide similar opportunities. That would never have happened before in a rural area like Selby. North Yorkshire county council has been allocated £3.5 million from the new opportunities fund to improve sports facilities in schools in the North Yorkshire area. A Conservative county council is therefore enthusiastically embracing the new opportunities fund, and Councillor Carl Les is heading up the initiative in North Yorkshire.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) talked about the hopes of the Welsh for Cardiff Arms Park and about a possible renaissance in Welsh rugby, and we have similar hopes for Yorkshire

  973
  cricket, which we have achieved. Headingley has a new lottery-funded development, and we are now the county champions. Headingley is not quite finished, but it is getting better every day and will be a fitting home for the county champions when it is finished. Local club cricket is very strong in Yorkshire, and no fewer than five cricket teams—Cawood, Tadcaster, Saxton, Bolton Percy and Appleton Roebuck—have benefited from lottery grants. In illustration of the fact that there are a wide range of sporting activities in Selby, a further seven sports—hockey, martial arts, football, swimming, bowls, tennis and horse riding—have also received grants.
  The heritage fund can be flexible in funding big projects such as Selby abbey—which has received nearly £400,000—where the memorial service to which I referred took place yesterday. That funding is essential in ensuring that Selby abbey continues to be the centre of the town for future generations. The lesson is that it is often worth persisting with such applications. The abbey was knocked back the first time, took some advice, went back and was successful on its second application.
  There have also been much smaller heritage fund successes in my constituency. For example, Smeatons magazine team, which produces a community magazine for the villages of Kirk Smeaton and Little Smeaton, received an award of just £670 to cover the cost of publishing, which was as important for the team as the big grant was for Selby abbey.
  To draw a couple of wider lessons from our experience in Selby, one experiment that I tried only last week during our half-term break was to take a minibus of those representing not only lottery funders but the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and landfill tax funders to look at the areas of Selby where there are the biggest problems—areas such as Selby South, which is in the top 300 wards for child poverty, and Brothertaon. We looked at projects that the lottery can partly fund, but that other funders would be interested in as well. That seemed to be a success and I hope that it will bear fruit in future.
  I now want to consider the impact of the Budd review. Of the 167 recommendations of that review, the national lottery is worried about three—side-betting, the deregulation of charity lotteries and the liberalisation of bingo prizes. In terms of the future of the lottery, we must be cautious about side-betting. The only example of allowing betting on the lottery in bookmakers is in Ireland, which seemed to lead to a reduction of about 20 per cent. in lottery funds. As a regular attender in betting shops on Saturday mornings—after my surgery, obviously—to put on bets for the afternoon, I know that they have had a good deal from the Government in the past year in terms of the abolition of betting duty. We therefore need to be cautious. If we deregulate immediately the lottery rules regarding other charities, large charities might combine with big retailers, which might have a significant effect on the national lottery. We must certainly think about that carefully. I am less worried about liberalising bingo prizes—bingo took a big hit when the national lottery was first introduced but it has adapted and is largely a distinct market.
  Television coverage is extremely important for the national lottery. Since 1994 when the lottery started, the BBC has had the contract for the lottery. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton
  974
  (Mr. Kaufman) has always been critical of that, as the BBC made a payment for the national lottery at the time. The market was very competitive at that stage. I do not see anything wrong in that—rights to screen the lottery are comparable to rights to screen test matches or the Oscars. Now, however, the BBC's contract is coming to an end—I think that it has been extended until just after the jubilee celebrations, but there is no guarantee that it will continue.
  The market has changed, and I understand that ITV, buoyed up by the success of "Pop Idol" and other Saturday night attractions, is not making a big bid for the lottery this time. It is essential for the lottery programme to remain on terrestrial television. Were it to go to satellite TV, its importance would be much diminished, so I would encourage the BBC, if it is successful, and the national lottery to reach a long-term agreement.
  I note that Michael Grade, who has a Channel 4 background, is much involved with the lottery. Interestingly, cricket and the BBC have agreed under their new radio coverage contract to promote the game across BBC radio—for example, Radio 1 is trying to appeal to youth—and I hope that, under any new deal, the lottery considers involving more BBC stations in coverage. One of the lottery's problems is also faced by politicians—attracting young people's interest. The age profile of those who buy lottery tickets reveals a dip in the 20s, and I hope that any new TV and broadcasting deal considers that carefully.
  The lottery is more popular in Northern Ireland in terms of participation than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and it is worth noting that the UK lottery is characterised by many people spending a little, which is a good thing. It is ranked 34th in the world in terms of per capita spending and has a broad reach across the population.
  I want to draw out the issue of the proposed national stadium for Northern Ireland, so it is appropriate that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport will reply to the debate. The sports lottery fund is distributed according to population, and Northern Ireland contains about 2.8 per cent. of the UK population. I shall not go into details, but proposals are being developed for a national stadium, which would have a cementing effect on the peace process. There is no non-sectarian stadium in Northern Ireland. Windsor Park is the home of football, but it is much associated with one section of the community.
  A national stadium, not just for football but for rugby and Gaelic sports, would be a big advance. A former chairman of the Sports Council, Mr. Allen, commented:
  "If we had a stadium in a neutral venue and Northern Ireland were playing"
  a big international match
  "then the minimum I expect would be around about 30,000. If we had a stadium venue, it would encourage people to go into a peaceable and enjoyable atmosphere to support a team whether they win or lose, and that would be very significant in peace and reconciliation terms."
  The matter is now devolved, but the Administration and the Assembly are considering proposals on making a lottery bid to support their ideas for a national stadium. I ask Ministers to consider whether there is a way around the rules on per head sports funding so that the project can be advanced.

  975
  Speaking as a constituency MP in respect of the funding going to Selby, as a Yorkshire MP in respect of Headingley and as a Member of this place, I think that our 1998 changes have made a real difference on the ground. For example, the after-school club in the village of Heminbrough, rather than the Churchill papers, has received funding. That is welcome, and proof that priorities have changed over recent years.
  11.34 am
  Angela Watakinson: I add my words of welcome for the success of the national lottery, which has become nothing short of a national institution. It has created many jobs and provided money for myriad good causes. We should not forget all those individual lottery winners whose lives have been transformed by big money prizes.
  There are six distributing funds, so there is enormous competition. I was surprised to see still listed among them the Millennium Commission. Will the Minister clarify its position and whether it has an intended lifespan?
  Mr. Bryant: A millennium.
  Angela Watkinson: I hope not. Does the commission have a relationship with the millennium dome, which has already received £628 million of lottery funding? Considerable maintenance costs are still involved in keeping it closed until it is disposed of. Will the Minister kindly tell the House whether the moneys devoted to maintaining the closed dome come from the Millennium Commission and thus from lottery funding?
  If the money allocated to the commission were redistributed among the other distributing funds, that would have a significant effect on the money available for other good causes. The lottery money—28 per cent. of the proceeds—would go to only five funds and that which goes to the commission could be divided among them, representing, for example, a funding difference of almost 1 per cent. to Sport England.
  The largest lottery grant received by my constituency of Upminster as part of the London borough of Havering was for a swimming pool, which was much needed to replace a facility that had gone beyond its natural life. A full-size competitive pool was required, however. The Secretary of State referred to the remit and style of advice given to lottery applicants. There was much discussion about the nature of a community facility, as eligibility rested on community facility status. I would have thought that a swimming pool was a community facility, but, on its own, it was not eligible for the grant. Other ancillary facilities had to be provided, and the result compromised the size of the pool.
  A six-lane pool has been approved whereas an eight-lane competitive pool is necessary to establish a facility suitable for galas, which would have generated income. Such a pool would be suitable for the user groups, such as two well-established swimming clubs that use the pool continually, and a high-diving club. Many local schools also use it.
  The new pool will have less water space than the existing one, which means that there will be insufficient room. Coach loads of schoolchildren need a certain amount of space so as to enter the water at the same time, but the new pool will be too small for that purpose. There
  976
  Will be no high-diving area, so the club will have to go elsewhere to practise, and the two swimming clubs that train at the pool say that the new one will be insufficient.
  Mr. Bryant: The hon. Lady may know that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee recently produced a report on the sport of swimming which amplified many of those issues. It might be worth her while reading it, if she has not already done so. There are terrible problems with finding money for sport and, in particular, 50 m pools. London is ill served compared with, for example, Paris.
  Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. I have not had the opportunity to read the report, but I shall do so.
  The restrictive interpretation of the availability of and access to funds has resulted in a compromise solution in Upminster. The new pool is welcome, as are the ancillary facilities, but the full-size competitive pool would have been a triumph for Upminster.
  I should also like to draw attention to the community fund. A chart showing the community fund allocation to London boroughs ranks the boroughs in order of the deprivation index. Although Havering comes quite low down on the list—it is 26th out of 33—it has within it an area of deprivation that is masked by other areas of my constituency that are relatively affluent. I seek some means of addressing that problem.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I wish to support the thrust of the hon. Lady's remarks, because I represent a constituency in a similar suburban area. One of the real challenges for suburbs is that they rarely qualify for the additional funding that is often available to inner cities and rural areas, yet they have pockets of deprivation where the poverty is just as acute as in inner-city or rural areas. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend the Minister, in a non-partisan spirit, to consider further how those pockets of poverty can be provided with additional support through the lottery programme.
  Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful comments.
  Mr. Bryant: One of the problems that I face in my constituency is that we are often lumped in with Rhondda Cynon Taff. The Rhondda has some of the poorest wards in Wales—12 of the 100 poorest—whereas Rhondda Cynon Taff has five of the wealthiest. The money seems to go to the wealthy wards, rather than the poorer ones.
  Angela Watkinson: I should like to draw attention to some apparent anomalies on the community fund chart. Although seven London boroughs are even less deprived than Havering, if I may put it that way, they have all received more money per head from the community fund than the London borough of Havering. Indeed, Havering has received the lowest per capita amount of all London boroughs—£7 per head. All the seven boroughs below it have received considerably more, even discounting the City of London, which received £40 per head. Given its small resident population, the City of London is atypical, so I shall not include it. Even Sutton and Kingston upon Thames, the two least deprived London boroughs, have received £14 per head from the community fund, which is twice as much as Havering has received.

  977
  I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that point and assist me in seeking a fairer allocation of community fund provision for the London borough of Havering.
  11.43 am
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: First, let me pay tribute to the general thrust of the remarks of the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), as I said in an intervention. On a less positive note, I regard it as a discourtesy to the House that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman could not even be bothered to be present for the two Front-Bench speeches, at the very least.
  Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Thomas: I shall give way in a second. It would have been useful to have had the shadow spokesman present so that we could have sought some clarity about whether the Opposition intend to abolish the new opportunities fund. In her speech, the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) read great chunks of the speech of the former Prime Minister, John Major, in the 1998 lottery discussion about how the new opportunities fund was potentially a raid on the lottery. We could usefully have had some clarity from the Opposition on whether they intend to abolish it.
  Miss McIntosh: I fear that the Secretary of State set a trend for the senior Opposition spokesman not being present. On Fridays, we are used to fielding those who are most responsible for the brief and, as I mentioned, that falls to me.
  Mr. Thomas: The Secretary of State not only spoke in the debate, but stayed to listen to the hon. Lady. I hope that she will pass on the concern that the Opposition appear not to want proper scrutiny of their policies on this subject. However, I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister: the establishment of the national lottery was the only visionary measure to come out of the 1992–97 Parliament. It was significantly improved on by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), in the National Lottery Act 1998. The lessons from the operation of that Act nevertheless suggest that some further reform and tweaking are necessary. I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that further consultation is due to occur.
  I wish to highlight some local examples of lottery achievements and to outline the case for using the national lottery at a local level in a couple of other areas. I shall go on to suggest how the lottery's purpose to add value could usefully be deployed to deal with some strategic issues that London faces.
  St. George's church, which is based in the Headstone parish of my constituency, is a significant focal point for part of the community of north Harrow. Friends of mine have been married in the church, which has one of the last surviving examples of an electromagnetic organ built by F. J. Rothwell, who also built the organ at St. George's chapel, Windsor. All hon. Members present will
  978
  understand that music is crucial to many church communities; it is often a symbol of the vibrancy of such communities. The £16,000-plus grant awarded by the national lottery to St. George's church has allowed the electromagnetic organ to be restored, preserved and returned to full working order, to the delight of the church community.
  Nearby in the same parish is Headstone manor, the last moated manor house in Middlesex and a designated ancient monument. It is perhaps most famous for the fact that Thomas à Becket stayed at the manor on his last ill-fated journey to Canterbury. In the borough of Harrow, Headstone manor is a focal point for heritage and cultural activities, as the Harrow museum and heritage centre is now located on the site. I am delighted to say that £1 million has been allocated by the national lottery to develop the buildings in the manor area, including the restoration of, and structural works to, the manor house and the neighbouring tithe barn. Work is due to start this summer.
  The £1 million grant has already helped to provide some storage facilities, too, at the manor house. I mention that because the storage facilities house an excellent collection of works by Heath Robinson, the international artist and book illustrator who became particularly famous for his drawings of mad inventions. Sadly, there is nowhere to hang his paintings in Harrow, despite the fact that from 1912 to 1918 he was a resident of Pinner, part of my constituency. The William Heath Robinson trust, in partnership with the Pinner Association, a local residents' organisation, is campaigning and fundraising successfully to bring the now derelict West house back into use as a permanent home for the Heath Robinson collection. West house is also important to the community of Pinner because it has acted as a shrine to Pinner's dead from two world wars. The Pinner Association has already raised more than £50,000. Consultants have estimated that some £350,000 would be needed to fund a temporary art gallery to house exhibitions, and that more than £2 million would be necessary to complete the restoration of the house to act as a proper home to the Heath Robinson collection. Clearly, national lottery moneys would be a highly appropriate way to fund such works.
  I want to touch on the benefits to sport from the national lottery, because as all hon. Members know it has been a crucial source of additional funding for sport. More than £1.5 billion has gone to sporting good causes. So far, more than 2,700 lottery-funded capital projects have been completed and opened specifically for sport. Wembley has been mentioned as a recipient of lottery money, and I look forward to the last links in the chain being completed soon and work at last beginning to restore and build a new national stadium at Wembley.
  Perhaps most importantly the national lottery has funded the school sports co-ordinators programme, which in its short life already seems to have achieved a significant increase in the number of extra-curricular activities, and in the number of participants in sport. Sport England says that there has been a 29 per cent. increase in extra-curricular activities, and more than a 40 per cent. increase in the number of young people taking part in sport through that programme.
  Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General, whose report on obesity served as a wake-up call for a variety of agencies and those of us who hold political

  979
  office, suggested that if effective action is not taken, by 2005 one in five men and one in four women will be obese. That is clearly a huge concern.
  The other issue that Sport England has recently highlighted is that, although programmes such as the school sport co-ordinators have begun to address the issue of participation in sport, there is nevertheless a concern that sports participation could continue to drop if further action is not taken.
  As hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Vale of York, have said, the national lottery has also helped to support our elite athletes and the facilities that they use. I am looking forward to the Commonwealth games, which will take place in Manchester this summer. The lottery has been a crucial stimulus to the building of appropriate facilities for those games.
  I have long believed that we should bid for the 2012 Olympic games to come to London. The national lottery would be a crucial source of funding for the building of the sports facilities to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) referred. There is a lack of 50 m sports pools in London compared with other cities, and that problem clearly needs to be addressed if an Olympic bid is to be successful.
  The national lottery could provide further useful assistance to a number of sports projects in my constituency. There has long been a healthy rivalry in Harrow between the excellent Harrow Borough football club, which is currently in the Ryman premier division, and its near neighbours, the Wealdstone football club, which is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). It has put together a major development proposal, which will work only if the national lottery provides the necessary funding through the new opportunities fund.
  The development involves Wealdstone FC building a 3,000-seater stadium on a 44-acre site that was once playing fields. The scheme will bring into use 16 football pitches and two all-weather pitches, and make them available to the whole community of Harrow: the schools especially will benefit.
  The club at Wealdstone has already secured £5.7 million of private funding, working with the Royal Bank of Scotland and a private health club. To complete the financial package, the club has applied for a further £800,000 for pitches and changing rooms to the grassroots development fund of the Football Foundation, and £250,000 for the stadium costs from the same source. All that is needed to complete the project and to make it a success is that a bid for £500,000 from the new opportunities fund to top up the finances for pitch landscaping and fencing be approved.
  That £500,000 from the new opportunities fund would ensure that a project that is rooted in the community and has clear sporting benefits for the people of Harrow comes to fruition. That £500,000 out of a total cost of £7.45 million will ensure a true state-of-the-art sporting facility in the centre of suburban London. It would be a powerful message that the national lottery funding for sport is as much use to suburban areas, such as my London borough, as it is and has been to rural and inner-city areas. I hope that my right hon. Friend will do all that he can to assist in the success of this highly worthwhile project.
  980
  Sport England has suggested further changes that would help its work of extending access to sports funding, such as a relaxation of the rules on partnership funding to help to attract more private sector money alongside lottery proceeds. It has also suggested that it would be worthwhile considering the possibility of lottery distributors providing applicants with loans, as opposed to grants, in a limited number of cases. I would be interested to know from the Minister whether he intends to allow such innovations to be considered as part of the consultation on tweaking the rules.
  One other area that has not received attention thus far in the debate is the excellent work of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, which was set up under the National Lottery Act 1998 and is chaired by Lord Puttnam. Some £200 million of lottery money has funded the first ever national endowment, and has been invested to provide an annual income of almost £10 million. Last year, some £4 million was spent on an invention and innovation programme that offered 43 inventors assistance to take their ideas to the market. There was also a £2.5 million education programme to fund innovative educational programmes for science, technology and the arts, and a £2 million fellowship programme last year offered 18 awards to exceptional individuals to challenge, rethink and explore new ideas in science and technology.
  Given the congestion difficulties that many of our major cities face, a particularly interesting idea funded through a £75,000 award by NESTA's invention and innovation programme award is to develop a driverless taxi. The scheme has already attracted £18 million of funding from the National Assembly for Wales. That is on the back of a trial that took place back in January on a 1 km track around Cardiff bay. A successful experiment was carried out with three battery-powered driverless vehicles.
  It looks as if that initial £75,000 NESTA award will, in about a year, produce the first routes in Cardiff on which up to four passengers with pre-purchased tickets can be taken to their destinations at one time. Transport along dedicated guideways will be powered by a series of magnets. The project has attracted interest from a number of other European countries. People from Italy, Holland and Sweden attended a conference in February to discuss the potential of the driverless taxi as a model for future transport systems. Sadly, no one from either the Mayor of London's office or Transport for London attended. London has particularly serious congestion problems, which generate huge frustration and huge delays and costs for business. My constituents and other Londoners are forced to suffer the effects of pollution, and other health problems.
  The new opportunities fund and NESTA are working together to promote such projects as renewable energy schemes and technological innovations in an attempt to deal with environmental challenges. Over the next few years, perhaps they could consider funding a proper strategic assessment of the potential of, say, a London light rail network. There could be an overground network of tram routes connecting with existing transport hubs, and significantly increasing the capacity and attractiveness of public transport in our capital. The lottery was established to add value. Perhaps, in the

  981
  absence of a Government-led study or any work by the Mayor or Transport for London, it could fund such an assessment.
  Chris Grayling: I realise that the lottery and its funding apply to a broader range of areas than they used to, but surely the review suggested by the hon. Gentleman would not be the responsibility of Transport for London. Should it not feature in the Strategic Rail Authority's plans, or indeed those of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions? It would be a sad day when their jobs were abdicated in favour of lottery funding.
  Mr. Thomas: Sadly, I do not control Transport for London and nor do the Government; otherwise the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be entirely appropriate. Perhaps a business organisation or other pan-London body should seek lottery funding for this purpose.
  There have been four new proposals for tram routes in London, involving a cross-river transit from Camden to Brixton, a west London transit from Uxbridge to Shepherd's Bush and other systems in Greenwich and east London. They are all significant schemes in their own right, but they do not interlink. Moreover, it will have cost between £250,000 and £750,000 just to establish a sensible route for each scheme. Again, we need a proper assessment.
  NESTA has initiated important new thinking in technology and science, and, through its transforming communities programme, the new opportunities fund has done the same in regard to renewable energy that will not damage the environment. That is another instance in which the lottery could add strategic value, and help to solve some of the problems of the country and London in particular. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested that the lottery should be seen as venture capital for community enrichment. An assessment of the potential for trams would be useful in that context as well.
  The 1998 Act has made a huge difference to the running of the lottery, although the rules need some further tweaking. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look carefully at the bids from Wealdstone football club and, when it comes, from the Pinner Association to give a proper home to the excellent Heath Robinson collection, but I commend the work that the Government have already done, and look forward to the consultative document.
  12.6 pm
  Chris Grayling: As a number of hon. Members have said, the national lottery has become one of the most influential developments in society over recent years. It has reached many communities and organisations, and many different parts of our daily lives. It has made a huge contribution.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and others for paying tribute to the work of the former Prime Minister, John Major, and his Government in launching the lottery. There are often important differences across the Floor of the House, but Governments do not always get things wrong from the perspective of the Opposition. I think that members of all
  982
  political parties can say that the lottery was a positive development that has continued to make a real difference to many people since its launch eight years ago.
  I want to refer to some of the lottery's successful contributions, but I want in particular to discuss the new opportunities fund. Earlier, I spoke of the potential politicisation of parts of lottery funding. I also want to deal with an issue raised with me a number of times by a constituent—money relating to the Millennium Commission. I hope the Minister will give some clarification.
  My constituency does not receive as much lottery money as many others. As I have no doubt that the transcript of this debate will be read by a number of people involved in the allocation of lottery money, I will take the opportunity to plug my constituency, and say that I hope that in the months and years ahead the shortfall that has existed for the past few years will be addressed.
  In my part of mid-Surrey, the borough of Epsom and Ewell—which contains most of my constituents—has received 32 awards in recent years, Reigate and Banstead, which represents a small part of the constituency, has received 61, and Mole Valley has received 50. Let me compare that with what has happened in other areas not too far away. Guildford has received 122 awards, Mid-Sussex 85 and East Hampshire 124. There is clearly a gap which must be filled.
  Of course the process of securing funds for a constituency depends partly on the local community's determination to deliver positive ideas that are worthy of lottery funding. I also acknowledge the role of the local MP in trying to encourage organisations to seek opportunities to bring money into the constituency.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) said that in his constituency it was easy for less well-off areas to be masked by better-off areas. The same applies to my constituency, which is certainly in one of the more prosperous parts of the United Kingdom. It contains affluent areas, but also pockets of deprivation. At least three estates have genuine social problems. Lottery funds could make an important contribution to tackling such problems. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is tremendously important that decisions on lottery funding are not made on the basis of blanket coverage across significant geographical areas but take into account specific local circumstances. That should be a caveat for the Government when they set out the rules on the allocation of funding to individual local authority areas. There is always a danger that individual circumstances within a locality are lost in headlines that relate to an overall local authority area or a broader geographic area. As the Government stipulate how funding is to be allocated on a geographical basis, they need to be watchful of that problem.
  If the funding in my constituency has not been as high as it has in many others, the national lottery has made one important contribution to my constituents and, indeed, throughout the country. It has played an essential role in supporting small local retailers in some of the smaller arcades that have struggled to survive as shopping patterns have changed. There is no doubt that many small shopkeepers, such as newsagents and grocers, have found it difficult to keep their businesses going against a background of new shopping patterns and the unfair business rating system for small shops. Hon. Members

  983
  will be aware that the rate for a small shop is calculated on the basis of a shop's frontage, much in the same way as the rateable levels for major supermarkets are determined. The system does not take into account the individual difficult circumstances that such businesses face.
  The national lottery's role in delivering a secure flow of business to those retailers on a weekly basis is welcome. It is an essential part of the future of smaller arcades. For those of us who are committed to seeing them survive and flourish as neighbourhood resources, the issue is important. As the Minister looks forward to the development of the lottery, I hope that that aspect of the way in which the lottery is structured will remain sacrosanct and will not be threatened.
  The most visible sign of the lottery in many communities is the high-profile facilities that it has created, such as the sporting facilities for the Commonwealth games, the Lowry centre, the Eden project and the millennium bridge in central London. It has contributed to sporting achievement, as reflected in the successful results that our national teams have enjoyed in, for example, recent Olympic games. However, as hon. Members rightly said, the smaller contributions can make the most difference within communities. The spread of village halls around the country engendered by the Millennium Commission in the run-up to the millennium was a welcome development. That has strengthened the sense of community in many towns and villages and is a fundamental part of the lottery as it develops. Improvements to local sports clubs are also welcome. Sport has a vital role to play in tackling social problems in areas of deprivation where there is a prevalence of anti-social behaviour. That will be a fundamental part of the lottery's role.
  I am anxious about how the lottery is evolving. I am especially concerned about the new opportunities fund in its present form. Prior to the millennium, 20 per cent. of lottery funding was allocated to the Millennium Commission and 13 per cent. to the new opportunities fund. All Millennium Commission money is now distributed through the new opportunities fund. As I said in my remarks to the Secretary of State, two of the core founding principles of the national lottery were that decisions on individual grants should be taken at arm's length by the distribution bodies and that lottery grants should be additional to core Government spending. The Government seemed to acknowledge those in their White Paper on the lottery published in July 1997. The Government claimed that they
  "don't believe it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities".
  That commitment has become questionable as the new opportunities fund has developed. There is evidence that the Government are starting to use the new opportunities fund to pay for what can only sensibly be described as pet projects that reinforce their core political strategy in matters such as health, education and the environment. It can be argued that many of those should be funded from core Government spending.
  The Government are also becoming increasingly prescriptive about the way in which lottery money is distributed. An essence of the lottery is that the money is supposed to be devolved to the distributing bodies to allocate, but the Government are dictating strategies and
  984
  priorities to bodies that are supposed to operate independently of Government. Lottery funding is starting to be allocated in a way that serves a political purpose. For example, at the Labour party conference in 2000, the Prime Minister announced the spending of £750 million on sports facilities in schools through the new opportunities fund. That money was not allocated until 12 months after the statement. In particular, I question whether it is right and proper for the Prime Minister to use the detailed allocation of funds through the national lottery to create a party political platform given that the lottery is supposed to be independent of Government. I see the hon. Member for Rhondda itching to get to his feet. I will happily give way if he wishes to intervene.
  Mr. Bryant: I am contemplating it.
  Chris Grayling: The Government's approach manifests itself in funding allocations to different projects through the new opportunities fund. Let me give some examples. Some £213.5 million has been allocated to projects to reduce the burden of coronary heart disease, stroke and cancer. It is admirable to spend money on such things, but are they not rightly and properly the domain of the Department of Health, not the national lottery? Some £198.5 million has been allocated to child care, especially in deprived areas. I have no problem with the objective, but does that not fall within the ambit of the Department for Work and Pensions? Some £159 million has been allocated for a programme of environmental renewal and community regeneration, promoting recycling and developing renewable energy sources. Again, those are admirable aspirations, but is that money not more appropriately distributed by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?
  The hon. Member for Harrow, West referred to after-school projects in his constituency. I said that some of the funding for those schemes would traditionally have come from local authorities. For example, in the London borough of Merton, where I am a serving councillor for a few more days, the future of a play scheme in one of the local schools that catered for children with special educational needs caused a controversy for a number of years. It had always been partly funded by the local authority, but the Labour-controlled council decided that it could no longer do that. That is a classic example of funding that would traditionally have come from local authorities, but that is no longer possible because authorities have less and less discretionary funding to spend on such schemes. I would not want funding that, traditionally, comes from the local authority to be replaced by national lottery funding to enable the play scheme to continue. That is the risk associated with funding such schemes through the national lottery, rather than through traditional mechanisms.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I re-emphasise the fact that the new opportunities fund has added value. There was a huge demand for after-school provision in my constituency before the National Lottery Act 1998 came into force. Aided and abetted by a lack of proper funding from the then Conservative Government, the Liberal Democrat-controlled council had been unable to provide any funding whatever for after-school clubs in my constituency. It is only since the creation of the new

  985
  opportunities fund that the need for after-school provision in my constituency has largely been met. The hon. Gentleman should ask his Front Bench whether the Conservatives would abolish that funding stream. Would they abolish the new opportunities fund?
  Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is extremely keen to discover future Conservative policy, but I am afraid that he must wait a little while, particularly because, as he knows, we are regrettably some distance away from the next general election. It is clear that his Government are initiating major changes, and both Opposition parties must respond to them when they arise. I hope, however, that we will not have to respond to increasing politicisation of the national lottery in the next three or four years, or to a new opportunities fund that increasingly becomes a replacement for spending through taxation and which deals with matters that should be funded by the Government. I urge the Minister to ensure that that does not happen. The national lottery is not a political creature but an important part of the fabric of this country; it should not become an adjunct of Government.
  I began my remarks on the new opportunities fund by drawing the Minister's attention to the fact that Millennium Commission finance has been transferred entirely to the new opportunities fund. Even though the commission related specifically to the millennium, it is a matter of regret that there is no replacement for it. In her opening remarks, the Secretary of State rightly referred to the important role that the lottery has played in encouraging the development of major capital schemes, and the commission made a real contribution to developing areas of strategic national importance.
  A raft of welcome schemes emerged throughout the country, and I worry that in the next few years there will be no successor body to assist—albeit not to the same extent as in the run-up to the millennium—schemes like the Eden project, London's millennium bridge and the new bridge referred to by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who is no longer in his place. Such schemes made a difference to communities throughout the country, and the commission had an important part to play in that regard. Within the framework of lottery funding allocation, a successor body to the Millennium Commission should be created. It need not be on the same scale, but it should take a strategic view of the nation as a whole, in the manner of the commission.
  I conclude by discussing Millennium Commission funding allocations in the run-up to 2000–01. My remarks are based on the experience of a constituent of mine, Mr. Gordon Winborne, who feels very let down by his experience of the commission and the allocation of funding. On his behalf, I seek further clarification from the Minister. In 1995, Mr. Winborne submitted to the Millennium Commission a scheme for a series of slipways. It was initially rejected, but the commission subsequently invited him to resubmit his application. It was eventually rejected, however, on the ground of a lack of funding for such schemes. Mr. Winborne accepted that decision, but then he observed the unhappy process of funding the millennium dome, of which we are all well aware.
  986
  As hon. Members will recall, through the Millennium Commission the House initially allocated £449 million to the New Millennium Experience Company and thus the dome. When the dome experienced financial problems in 2000, a further £179 million was allocated. The Government have always stated—in this House and in written responses—that that additional sum did not come from funds that would otherwise have been allocated to other good causes. However, Mr. Winborne believes that his project, and many others like it, were unable to receive funding because additional funds had to be allocated to the dome. He made the not illogical point that, if additional money had to be found in 2000 for the New Millennium Experience Company and the dome, it had to come from somewhere. It did not appear from thin air; nor did it come from the taxpayer. It must therefore have come from lottery funding that would otherwise have been allocated to other sources.
  As one can imagine, my constituent was disappointed not to receive funding—as, I suspect, were many others who applied to the Millennium Commission for various worthy projects. It remains a matter of considerable frustration that so much extra money had to be invested in the dome. For the benefit of my constituent and others in his position, I ask the Minister to explain from what budget the additional funding for the dome was taken, so that he can be reassured about what happened. That would set to rest an issue that has irritated him, and others like him, for a number of years.
  In conclusion, I urge the Minister not to politicise the national lottery. It has made a major contribution to this nation and continues to contribute to communities throughout the land. I support many hon. Members' aspirations for it to make a difference in communities of all sorts and all levels of prosperity—perhaps communities that have not seen fit to seek lottery funding in the past. However, the national lottery must not and cannot become an adjunct of Government spending, or an excuse for the Treasury to take a slice off spending that should come through Government Departments and use the national lottery as an alternative route for spending. That must not happen.
  I commend all those who work in the national lottery—those who allocate funding, those who raise money, and those who operate the tills in shops in my constituency and elsewhere. It has been a great success and I hope that it continues to be so.
  12.25 pm
  Mr. Chris Bryant: Although many have waxed lyrical about the lottery today, my original feelings about it were mixed. Perhaps because I was exposed to too much Methodism in my youth, I have always been rather puritanical about gambling, and when the concept of the national lottery was introduced, I thought it was a classic instance of redistribution of wealth—taking mainly from the poor to make a few people rich, which is not the socialist way.
  I remember hearing Prime Minister John Major saying that when he heard about the amount of money involved, it made his fingers itch. That was a poor start for the national lottery, not least because it put me in mind of Fagin's lines in Lionel Bart's splendid musical "Oliver!":
  "When I see someone rich, both my thumbs start to itch."

  987
  That was unfortunate because it created expectations, especially in many of the constituencies represented by Labour Members, that could never be met in the short term.
  Other problems included the fact that initially a significant proportion of the money spent by the different agencies went to capital projects, and capital projects alone. At the time, I worried that we were creating a vast number of white elephants—that throughout the country there would be lots of wonderful buildings built over five or 10 years that had no decent revenue stream. They would either provide significant problems to local authorities that would have to provide funding assistance, or fall empty to lie fallow within a decade or less.
  I am glad that, thanks to the Labour Government, changes have been made to the structure and to the way in which money is spent. A large proportion of the money is now spent on revenue streams, and I shall speak presently about certain issues that need to be resolved in that respect. Furthermore, the lottery has scored some great successes. I confess that my Calvinist and puritanical initial thoughts about gambling were inappropriate—perhaps Mr. Major had it right.
  Not least among those successes is an element of socialist redistribution: £4.2 billion of lottery money has gone straight to the Treasury and therefore into more traditional forms of funding public services. There has been some redistribution to the Rhondda. We have had two—although only two—major cash prizes: one person got £182,824, which is more than any house in the Rhondda costs, and a syndicate got £249,105. We can only wish them luck.
  Before focusing on specific considerations, I wish to make one general point, which is that when debating the national lottery it is important that we eschew narrow parochialism in any form. Several hon. Members have referred to specific constituency cases, and I, too, will do so, but we must take into account regional centres of excellence, especially in sports and the arts. It would not be right if we spent every penny or expected every penny to be spent purely on redistribution to every constituency. A fair distribution of money will also mean that regional centres will attract specific amounts of money.
  Reference has been made to 50 m swimming pools. There is currently no 50 m pool in Wales, although we are building one at Swansea. If we are to see real success in the swimming and diving pool, we will have to make sure that we have more 50 m and high-diving pools. Otherwise, we will not win medals in the future.
  There are hon. Members on both sides who are somewhat sceptical about the proposed millennium centre at Cardiff. Some would argue that the valleys in south Wales have not attracted the funding that they should have—especially for the arts—and that yet another building going to Cardiff is inappropriate. My feeling is that many of my constituents would be happy to go to Cardiff to a centre of excellence to see theatre, opera or dance. If that building were not to be built in Cardiff, it is unlikely that those people would have any opportunity to see the best in music, theatre, opera or dance. That is why I wholeheartedly support the millennium new centre that is being built there, while still wanting more money spent in my constituency. [Laughter.] Parochialism will triumph in the end.
  988
  I mentioned earlier the subject of coalfield communities. In many of the debates to which I have listened since becoming a Member of Parliament, people have stated that there are either rural communities or urban communities. In fact, many of the coalfield communities in this country fall into neither of those categories. They have some of the characteristics of rural communities, in that they are isolated and do not have particularly good transport links. Public transport is often deficient and many people live within 200 yards of a farm; that is certainly true in my constituency. However, they also suffer from all the problems of urban communities, in that they have relatively high levels of unemployment and sickness and poor multiple deprivation indices.
  In respect of the lottery, that has produced some particular problems. The emphasis on major capital projects at the start of the lottery meant that many small communities—such as the Rhondda Fawr and the Rhondda Fach, with 15 small, separate communities—were unable to sustain or create a single such project. That means that we have not been able to attract funding.
  Similarly, the time limit on revenue funding from the lottery has been difficult for poorer communities. The lottery funding bodies have said, quite legitimately, that it is unlikely that such communities will be able to sustain a large revenue project across several years and that there is a long-term doubt about whether such a project would be sustainable. That has caused problems in many coalfield communities.
  Many people are uncertain about whether the lottery and the funding bodies are for areas such as their own. They hear about the Royal Opera house, the national theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company and other big projects and ask what relevance they have to themselves. Some organisations feel that they are not the kind that should be making an application.
  Many of the forms are still far too complex for some organisations to fill in. I know that all the organisations have made valiant efforts to simplify the processes, but many smaller organisations that do not have full-time staff still find it difficult to go through the processes.
  The low limit of £5,000 on grants for the simplified version of the forms is a problem. This means that in many areas such as the coalfield communities organisations have decided to go for grants of £3,000 or £4,000 rather than larger amounts.
  Those problems have already been highlighted by the Department in successive reports on coalfield communities. The end result is that, before reforms were introduced a couple of years ago, grants of only £54.62 per capita went to coalfield communities, compared with an average of £100.65 for communities across the UK—only 45 per cent. of the national average went to coalfield communities. The Government have changed some rules, which has led to significant change; now, £35.64 per capita is being given to coalfields, compared with £58.94 across the UK. That is 60 per cent. of the national average, but it is still significantly less than that average.
  The position is even worse in certain areas of lottery funding. In the arts, for instance, coalfield communities, before Government reforms, attracted £5.95 per head, while the, rest of the UK attracted £20.94. Since the reforms, the grant has been £1.87 in coalfield communities and £7.83 for the rest of the UK, which

  989
  represents a reverse in arts funding. Twenty-eight per cent. of the national average for arts funding used to be attracted to coalfield funds, but now the figure is only 24 per cent., which shows that there is a significant issue for the Government and lottery bodies to address. How can we get more arts projects to attract lottery funding in coalfield communities?
  By contrast, we are doing rather better in sport. Before reform, £7.25 per capita was being given to coalfield communities, which was 47 per cent. of the national average of £15.47. After reform, there was significant improvement, and coalfields received £7.23 per capita, which was 65 per cent. of the national average of £11.04. No coalfield community would expect to get more than the national average; many are straggled-out isolated communities and would not even expect to get up to 95 per cent. of the average. However, we aspire at least to get three quarters or four fifths of the national average.
  In the past, national figures have been gathered on all the coalfields in England, Scotland and Wales. My office has tried to do some research into the specific problems of south Wales coalfields. We have worked out that we still receive only 40 per cent. of the national average: we receive a total of £5.7 million, while the national average is £14.1 million. There is still a great deal of work to be done to ensure that the south Wales coalfields in particular attract the funding that they deserve.
  It is not all negative; there have been some wonderful awards in the Rhondda. The Blaenllechau community regeneration project in one of the more remote and beautiful parts of the Rhondda recently received £149,000. Valleys Kids has done well, and has attracted several awards. Holy Trinity church in Tylorstown and other churches in the Rhondda have done well from the heritage fund. Indeed, I could not continue without mentioning all the bands in the Rhondda that have received money: the Treherbert silver band, the Parc and Dare band, the Rhondda big band, the Ynyshir welfare band and the Tylorstown band (valleys line). Our bands have done well, which is only appropriate because the best brass band in the country—[Interruption.] No, it is an objective fact, as three years in a row we have won all the awards that can be won. Successful bands include the Cory band, once known as the Ton temperance band, but whose full name is now the Buy As You View Cory band.
  It is excellent that all those awards have been won in the Rhondda. However, some of the figures compiled by Camelot and other organisations on the Rhondda are inaccurate. They often think that everything that goes to Rhondda Cynon Taff, the local authority, goes to the Rhondda. According to Camelot, £531,000 was granted for an indoor bowls hall. I have toured up and down the Rhondda and I can neither find the hall nor see any prospect of its being built; I do not think that there is a piece of land flat enough to accommodate it. Perhaps it will be located somewhere else in RCT. Similarly, the £500,000 given last year to RCT for sport was spent elsewhere in the area. So the figures for the Rhondda and some other coalfield communities are masked by moneys that are going to other areas.
  There is much still to do. In my constituency—let me be thoroughly parochial for a moment—we have a great theatre, the Parc and Dare, which is named after two collieries up in Treorchy. It is a splendid theatre with
  990
  lovely front-of-house areas, but terrible backstage facilities. We have many amateur theatrical groups—I am seeing "Oliver!" in two weeks' time and the Cambrian male voice choir next Saturday evening—but the backstage facilities are so poor that it is very difficult for the theatre to stage decent productions that attract support from across the whole of the Rhondda.
  It is my firm belief that there should be a decent theatre in each of the constituencies in the south Wales valleys and that we should build on what we have in the Parc and Dare. After all, Paul Robeson appeared there many years ago, and it would be a delight to have a decent theatre. To get such a theatre, we need to buy the chapel next door, so it can be converted into decent backstage facilities to ensure that actors, in rehearsals as well as performances, and audiences can have a decent theatrical experience.
  Similarly, the Abergorki hall, which is located a little bit further up the road in Ynyswen and is a classic example of a miners' institute, has a very fine facade, while everything behind it is terrible. The people who run the hall have a significant revenue stream from a gym, aikido classes, an arts class and all sorts of different healthy living classes, as well as the Rhondda Civic Society. However, that revenue provides nowhere near enough to convert the building into a decent healthy living centre, and there is terrible difficulty in attracting the initial seedcorn funding to get the feasibility study done on rebuilding while retaining the facade and changing the back. In such areas, where many people are unaware of the processes that must be used to attract funding, it is vital that specific support is provided either by the local authority or the lottery funding bodies to ensure that they can be successful in significant long-term capital bids.
  I should like to make one final parochial point about the Rhondda heritage park, which some hon. Members may have visited. It is a museum that is run by the local authority in the old Lewis Merthyr colliery, a fine example of the industrial heritage of mining communities in south Wales. Indeed, even Her Majesty will be visiting it as part of her jubilee tour in June. We look forward to that visit. However, the park currently has a problem. Just as the Government have rightly done in England, the National Assembly for Wales has made entrance to national museums free, but that creates a problem for local authority-run museums that cannot take advantage of the same funding stream. The Rhondda heritage park has 55,500 visitors every year, but it is currently having difficulties because people clearly find it much more attractive to go to Big Pit, which is only a few miles away and is free because it is a national museum, than to come to the heritage centre.
  Interestingly, having looked through the figures for Rhondda, I notice that practically no money has yet come from the new opportunities fund. We have a problem in terms of ensuring that the new opportunities fund gets around to spending its money. As far as I can see, only £29,074 has been spent from the fund in the Rhondda. I suspect that that may be replicated in other constituencies in the south Wales coalfields. I hope that the fund will consider specifically what it is doing in former coalfields.
  The Arts Council of Wales is doing a good job of not spending its money, as is shown by interesting figures which I have. I accept that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, there must be a cautionary element in how any of the bodies spend their money, as

  991
  they are never sure quite how much they will receive from the lottery each month. None the less, the figures for last year show that in each month there was a significant gap between the sum that came into the Arts Council of Wales and the sum that went out. In other words, the council has been receiving far more than it has been spending.
  The worst case was last October, when the Arts Council of Wales received £2.22 million and spent only £670,000. If that happened in just one month it could be overlooked, but as it has been happening systematically throughout the past year, we need to look into the matter to make sure that we are not being so frugal and troubled about how we give out money that the bodies that could be receiving the money and doing good things with it are not receiving it.
  Reference has already been made to the £3.5 billion of reserve that has been accumulated. I welcome the earlier comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about trying to make sure that more of that money is spent and that we are not quite so precautionary, but we need to move further.
  I have some suggestions which I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider, if not today, then in due course. First, there is a specific need in the south Wales coalfields for a means of ensuring that every organisation that might possibly make a decent application has the tools to do so. I ask Ministers to consider encouraging the lottery funding bodies to provide a single lottery officer to work in the south Wales coalfields with all the bodies—arts, sport, community and heritage—to foster more applications. It is true that a higher percentage of the applications made in the south Wales coalfields is successful than elsewhere in the country, but there are still not enough applications. More should be fostered.
  Secondly, I hope that we can encourage the Arts Council of Wales and other organisations to consider making revenue commitments for a longer period. Last year they finally agreed to make revenue commitments for three years, but in poorer communities such as mine we need to consider a five-year programme of funding support. Also, the limit of £5,000 for the simplified system—the fast-track process, as it were—should be increased to £10,000 or £15,000. That would make a significant difference in areas such as mine.
  I welcome the announcement yesterday of the 51 areas of special need, but should we not also top-slice part of the money for the poorest areas in Wales?
  The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made an excellent point about the importance of lottery outlets in retail premises in ensuring continuing support for local businesses. As I said earlier, I have 15 small communities in my constituency, which makes it difficult to know where to hold my surgeries. It is essential that people have a local shop. There are areas such as Stanleytown, where I live, and Blaenllechau, which are poorly served in that respect. Sometimes, in the smaller communities, the presence of a lottery outlet has made it possible for Spars, post offices and others to remain in business. I hope that Camelot will work hard to make sure that all those communities are well served in the future, and that there are sufficient outlets to maintain local communities.
  Perhaps we should follow the example of the Prince's Trust more closely. In the fostering of a new entrepreneurial spirit, especially among young people
  992
  from poor backgrounds in poor communities, the Prince's Trust has done remarkable work. There is a young man called Jamie Rowland who, I am sure, will not mind my mentioning the Bicycle Doctor shop that he set up in Porth. He has already won an award from the trust in Wales. It was not a large amount of money that made a significant difference to him—I think that £300 was the original grant, with a loan of £500 to set up the shop. The significant difference was the hands-on personal support and advice that he received from the trust. Is there a way of the lottery finding the means of providing that support for young people to foster an entrepreneurial spirit?
  I have two final points, which are not parochial. The first is the state of theatre in the United Kingdom. One of the problems is that many theatres were built within a short period in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many of them were built by Frank Matcham, and many of them are fine and beautiful buildings. They were designed for a particular form of theatre. There is a proscenium arch and a certain form of stage machinery. The theatres were built at a time when those who had money expected not to be sitting in the same area as those who worked for them as servants. There would be separate entrances to the balcony, up into the gods and around the corner. Such theatres would have a dress circle and stalls, as well as bars and so on.
  Many of these theatres are wholly inappropriate now for a modern theatre-going audience. In many west end theatres and regional theatres throughout the country, there are cramped conditions for audiences, poor front-of-house facilities and seats that have needed re-upholstering for many years. Back stage, there are conditions in which no one should be expected to work. Actors are working in conditions that often come close to the edge in terms of health and safety.
  Before more money is spent on theatres by the lottery and by the Arts Councils of England and Wales, perhaps an audit should be undertaken. Unique for tourists, especially American tourists, is our theatre. American tourists, who spend significantly more than most other tourists on the theatre, expect good theatres. It is not only the play itself that matters, but the entire theatrical experience. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport recently visited the Royal Shakespeare theatre at Stratford-upon-Avon. If there is an emblem that is at the heart of British tourism, it is Stratford. I think of it not as an English resource but a British resource.
  The theatre is wholly inadequate both back stage and front of house. I know that English Heritage would like to preserve the building; indeed, it is listed. The staircase is even more listed, as it were, than the rest of the building. However, I believe that it should be rased as fast as possible. It is a hideous carbuncle. I know that we have become accustomed to it, rather like a rude aunt who comes every Christmas for lunch, but it is time that we got rid of it and built something appropriate—that is, a theatre that would be able to show the best of British acting talent and the best of Shakespeare and others of his era.
  It would be an attraction for American tourists and for my constituents. When I suggested that it was only old fogies who went to Stratford, I received many letters from my constituents telling me that there were not old fogies and that they went to Stratford.

  993
  As a tiny footnote, it would be nice to see funding arrangements between the Arts Councils of England and Wales to allow the Royal Shakespeare Company to tour in Wales. Every child in Wales studies Shakespeare. It would be good to see the RSC perhaps performing in a reinvigorated Parc and Dare theatre in Treorchy.
  We have the Budd report, which looks into gambling and how that affects the lottery. The Select Committee will be producing its own report on the Budd report. Many of us accept that we need to take a more liberal attitude towards gambling, notwithstanding some puritanical instincts that I might have. It is important that we ensure that in the process of liberalising some regulations on gambling, we do not remove the protection that the lottery has. Although it may seem that we shall allow more charities to run lotteries and therefore attract more money for their own organisations, the end result may be that we give less money, not more, to charities and good causes that need support.
  12.55 pm
  Miss McIntosh: With the leave of the House. I welcome the acknowledgement of the national lottery's achievements and its contribution to national life. It is a lasting legacy of John Major and his Government, as so many hon. Members have said.
  The debate has been positive and wide ranging, and many excellent contributions have been made. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) paid tribute to the work of libraries. I was brought up in the county of Durham, and I join in his congratulations to the city, the county and its gymnasts.
  The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) rightly spoke about the necessity of distinguishing the core spending on education, health and the environment, which should rightly come from the Treasury, not the new opportunities fund, which increasingly funds such projects.
  It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) with whom I share a boundary in North Yorkshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) raised the genuine problem of funding school swimming pools, to which Sport England has drawn attention.
  It is regrettable that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) is not in his place. He made a welcome contribution in a wide-ranging speech. It was disappointing that the Secretary of State was not present to hear it because I am sure that she, like the rest of us, would have enjoyed it.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on his sterling contribution. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant); we were sparring partners on the Standing Committee that considered the Office of Communications Bill.
  We should stand by the original purpose of the national lottery when it was set up in 1994. We should not substitute but recognise the principle of additionality. The lottery should fund projects and good causes in arts, sports, heritage and charities that are not funded by the Treasury. However, the new opportunities fund
  994
  increasingly strays into funding health, education and the environment; that should not happen. I would welcome clarification of the difference between underspend and overcommitment. I was pleased that the Secretary of State said that it was good to reduce the time between commitment and payment to projects.
  It is important, especially this year, when the Commonwealth games are coming to Manchester, to recognise Sport England's contribution to the City of Manchester stadium. Without the £92 million that it contributed, the stadium would probably not have been built, and perhaps the Commonwealth games would not be held in Manchester. I therefore share Sport England's anxiety about future funding. The pressures on its lottery fund continue to increase, while its annual lottery income has fallen. It stated that any further reduction in its income could have serious implications for English sport.
  Many hon. Members have projects in their constituencies that have been turned down. Several village hall projects of essential benefit to a local, rural community have been rejected in my constituency. The emphasis should be on smaller, local projects that benefit communities rather than major national schemes. There should be a better balance between them.
  Conservative Members want the lottery to be more responsive to local needs. The lottery application process remains a lottery: it is complex and burdensome and I welcome any Government efforts to simplify it. We believe that where projects primarily involve regeneration, but also involve sport and the arts, they should be covered by the national lottery guidelines.
  The Secretary of State touched on two major areas: the new fair share arrangements and her programme for reform and consultation. Like the rest of the House, we welcome both, particularly the contribution that the fair share arrangements will make to the most deprived areas that have benefited least.
  I pay tribute to the role of the distributing bodies, notably the community fund, in identifying the areas and pioneering new simplified procedures such as the one-stop lottery shop. All that will make the lottery more user-friendly for people applying for grants. I particularly welcome the fact that £10 million out of the £80 million committed by the community fund will go to help alleviate rural disadvantage.
  In announcing her programme of reforms, the Secretary of State said that the Government would introduce deadlines, so that either projects would get under way more quickly or money would be committed further ahead. That is welcome. She also said that the Government would embark on a process for licence renewal.
  This may be a good moment to remind the House that before the 1997 general election, Labour promised to select a not-for-profit operator. Curiously, the rules that were drawn up allowed the next operator to make a profit, and on 19 December 2000 Camelot was awarded the licence. Perhaps by consulting and starting the process earlier, as the Secretary of State has suggested, a less confusing procedure, with greater competition, will be in place for the next licence renewal.
  We welcome the change in emphasis from capital payments to a focus on revenue funding. The Secretary of State said that distributors had to evaluate carefully the

  995
  projects for which money would be given, and that a fine line had to be navigated. The Opposition would welcome a clearer commitment to the definition of additionality.
  The House has benefited from and welcomes the role played by Members of Parliament in the process, as has been so colourfully displayed today.
  When the Minister sums up the debate, there is one fact that he will not be able to escape. I shall not set him a quiz, such as he will remember from Radio 5 Live recently, but I shall ask him to have regard to a number of challenges that we face.
  Ticket sales are falling. There is also a threat, as the hon. Member for Rhondda and my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell said, from the gambling review in the Budd report. Another factor has been discussed both at Question Time on Monday and in the press: overcommitment or underspend. I would welcome any clarification that the Government can give.
  There is increasingly greater competition among the good causes to be funded, and I regret the drop of £100 million in sports funding. There is a possible oversight involving the provision of training facilities for the key group of young athletes between 16 and 18, and I urge the Minister to close the gap.
  I would welcome any contribution that the Government can make to the recognition of pockets of rural deprivation, such as the one that I mentioned earlier, Thirsk. In the otherwise prosperous district of Hambleton, Thirsk and other areas have suffered dramatically from the ongoing farming crisis.
  We wait with bated breath for the Minister's reply to the debate. We recognise that not only have the dome, the Wembley complex, Tate Modern, the Manchester stadium and the Manchester aquatic centre benefited from lottery funding, but literally thousands of small projects all over the country have received grants.
  It is right to give people more say in how their money—the lottery money—is spent. The Government should aim to encourage lottery distributing bodies to support projects identified and run by local people, for local people. It was precisely for such projects that the lottery was created.
  1.4 pm
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): As the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said, I hope that Members at least acknowledge that the Government put the subject on the Order Paper because we considered the debate important to informing our decisions as we move forward.
  I acknowledge that the previous Administration and the previous Prime Minister had the vision to introduce the national lottery in the mid-1990s and I hope that we have been able to refine it to ensure that it achieves its objectives, but it is unfortunate that the shadow Secretary of State has not come to the House to show the importance that the official Opposition attach to what I think is an extremely important debate. Indeed, some remarks made by the hon. Member for Vale of York on
  996
  their commitment rang a little hollow. The shadow Secretary of State is not here and he has relied on her to open and close the debate.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Where is the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman makes his comment from a sedentary position. Whether he saw the Secretary of State or not, she opened the debate and spent more than an hour in the Chamber. Although she has important business to deal with, I have no doubt that she will return, as we on the Government Benches think the lottery significant. The Opposition's remarks ring a little hollow and we would probably have had a more intelligent debate if they had the same vision as the previous Prime Minister.
  Chris Grayling: We on the Conservative Benches perhaps pay less attention to hierarchy and more to specialism, which is why it is entirely appropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York to be here. There are not many of us in the Chamber, but is the Minister disappointed that there are more Opposition than Government Members present, despite the fact that the Government have more Members of this Parliament than we do?
  Mr. Caborn: Yes, but my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and for Selby (Mr. Grogan) have given their apologies.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we have dealt adequately with the matter. Will the Minister get on to the substance of his remarks?
  Mr. Caborn: Very much so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have no doubt that the theme of the debate is that the Opposition's remarks were not as constructive as they ought to have been. Indeed, they reflect the legacy that the previous Administration left this nation. There is no doubt that the lottery is a national institution that most people think of as good. We all ought to acknowledge that and try to keep the ethos going.
  May I make a general reply to points that were made by a number of Members? On sport, changes have been made to the allocation and national distribution of lottery funding. My parliamentary answer of 13 February shows that sport received £302 million in 1997 while the figure for 2002–03 is £202 million—a reduction of a third. However, in 1998, we revised the distributors and introduced the new opportunities fund and the community fund. Both are making major contributions to sport. In fact, over the next two to three years, the school sport initiative will receive £750 million. That is probably three times greater than the annual income that goes to Sport England.
  Some £30 million from the new opportunities fund is going to the school sports co-ordinators and a further £25 million is going to space for sport and arts. The football museum will receive £9.3 million from the heritage lottery fund. We are also making a major contribution out of Exchequer expenditure to the school sports co-ordinators through Sport England.

  997
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) referred to the millennium stadium in Cardiff, which was given £46 million by the Millennium Commission. Hampden Park in Scotland was given £24.2 million. A total of £884 million has been given to sport as a result of the changes in distribution made in 1998, so the contribution to sport has not been reduced by a third, as the Opposition claim. On the contrary, it has increased.
  Miss McIntosh: How would the right hon. Gentleman respond to Sport England's criticism that ticket sales are falling? The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said that in many countries the lottery got off to a cracking start but then imploded and had no sense of permanence. Sport England has said that it regrets any further cuts. Will the Minister respond to the lack of facilities for 16 to 18-year-olds, who are the next generation? We want them to do just as well as the winter Olympics athletes have done this year.
  Mr. Caborn: I was going to deal later with falling ticket sales, but as the hon. Lady has raised the matter I shall deal with it now. It is unfortunate that a fall occurred as a result of the licensing round. Camelot has been experiencing difficulties for nearly two years. I shall not go into all the details of that, because they have been extremely well rehearsed, but there was a considerable decline in participation in the lottery and no fresh ideas were being developed. However, lottery ticket sales are now levelling out. The latest figures that I saw were for January, and they were beginning to increase.
  I know that Camelot is putting a lot of effort into relaunching the lottery later this year, and I hope that we can now put the licensing round behind us. The new licensing review is all about learning from that. I hope that, with the help of Camelot and cross-party support, we can now support the lottery in a way that will encourage an increase in ticket sales. The past couple of years have been extremely difficult and the consequence has been a decline in participation, and a subsequent decline in income to good causes. That has now been stemmed and, although one swallow does not make a summer, the January figures have increased.
  On investment in sport, I reiterate that more money is going into sport via the lottery, through the NOF, the community fund and Sport England. I understand Sport England's concern that the £750 million from the NOF should have gone through the offices of Sport England rather than through local education authorities. Nevertheless, that is the decision that was made. I know that the new chief executive of Sport England is working closely with the NOF and I hope that that working relationship will be strengthened and that sport will gain from that.
  It would be wrong to see these matters in isolation, because a major investment is being made in sport, not only through the lottery but through the education structure—sports colleges, school sports co-ordinators, whom I mentioned earlier, and the links with primary schools. We are dealing with the group of young people whom the hon. Member for Vale of York rightly mentioned—the 16 to 18-year-olds, among whom there is a massive fall-off in participation in sport—not by
  998
  providing a short-term fix, but by making the structures sustainable. We are doing that not just with lottery money but with general education money, encouraging local clubs to work with their local communities. It is important that we do not regard lottery money as standing in isolation from other sources of funding, whether for sports, the arts or anything else.
  Earlier this week when I visited Canterbury I saw the very first sports hall that had been built with private finance initiative and sports lottery money. That is to be encouraged, because it serves the education structure and the community. A sports college has been funded directly out of taxation, which enhances the investment that has been made by Sport England.
  I want to put on the record the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is again present. The development that she referred to in her persuasive and perceptive opening remarks showed that we want to move the lottery on from where it is now. We want to ensure that the review that she announced produces a sensible debate on how we can make the lottery more effective.
  Hon. Members argue that the lottery has been politicised, but they should consider the dome, which was one of the great fixes of previous Administrations, and compare that with the question of coalfield communities raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. The Deputy Prime Minister made no bones about it. He believes that we need to do something for coalfield communities, and to use lottery funds to do so. I do not think that the vast majority of British people have any objections to that. They believe that it is right to do that. Hon. Members may argue that that was a political decision, as was the direction from a Prime Minister that there was a weakness in our sport infrastructure so our new opportunities fund should direct £0.75 billion into sports facilities in our schools. I do not believe that many people in this country would disagree with that. Government's are elected to effect policy, and in the broad context of developing policy Governments have a right to tell distributors how we believe the policies that we have been elected on should be implemented.
  Chris Grayling: The concern that I raised was that the announcement of the money for sport in schools was used as a policy announcement at a Labour party conference. My concern is that the more individual allocations of funds from the national lottery become used for specific party political policy announcements, the more they will become an adjunct of Government, and the national lottery's independence from Government will be compromised.
  Mr. Caborn: I do not remember where the dome was announced, but I shall find out. The Wembley stadium project was also initiated by a previous Administration. I shall look back at some of the speeches made at Tory party conferences when it was in power. It would be wrong for the impression to be given that we are not investing in sport.
  I made the point that the fair shares scheme is yet another refinement of the lottery to meet the needs of the nation. As my right hon. Friend said, it is not the last, and we shall continue to keep the lottery under review. That is important, because we want a sensible debate on how to take it forward.

  999
  On the national balances, the commitment by distributors totalled £3.82 billion at the end of December 2001. That was £290 million more than was in their balances, so if everyone drew down on those funds immediately, they would be left with a deficit of £290 million. The corresponding figures for the end of September 2001 were £3.6 billion and an over-commitment of £159 million, which shows that they were committing more funds, not fewer. If everyone drew down on those funds, they would be over-committed. As that commitment is over a period of time, we need to revisit the subject of how those balances are used. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that very clearly this morning, and has said the same to all the distributors. I shall meet each of them during the coming months to ensure that they do what has been suggested. We want the balances to be reduced by about 50 per cent., and we think that that can be done in the next couple of years. We are committed to a better use of resources, as are the funding bodies. We also think that some of the money could be distributed more effectively.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda spoke of simplifying application processes. That could indeed make the lottery more efficient, and distributors are currently simplifying the system of applications for smaller grants. The heritage lottery fund, for instance, introduced a simple application form for capital grants of less than £50,000, which came into force in April 2001. The community fund has launched a new grant programme relating to awards of between £500 and £60,000, based on the awards for all programme. There is a short, simple application form and a quick turnaround time. I have told the new opportunities fund that I want some fast-tracking in the distribution of the £750 million for school sport: I want things to start happening by the summer.
  We shall continue to engage in constructive dialogue with distributors. We shall ensure that they are diligent and that public funds are protected, but we shall also ensure that there is not too much bureaucracy, and that the smaller organisations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda move more quickly.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned coalfields. I understand the problems. I am glad that my hon. Friend acknowledged—as has the coalfield communities campaign—that we have made significant progress since 1998, but structural weaknesses still exist. As my hon. Friend knows, at a conference late last year we discussed with the coalfield communities how the applications system could be made simpler and more effective. Some local authorities have received money to enable them to help organisations in coalfield areas to make their applications. We will keep the situation under constant review, and hope to see improvements. I was not aware of the figures relating to the arts that my hon. Friend mentioned, but the matter should be given more consideration.
  I have expressed our concerns about the last licensing round. Camelot—to which, like others, I pay tribute for the efficient way in which it deals with the lottery—embarked on a new seven-year licence in January. I hope that our review will consider how that could have been handled more effectively. Certainly it could not have been handled any worse.
  1000
  At the time of the Budd report in 1997, the lottery had already been subjected to one review, and people did not think it very logical for another to take place. Time will tell whether they were right or wrong, but I think our licensing review is important in the context of Budd. A number of the report's 176 recommendations could affect the lottery, and we must consider them carefully. As I think we have all agreed, the lottery is almost a national institution, and is recognised as such. We must think carefully before making changes that might affect that status. The Government are close to reaching a conclusion on the three-month review by Budd. I hope that soon we will be able to announce to the House our reflections on it and the many submissions that were made during the consultation period.
  The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) mentioned a constituent who had problems with the allocation of money for the millennium dome. As I understand it, the additional £179 million did not come from lottery money but from the Millennium Commission. I think that the allegation was that it slowed down or detracted from the allocation of other lottery funds. As I do not want to mislead the House or the hon. Gentleman's constituent, I will get my officials to look into the matter and write to him to clear up the problem once and for all. I do not have the information that I need to make a definitive statement on it now.
  The contribution by the hon. Member for Vale of York was not as constructive as I would have expected it to be. Perhaps it was written by central office, because all Friday speeches seem to be. She gave some interesting statistics. We may not believe that MORI polls are always right, but the poll in question was carried out on behalf of several organisations. It asked people to identify two or three of the most important recipients of lottery funding out of a list of 10. Some 69 per cent. of respondents identified health, 55 per cent. identified education and 26 per cent. identified the environment as causes on which lottery money should be spent. Obviously we would have to look at the survey in more depth to understand why people think that. However, it is interesting that people outside the House in the real world think that health, education and the environment can gain from lottery involvement.
  Miss McIntosh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations conducted another survey that vindicates the Conservatives' view that lottery distribution bodies should operate free from Government interference and that the Treasury should pay for health, education and the environment? Only one in eight thought that they should be paid for by the new opportunities fund.
  Mr. Caborn: We can bandy figures around because there is room for debate. All I am citing is the MORI poll—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) can laugh, but it does no justice to our discussion. The vast majority of hon. Members have made a constructive contribution.
  The MORI poll, which was conducted on behalf of two major organisations, set out health, education and the environment as priorities. There has been a positive response to the money for coalfield communities, the new opportunities fund as it relates to schools and for school sports co-ordinators. I have seen projects throughout the

  1001
  country that have received investment as part of a major investment strategy by Sport England and know that they have been welcomed across the board. We could make party political capital out of that, but I do not think that it would do any good.
  The argument about lottery money for Wembley stadium has been well rehearsed over the years. We hope that progress will be made on it. My right hon. Friend laid down clear criteria against which the decision will be made and we are awaiting the response of the Football Association.
  I think that I have dealt with most of the points that were raised. The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) asked about a swimming complex in her constituency. I do not have the relevant details, but I have asked my officials to look into the matter and I shall write to her when I have that information.
  This has been an extremely interesting debate, which Labour Members have approached constructively. We believe that the fair shares announcement was necessary and is a move in the right direction. It is part of the process of modernising the lottery and ensuring that it delivers what people want it to deliver. That process is not set in tablets of stone, and it needs to move on from time to time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set out a programme of consultation that includes the potential for change, and through it we want to take people with us in partnership.
  It is totally untrue to say that we have politicised the new opportunities fund or any other aspect of the lottery. The Opposition never say how they would deal with funding demands if they came to power in the next 20 or 30 years. They have already committed themselves to reducing public expenditure to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product, which, in reality, would entail a cut of £60 billion. However, they cannot tell us what they would do with the new opportunities fund. All that they do is whinge and carp and make grandiose statements about cutting £60 billion from public expenditure—should they ever be returned to power. Would they politicise the new opportunities fund? I leave the British people to make their judgment.
  Angela Smith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  Chest Disease
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]
  1.32 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: May I say what a pleasure it is to speak on a health issue for once?
  The lack of treatment of respiratory diseases, which I shall also refer to as chest diseases, concerns me greatly. The British Thoracic Society ran a display in the Upper Lobby of the House—I hope that at least some hon. Members saw it—to try to highlight the issue of respiratory diseases. Such diseases kill one in four people in the UK and impose a huge burden on health and the economy. As heart disease cases have decreased, the burden of chest disease has actually increased. In 1999, 150,000 people died from respiratory diseases, 139,000 died from coronary heart disease, and 119,000 died from cancer, excluding lung cancer. In other words, respiratory diseases are the biggest cause of death in the United Kingdom.
  Some 43 per cent. of those deaths are due to some form of pneumonia; 23 per cent. to cancer of the lung, nasal cavities, larynx or pleura; 20 per cent. to chronic obstructive lung diseases such as emphysema; and 16 per cent. to rarer diseases such as tuberculosis, cystic fibrosis, acute infection, pneumoconiosis and—believe it or not—choking. Having said that, TB is on the increase again, and choking is a quite common cause of death.
  One in five deaths from cancer—one in five—are caused by lung cancer. It is not widely known among the general population that more women die of lung cancer than of breast cancer. Before I leave the subject of lung cancer—many of the issues that I am raising deserve a debate of their own—I understand that my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones has got through the other place his Bill to ban tobacco advertising, which fell in the last Parliament. Will the Minister tell us what the situation is in respect of that Bill and when, after five years of Labour Government, we will see a ban on the advertising of tobacco, which greatly contributes to deaths from lung cancer?
  Death rates from respiratory disease have fallen by a third since 1968, and over the same period deaths from coronary heart disease have fallen by 53 per cent. That is very welcome, but since 1984 the number of deaths from respiratory disease has stayed constant, while deaths from coronary heart disease have fallen by another third, which suggests that we are not doing enough to tackle respiratory disease. I am sorry to give the House even more statistics but it is important to get them on the record. Deaths from occupational lung diseases such as mesothelioma, the asbestos-related disease, have risen, with a 75 per cent. increase between 1988 and 1998. That is another disease that needs a debate all of its own because it is a huge issue.
  I recently asked a parliamentary question to find out the cost to the health service of treating respiratory disease, and I received the response that the Department did not have precise details of the cost, but
  "it estimated that respiratory disease accounted for approximately 6 per cent. of hospital expenditure, 13 per cent. of primary care expenditure and 12 per cent. of pharmaceutical expenditure."—[Official Report, 30 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 426W.]

  1003
  The British Thoracic Society has given a figure of £2.576 billion of expenditure in 2000. I do not know what that figure represents as a proportion, but it sounds as if it is rather higher than the percentage given in the response to my parliamentary question. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that.
  There are clear socio-economic factors affecting respiratory disease. Men between the ages of 20 and 64 in unskilled manual jobs are much more likely to die from obstructive respiratory disease such as emphysema or tuberculosis, and there are other marked class differentials. They are 40 times more likely than professional people to die from emphysema or chronic bronchitis and nine times more likely to die from tuberculosis. That has implications for our policy on housing and the alleviation of poverty. In the 1990s, 29,000 working years were lost due to respiratory disease in those doing unskilled and manual labour. I find it difficult to get my head around such statistics, but they sound very impressive.
  I am also very worried by the rise in the number of cases of pulmonary tuberculosis. There was a 22 per cent. increase in the 1990s, which is horrendous when one considers that when I was a junior hospital doctor we thought the disease was dying out. It was also very disturbing to find out a couple of years ago that we had run out of vaccine. As the House probably knows, that became a saga because only one manufacturer made TB vaccine and it has taken some time to put the situation right. There are questions to be asked about that, including whether all those who should be vaccinated against TB have indeed received the vaccine. I am particularly concerned about 11 to 14-year-old schoolchildren, many of whom must have missed out when no vaccine was available.
  World comparisons of respiratory disease rates reveal that the UK has twice as many cases as the European average. Only Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Ireland have higher death rates from respiratory disease rates than the UK. That is according to the British Thoracic Society. I find those statistics very depressing.
  Another debate could be had on asthma in children. I will not go into great detail, but I am sure that everyone either has someone with asthma in their family, or has a close friend or relative who has a child with asthma. It is a serious problem in this country today. It is thought to be because of traffic fume pollution, but whatever its cause, asthma is the biggest cause of childhood illness.
  I could go on quoting statistics damning our neglect of respiratory disease. The extent of the burden of lung disease is largely unrecognised and we need a huge investment in services. The introduction of national service frameworks—NSFs—for other diseases and making health authorities and trusts target other diseases, such as cancer and coronary heart disease, might sound good, exciting and right, but the result is that trusts and health authorities tend to neglect less glamorous diseases that are not the subject of Government targets.
  I object to the notion that we are targeting cancer—what does that mean? Cancer varies from a serious or catastrophic, illness that kills within weeks or months, to a mild, easily treated illness. What do Ministers mean when they say that they are targeting cancer? Does it not mean that other diseases are excluded from the spotlight?
  1004
  I suspect that that has happened to respiratory diseases. Someone with boring old emphysema has little chance of being targeted by anyone, even in the absence of a ban on tobacco advertising.
  My local hospital has 1.2 whole-time equivalent—I love that sort of statistic—and excellent consultant physicians to deal with respiratory disease, but the population served by that hospital numbers 330,000. According to the Royal College of Physicians, the British Thoracic Society and the British Medical Association, we should have one specialist per 80,000 people. My local area should have four consultant chest physicians, not 1.2, however excellent the 1.2 are. On 22 January, I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Secretary of State
  "what recent discussions he has had with the BMA or the British Thoracic Society concerning the number of respiratory specialists needed in the NHS."
  The answer was:
  "We have not had any recent discussions"—[Official Report, 22 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 766W.]
  with either organisation about that subject. Apparently, it is not a big issue in the Department of Health.
  My area also has insufficient respiratory nurse specialists to cope, especially in view of the large number of children with asthma; and for 15 per cent. of the year, because of holidays and study leave, we have no chest physicians practising in the area. The majority of patients with chest diseases are not seen by a specialist; they are dealt with by people who have other expertise. Waiting lists for respiratory function tests are increasing, and a significant proportion of lung cancer patients—one of the targeted diseases—are not seen within the two-week national target period because of the lack of consultant manpower. There is no specified acute lung unit or respiratory specialist cover for patients in the intensive care unit.
  My constituents and those in other constituencies around our local hospital are extremely badly served in respect of respiratory disease. The only way to improve matters is to get more doctors and nurse specialists. I fully understand why we do not have enough specialists, but we cannot debate the subject without saying what a disgrace and a scandal it was that the previous Government allowed the number of doctors in training—and nurses as well—to fall to such an extent. I could introduce hon. Members to young people in my constituency who have the right A-levels to go to medical school but who could not get a place anywhere because so many medical school places had been cut. That was one of the great national scandals of the last 20 years.
  Please will the Minister find us some chest physicians from somewhere, just as the Government are finding surgeons to do joint replacements? Perhaps other countries would oblige and send surgeons here and save our people from the biggest killer in the UK today, respiratory disease. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  1.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I commend the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing this Adjournment debate. I welcome the debate, and her obvious expertise. As she rightly says, it is always a pleasure to talk about health issues. The debate gives the Government an opportunity to state clearly our policy on the treatment of respiratory

  1005
  diseases by the NHS, to emphasise the importance we give to them and to share with the hon. Lady and others our prevention strategy and the steps that we are taking to improve services for patients with respiratory disease. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is meeting with the British Thoracic Society and the British Lung Foundation soon to discuss this important issue.
  The range of respiratory diseases that people can suffer from is very wide, and it would be impossible for me to talk about what the Government are doing in respect of them all in such a short debate, although it is slightly longer than we had presumed. I will concentrate in the time available on a few of the major conditions such as lung cancer, asthma, pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. I shall also refer to tuberculosis, which the hon. Lady mentioned.
  The hon. Lady suggested—I think wrongly—that the Government's concentration on specific clinical areas had led in some way to a downgrading of the importance of respiratory disease. It is important to spell out that existing programmes have supported action on chest disease. The existing programmes for action on coronary heart disease will lead to improvements in the treatment of respiratory disease, because one of the key risk factors for coronary heart disease is cigarette smoking. It is the key cause of fatal lung diseases, such as lung cancer and chronic bronchitis, and increases the risk of pneumonia. I will refer more to smoking later.
  Furthermore, many respiratory conditions are more prevalent in older people. The work being undertaken on the implementation of the national service framework for older people—addressing ageism, the development of a single assessment process and improved access to specialist care in hospitals—will produce improvements in access, prevention, treatment and services for all older people.
  The hon. Lady highlighted lung cancer, which is the second most common cancer in England. In April 2001, the Government launched phase 2 of the cancer services collaborative programme, which is already producing some good examples of demonstrable reductions in waiting times for lung cancer treatment. Clearly, we would expect to see significant further progress.
  An additional £10 million has been made available each year from 1999 to develop lung cancer services and is being used to help improve access to those services, to enhance the quality of treatment and to bring down waiting times for treatment for lung cancer.
  We have asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to prepare clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer to supplement the existing service guidance published by the Department of Health in 1998. It is likely that those guidelines will be published in autumn 2003. NICE, in June 2001, published appraisals of the various new generation chemotherapy drugs for lung cancer. We estimate that up to 5,000 patients will benefit from having those drugs available.
  The hon. Lady spoke about pneumonia. Many deaths, including deaths from pneumonia, can be prevented by influenza immunisation, which is why the chief medical officer launched the flu vaccination campaign. We are pleased that take-up improved again this year, with 68 per cent. of older people getting vaccinated, compared with
  1006
  65 per cent. last year. If everyone aged 65 years or over was immunised against influenza, an estimated 5,000 additional lives could be saved. Ninety-five per cent. of all pneumonia deaths, about 25,000 in total, occur in people who are over 65. The incidence of pneumonia increases with age as the immune system becomes less effective and the risk of chronic disease increases. At least 1 per cent. of people aged 65 years and over develop pneumonia each year, and many of them require admission to hospital. Older people who are at a high risk of chest disease are therefore offered immunisation against pneumococcal infection.
  Eighty per cent. of patients with community-acquired pneumonia are managed by general practitioners, but most of the NHS costs of pneumonia treatment, amounting to more than £400 million a year, are associated with hospital admission. Prompt treatment in the community could reduce NHS costs and patient morbidity by reducing both the need for hospital admission and the length of hospital stay. Government investment and action in increasing capacity for treatment and the extent to which community and primary care can deal with those diseases is therefore crucial.
  Dr. Tonge: I appreciate what the Minister has said about pneumonia, particularly in elderly people. In fact, in the old days it used to be called the old man's friend; it is often a terminal event in many illnesses. However, I must take the Minister up on her claim that the Government have been concentrating on funding primary care trusts and bodies outside hospitals to keep elderly people out of hospital. I do not want to go into the problem of bed blocking and the loss of nursing home places in this debate, but the Department may not appreciate that there is simply not enough community care for elderly people or anybody else. There are just not the bodies, spaces, beds or homes, to care for those people.
  Jacqui Smith: That is why our action supporting social services and our success in cutting delayed discharges are important. The development of intermediate care services, particularly services which can respond quickly to the needs of older people with respiratory diseases who remain in their homes, will lead to further progress in ensuring that we catch some of those infections earlier and prevent hospital admission. In that way, we can improve the way in which the whole system works and, most importantly, improve older people's experience of care. Many local authorities and health authorities are using the increased investment that the Government are making available for intermediate care for precisely that sort of rapid response and care in people's homes.
  Dr. Tonge: I feel passionately about this. Having been in health service management and administration myself, I know that one can often think that things are happening on the ground when they are not. I assure the Minister that there is not much evidence to suggest that such improvements are happening there. As she is suggesting that intermediate care is progressing and that a lot of facilities are being opened up, will she and her

  1007
  Department consider writing to me—I do not expect her to tell me now—giving examples of just where that is happening, so that I can go and see it?
  Jacqui Smith: I would be very happy to do so. I have visited such places and I am willing to write to the hon. Lady about the progress that we are making in delivering on our pledges in relation to intermediate care.
  The hon. Lady also referred to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. As she pointed out, such disease leads to approximately 20,000 deaths each year. It also causes about 90 per cent. of respiratory disability. Expert groups working internationally have developed clinical guidelines for the treatment of COPD, which is shared between general practitioners and hospital doctors. Increasingly, COPD is being managed like other chronic diseases, with skilled teams offering lifelong care and often pulmonary rehabilitation to improve very significantly the quality of life of people with the disease. We have also asked NICE to prepare clinical guidelines for the NHS in England and Wales on the prevention, diagnosis, management and treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Development work is currently under way on those guidelines.
  As the hon. Lady pointed out, and as I said earlier, smoking is the cause of many serious respiratory diseases. It is the major cause of lung cancer and COPD and almost doubles the risk of pneumonia. That is why our anti-smoking initiatives are so important. Reducing the burden of avoidable disease will be good for the patient, good for the NHS and good for the nation. I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom is now a world leader in smoking cessation.
  In the four years to 2003, we have allocated £73 million to the NHS to provide a national NHS smoking cessation service. Excellent results are already being achieved. The results for the first full year of the service, from April 2000 to March 2001, showed that about 132,500 people had set a quit date, with some 64,600 people successfully having quit at the four-week follow-up stage. We have also made smoking cessation aids available on NHS prescription. Zyban was made available in June 2000 and nicotine replacement therapy was made available in April 2001. Substantial resources have been made available to the NHS for this purpose. In addition, almost all NRT products are now available on general retail sale.
  Dr. Tonge: The Minister is being very generous in giving way; these opportunities are very useful. What progress is being made with young women and smoking, which is a matter of great concern?
  Jacqui Smith: I was just coming to that bit of my speech, although I am certainly willing to add to my letter on intermediate care some more details about progress with young women and smoking. An important element of the overall tobacco strategy is the health education programme, to which some £55 million has been allocated in the period 1999–2000 to 2002–03. The programme involves a mass media advertising campaign that is designed to address the 25-to-45 age group and the development of separate approaches in relation to pregnant women.
  We want not only to prevent young women from smoking by carrying out education at an early stage, but to recognise that it is often when women become pregnant
  1008
  that they recognise the importance of taking action on their smoking. There are separate approaches for ethnic minorities, and all these programmes are supported by free telephone helplines offering confidential advice and, where appropriate, referral to local services. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that those are positive measures that will, in time, help to reduce the dreadful burden of death and disease caused by smoking.
  The hon. Lady pointed out that the private Member's Bill on banning tobacco advertising has been discussed today on Third Reading in another place. The Bill has been supported by Ministers in the other place. The Government are committed to legislating on tobacco advertising during the current Parliament, but of course the fate of legislation that originates in the other House is not for me to decide. Progress will depend on the House authorities and the extent to which parliamentary time is available. It remains an objective of the Government to legislate on tobacco advertising and as I have demonstrated, we have taken significant action to reduce smoking because of its considerable contribution to ill health.
  The hon. Lady mentioned asthma. Although asthma prevalence has increased in England, as in western Europe, asthma deaths are falling, almost certainly as a result of better management. I was a little disappointed with the hon. Lady. I know that she was calling for both increased investment and increased emphasis on respiratory diseases, but I do not support the view that she seemed to be advancing at various times that everything in the health service relating to chest diseases is poor or substandard.
  Much excellent work is clearly being done in our health service on a wide range of chest diseases by extremely dedicated staff, which will be supported further by the extra investment and reform that the Government are putting in place. Asthma is one area in which better management has been important in reducing deaths.
  We are aware that the treatment of asthma can be improved. Our report into the expert patient provided evidence that self-management in asthma could reduce the number of attacks and improve lung function. Professionals can also help people manage their asthma attacks through written plans on managing their asthma and regular reviews.
  The hon. Lady raised the important subject of the work force. We recognise that treatment of respiratory disease is a high-priority specialised area. In 1997 there were 109 specialist registrars in respiratory medicine. That figure has increased year on year and by 2001 had reached 257, which represents a significant increase. In 1997 there were 104 specialist registrars in cardiothoracic surgery. By 2001 that figure had risen to 199, an increase approaching 100 per cent. Our projections show that from a September 2000 baseline of 198, numbers should increase to 223 by September 2004.
  I agree with the hon. Lady that the previous Government left us a considerable challenge to increase work force numbers. We will continually review future work force needs as part of our national work force planning processes and take action to address any shortfalls. In the longer term, our current supply

  1009
  projections expect a further increase of around 70 trained specialists to be available to take up surgical consultant posts by 2009–10. That reflects the increase in the numbers of doctors in higher specialist training in surgery as a result of the NHS plan and action taken by the Government.
  The hon. Lady highlighted the issue of tuberculosis. There is, regrettably, an international resurgence of the disease. We need to be aware of that and take appropriate action. We recently announced plans for a new national infection control and health protection agency to streamline the services involved in the prevention and control of infectious diseases. The new agency will provide an integrated approach to all aspects of health protection, as well as infectious disease control. That will have an impact on infectious chest diseases such as tuberculosis and influenza.
  The hon. Lady is right in her assertion that poverty is an important contributory factor in many respiratory diseases. As with many areas of policy, the significant actions taken across government to tackle poverty—for
  1010
  example, significant extra investment in our housing stock, which I have seen in my constituency—will be important contributors.
  I hope that the hon. Lady will accept, if not agree with me, that the Government take the treatment of chest disease extremely seriously. We are investing considerable sums into improving lung cancer services. Our expenditure on anti-smoking initiatives will have an impact on the diseases caused by smoking. We are supporting, through the Medical Research Council, research into a wide range of respiratory diseases. We are asking NICE to develop guidelines for lung cancer and COPD. We are taking steps to increase the number of consultants who are available to treat people with lung disease, and we have recently launched a new strategy for dealing with infectious diseases.
  I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to address the issue, not least because it enables us to show that the Government take the matter extremely seriously. Along with other initiatives, increased investment in the health service, and reform, have delivered, and will continue to deliver, important results.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Two o'clock.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Boxes
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by what means ministerial boxes are conveyed from private offices in his Department to(a) himself and (b) his Ministers; how frequently and at what expense private courier firms are employed for such a task; and which courier firms have been used for such duties. [36271]

  Mr. Leslie
  Ministerial boxes originating from this Department are transported to Ministers' homes either by Government car or by a service provided by the Royal Mail.

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many advertising contracts are out to tender through the Central Office of Information; and what the value is of such contracts. [37959]

  Mr. Leslie
  There are currently two advertising contracts out to tender through the COI: "Sexual Health Awareness", for the Department of Health, and the Million Visitor Campaign, for the British Tourist Authority. The respective values of the initial contracts period are £1.5 million and £24 million.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what basis civil servants are entitled to one year's salary severance payments. [38448]

  Mr. Leslie
  Staff can retire or be retired early under several categories of early retirement or severance as set out in sections 11.5 to 11.10 of the Civil Service Management Code (CSMC). The financial terms for early retirement and severance are provided by the Civil Service Compensation Scheme (CSCS). Benefits on medical retirement are provided by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). Early retirement and severance payments vary between individuals depending on the category of departure, the person's age, length of service, and pay on exit. Early retirement with payment of pension is limited to those over age 50 with at least five years' service; early severance with immediate payment of a lump sum and accrued pension benefits preserved for payment at age 60 applies to those below age 50 or with less than five years' service.
  1570W
  The CSMC is available at www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/civilservice/managementcode/index.htm and the rules of the CSCS and the PCSPS at www.civilservice-pensions.gov.uk.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  LNM Holdings
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the policy of the Government is towards an application to the EBRD for support for the takeover of the Nova Hut steelworks in the Czech Republic by LNM Holdings. [39666]

  Clare Short
  The EBRD exists to help restructure the economies of former communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe. We support all responsible projects that serve this purpose.

  The EBRD board has not been approached with a proposal for a loan to the Nova Hut steelworks. If a proposal is put to the board we will consider it on its merits.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Northern Ireland Court Service
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will undertake to retain court services in North Downs/Ards follow the consultation on the future of accommodation for the Northern Ireland Court Service. [38324]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Northern Ireland Court Service published its Court Accommodation Strategy for public consultation on 7 December 2001. The consultation document indicates that consideration will be given to the closure of courthouses at Bangor and Newtownards and that this would allow for the provision of a new courthouse in the North Downs and Ards area. Decisions on the proposals in the consultation document will be taken following the expiry of the period of public consultation on 29 March 2002.

TREASURY

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how revenue from the climate change levy is(a) classified and (b) allocated to spending programmes. [38394]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Receipts from the climate change levy are classified as general taxation revenue. The levy package is revenue-neutral for business on account of measures introduced alongside the levy which reduce other business taxes or direct additional spending towards energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, from which business can benefit.
  1571W
  First, employers' national insurance contributions have been reduced by 0.3 percentage points. Secondly, a fund worth £50 million per annum to support energy efficiency and renewables has been allocated to Departments as follows (approximate figures):

  Amount pa

  Department

  Purpose

  £26.5 million approx

  DEFRA

  Energy efficiency—allocated to Carbon Trust

  £6 million approx

  Devolved administrations

  Energy efficiency—allocated to Carbon Trust

  £13 million

  DTI

  Renewables

  £4 million

  DEFRA

  Energy crops

  Thirdly, the levy package includes a scheme of enhanced capital allowances to provide further support to businesses investing in designated energy saving technologies. As this is a tax allowance scheme it does not involve the allocation of revenue to a spending programme and the cost of the scheme depends on take up.

  Large Corporates Forum
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those firms which attended the large corporates forum on 28 September. [38398]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Representatives of the following companies attended the large corporates forum on 28 September 2001: General Motors UK, Friends Provident, ICI, British American Tobacco, Dixons, AMP (UK), Orange, HSBC, Rolls Royce, Schroders, Unilever.

  Public Services Productivity
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 769W, on public services productivity, what process has been undertaken in preparing the paper; and if he will make a statement. [38310]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Work is proceeding on the paper.

  Professional Services
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment(a) his Department and (b) the Office of Government Commerce has made of which companies are the leading suppliers of professional services to Government Departments by (i) value and (ii) number; and if he will make a statement. [38112]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The National Audit Office report Purchasing Professional Services published in April 2001 identified the leading 25 suppliers of professional services to Government Departments and the level of spend with those companies. A copy of the report is in the Library.
  1572W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the minutes of the large corporates forum on 28 September 2001; and for what reason they were(a) first published on and (b) then removed from the Inland Revenue website. [38396]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The minutes of the 28 September 2001 meeting of the large corporates forum are available on the Inland Revenue website. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the House of Commons Library. A draft version was released for publication in error before it had been finalised. This was removed and later replaced by the final version.

  Inland Revenue Secondments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Inland Revenue personnel were(a) seconded to private businesses in the last 12 months and (b) vice versa; and what the purpose of these secondments was. [38397]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the 12 months from 1 March 2001 the Inland Revenue has(a) made 11 secondments to the private sector and

  (b) taken 13 secondments from the private sector.

  The purpose of these secondments was to promote the exchange of ideas and experience. Both inward and outward secondments help develop Inland Revenue staff by enabling them to work with different skills—leading to a better understanding of the business environment and a broadening of their experience.

  VAT (Domestic Fuel)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the legislative barriers which prevent domestic energy being zero rated; [38811]

  (2) if he will make an assessment on hypothecation of money raised on VAT on domestic fuel to a national energy efficiency programme; [38812]

  (3) how much revenue has been raised in each of the last three years from VAT on domestic fuel. [38810]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government publish details of VAT receipts each year in their Financial Statement and Budget Report but do not disaggregate receipts by type of good or service.

  Under long-standing agreements with the European Union, no member state is permitted to introduce new zero rates or restore a zero rate once it has been withdrawn.

  The way in which revenue is raised does not in general determine how it is spent. The Government are committed to energy efficiency for its significant environmental, business and social impacts and have allocated significant resources to fund programmes designed to promote energy efficiency in the domestic sector.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate additional revenues that would arise in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland from a policy of (i) abolishing the upper limit on employees' national insurance contributions, (ii) raising the limit to £50,000, (iii) raising the limit to £100,000 and (iv) charging a rate of (A) 5 per cent., (B) 10 per cent., and (C) 15 per cent. on income between the current upper limit and (X) £50,000, (Y) £100,000 and (Z) £250,000. [39328]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: This information is not readily available for Scotland and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Available estimates for the UK, provided by the Government's Actuary's Department (GAD), are shown in the table.

  Estimated full-year effects—UK

  2002-03(£billion)

  Abolishing the Upper Earnings Limit (UEL) for employees

  +3.35

  Raising the UEL to £50,000 per year

  +2.05

  Raising the UEL to £100,000 per year

  +3.00

  AX 5 per cent, between UEL and £50,000 per year1

  +1.75

  AY 5 per cent, between UEL and £100,000 per year1

  +2.55

  AZ 5 per cent, between UEL and £250,000 per year1

  +2.75

  BX 10 per cent, between UEL and £50,000 per year1

  +3.50

  BY 10 per cent, between UEL and £100,000 per year1

  +5.10

  BZ 10 per cent, between UEL and £250,000 per year1

  +5.55

  CX 15 per cent, between UEL and £250,000 per year1

  +5.25

  CY 15 per cent, between UEL and £250,000 per year1

  +7.65

  CZ 15 per cent, between UEL and £250,000 per year1

  +8.30

  Note1: Assuming UEL for contracted-out rebates will remain unchanged, with a rate of 5/10/15 per cent. being charged on earnings (whether or not the person is contracted-out) between the UEL and the specified limit.

  Corporate Venturing
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was of the tax relief granted in respect of corporate venturing; and what assessment he has made of the economic impact on the tax relief for corporate venturing. [38511]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The cost of tax relief for corporate venturing is expected to be about £50 million in a full year. The corporate venturing scheme was only introduced on 1 April 2000. It is too early in the life of the scheme for any reliable economic impact assessment to be undertaken.

  Pension Rules
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rules apply to a bereaved partner in relation to the payment of(a) the state pension an (b) SERPS in cases where both partners have contributed fully to national insurance throughout their working lives. [28550]

  Mr. McCartney
  I have been asked to reply.

  The rules governing state pensions for widows and widowers depend on the individual circumstances of the people concerned.

  Generally, where both the contributor and the surviving spouse are over state pension age when the contributor dies, and both have full national insurance records, the survivor can combine their own pension with a pension based on their spouse's national insurance record.

  However, the maximum amount of basic pension and additional (SERPS) pension cannot exceed the amount of a single person could get based on their own National Insurance record.

  The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that:

  from 6 April, the introduction of the State Second Pension will provide a better additional pension that SERPS for the low paid, and certain carers and long term disabled. The maximum amount of State Second Pension a surviving spouse can inherit will be 50 per cent.; and

  the inherited SERPS regulations, which come into force on 6 October, will gradually begin to reduce the maximum percentage of SERPS a surviving spouse may inherit to up to 50 per cent. The maximum amount a surviving spouse may inherit will depend on the contributor's state pension age, with most protection—up to 90 per cent.—going to the spouses of people whose state pension age falls between 6 October 2002 and 5 October 2003.

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the expenditure of her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title in each year since 1997. [26978]

  Ms Hewitt
  Expenditure on press advertising through COI is as follows:

  Subject area

  £

  1997–98

  Import Licence Announcements

  57,075

  Export Licence Announcements

  5,749

  Languages for Export

  21,165

  Queen's Awards

  66,258

  Miscellaneous

  157,377

  Business Links

  1,258,122

  IT For All

  357,451

  Total

  1,923,197

  1575W

  Subject area

  £

  1998–99

  Import Licence Announcements

  47,891

  Queen's Awards

  94,148

  Export Licence Announcements

  7,208

  Firework Safety

  49,800

  Working Time Regulations

  599,995

  Business Links

  432,585

  Trade UK

  7,068

  Languages for Export

  7,013

  National Minimum Wage

  752,764

  Total

  1,998,472

  1999–2000

  Miners' Compensation

  149,940

  Metrication

  19,311

  Information Society Initiative

  439,757

  Queen's Awards

  47,883

  Export Website Awareness

  16,191

  Export USA

  2,436

  National Minimum Wage

  15,476

  Import Licence Announcements

  57,358

  Export Licence Announcements

  14,081

  Foresight

  52,614

  Miscellaneous

  14,388

  Total

  829,435

  2000–01

  Miscellaneous

  4,606

  National Minimum Wage

  963,552

  Import Licence Announcements

  45,470

  Export Licence Announcements

  17,214

  Small Business Service

  84,647

  Distance Selling

  16,366

  Queen's Awards for Enterprise

  43,542

  Miners' Compensation

  134,674

  UK Online for Business

  1,233,442

  Smart Awards

  138,128

  Paid Annual Leave

  1,179,543

  Small Business Service—Business Link

  589,878

  Total

  4,451,062

  2001–02 (to date)

  Business Links

  313,046

  Quality Mark Scheme

  464,037

  Queen's Award for Enterprise

  15,056

  National Minimum Wage

  310,020

  UK Online for Business

  288,872

  UK Online for Business (Supplement Advertising)

  387,257

  Business Link Foot and Mouth

  130,111

  Export Licence Announcements

  6,240

  Import Licence Announcements

  37,556

  Total

  1,952,195

  All figures exclude VAT.

  British Trade International, which brings together international trade and investment support previously led by DTI and FCO, has spent £911,530 through COI on press advertising for Trade Partners UK in 2000–01.

  Each campaign may use national and regional media. The target audience and information to be conveyed influences the choice of media used. For national campaigns a mix of broadsheets and tabloids is
  1576W
  frequently used. For regional advertising, space has been taken in many prominent regional newspapers as well as hundreds of more local papers and the specialist press.

  A breakdown of expenditure by title could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Information of this kind on NDPBs is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  I have asked each of Chief Executives of the Agencies of reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alison Brimelow to Mr. John Bercow, dated 1 March 2002:
  I am replying to this parliamentary question, tabled on 10 January 2001, about expenditure on newspaper advertising each year since 1997.
  Patent Office expenditure on newspaper advertising during this period relates mainly to annual recruitment exercises for patent examiners. The total expenditure by year is as follows:

  1997–98: £32,604

  1998–99: £46,482

  1999–2000: £12,880

  2000–01: £37,543

  A full breakdown by newspaper title is attached

  Newspaper Advertising

  £

  1997–98

  Cardiff Advertiser

  306.00

  Guardian Media Group

  4,415.50

  Telegraph Group

  7,520.00

  Western Mail/South Wales Echo

  7,868.28

  South Wales Argus

  5,863.56

  Bristol Evening Post/Bath Chronicle/Western Daily Press

  2,651.56

  Total 1997–98

  32,604.56

  1998–99

  Birmingham Post

  385.00

  Cardiff Advertiser

  503.00

  Guardian Media Group

  3,950.00

  Professional Engineering

  1,250.00

  Telegraph Group

  19,700.00

  Western Mail/South Wales Echo

  11,182.81

  South Wales Argus

  4,044.80

  Bristol Evening Post/Bath Chronicle/Western Daily Press

  2,651.56

  South Wales Evening Post

  2,815.80

  Total 1998–99

  46,482.97

  1999–2000

  Cardiff Advertiser

  156.00

  Guardian Group

  3,715.00

  Midland Independent Newspapers

  246.00

  The Times

  900.00

  Telegraph Group

  5,860.00

  Western Mail

  752.00

  South Wales Argus

  1,251.18

  Total 1999–2000

  12,880.18

  1577W

  Newspaper Advertising

  £

  2000–01

  Cardiff Advertiser

  431.00

  Guardian Media Group

  2,380.00

  Telegraph Group

  13,850.00

  Western Mail

  10,160.12

  South Wales Argus

  7,035.50

  Bristol Evening Post/Bath Chronicle/Western Daily Press

  3,686.40

  Total 2000–01

  37,543.02

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. John Bercow, dated 1 March 2002:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply in relation to the Insolvency Service Agency to your question about expenditure on newspaper advertising by title for each year since 1997.
  The vast bulk of expenditure by the Insolvency Service on newspaper advertising relates to staff recruitment with the cost of such advertising being aggregated with other recruitment costs. An analysis of expenditure so far this financial year shows that the Service has spent a total of £15,868 on recruitment advertising but it would not be possible to break that figure down by title other than at disproportionate cost. Similarly, an analysis of earlier years to produce such aggregated information could, again, only be produced at disproportionate cost.
  In addition to recruitment advertising I can tell you that, in October 2001, the Insolvency Service placed advertisements in The Lawyer and the Solicitor's Journal seeking expressions of interest for the provision of legal services. The cost of that advertising was £1,380 and £260 respectively.

  Letter from David Hendon to Mr. John Bercow, dated 1 March 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to your two Questions about expenditure on newspaper advertising, and on opinion polling, focus groups and other forms of market research. The information for the Radiocommunications Agency for the periods in question is as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Newspaper Advertising

  n/a

  108,997

  84,948

  253,058

  Opinion polling

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Focus groups

  0

  1,500

  2,500

  2,500

  Market research

  29,023

  0

  0

  282,719

  We do not have readily available figures for our newspaper advertising costs on 1997–98. However I would estimate these to be in line with the two following years.
  You also asked for details on surveys we have commissioned. The market research expenditure in 1997–98 concerned a survey of the views of our customers. The expenditure in 2000–01 concerned a survey on external communications, and a series of surveys to determine the value of the radio spectrum.

  Leter from John Holden to Mr. John Bercow, dated 1 March 2002:
  I have been asked to reply to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in respect of Companies House Executive Agency. Figures for newspaper advertising for year-to-date 2001/2, for 2000/1 and 1999/2000 are respectively £63k, £126k and £122k. Figures for earlier years could only be segregated at disproportionate cost. However, our response to Parliamentary Question 2000/939 gave aggregate figures for earlier years for newspaper advertising and other promotional campaigns.
  1578W
  Letter from Roger Heathcote to Mr. John Bercow, dated 1 March 2002:
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question on 10 January 2002 to Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, concerning what expenditure had been incurred on newspaper advertising, by title, for each year since 1997 in the department and executive agencies. I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS), which is an executive agency of the DTI.
  The ETS have incurred no expenditure on promotional newspaper advertising in the period under examination. Expenditure has been incurred in advertising local job vacancies around Great Britain as well as occasional notices in relation to individual or test tribunal cases, but individual records of such expenditure are not kept.

  Letter from Mr. lain MacGregor to Mr. John Bercow, dated 1 March 2002:

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of NWML to your question regarding expenditure on newspaper advertising by DTI and its Agencies, for each year since 1997.

  The figures for NWML are as follows:

  Nil for each of the years

  Letter from David Irwin to Mr. John Bercow, dated 1 March 2002:
  Further to your Parliamentary Question 2001/2115 about the expenditure on newspaper advertising, I can report as follows:

  2001–1:£548,878—excluding VAT

  2001–2: £284,393—excluding VAT

  The Small Business Service only came into existence at the beginning of April 2000 so previous years are not applicable.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for her Department in each of the last four years. [27901]

  Ms Hewitt
  (a) I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 30 January 2002, Official Report, columns 405–06W.

  (b) This information is not held centrally.

  Oil Suppliers and Retailers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she and the Office of Fair Trading have held and on what dates since September 2001 with the(a) major oil suppliers, (b) United

  1579W
  Kingdom Petroleum Industries Association, (c) Institute of Petroleum, (d) Petrol Retailers Association and (e) Association of United Kingdom Oil Independents to discuss mechanisms for the supply of road transport fuels; and if she will make a statement. [35070]

  Mr. Wilson
  Ministers regularly meet a wide range of representatives from business. However, it is not normal practice to release details of ministerial meetings.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the(a) number and (b) value of contracts awarded by her Department to (i) Arthur Andersen, (ii) Deloitte Touche, (iii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [34993]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information from the Department's systems indicate that contracts let by core DTI to PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers are as follows:

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  No. Contracts

  Total Value £

  01 April 1999–31 March 2000

  9

  354,657

  01 April 2000–31 March 2001

  16

  636,623

  01 April 2001–04 January 2002

  13

  870,199

  Contracts let by core DTI to Ernst & Young are as follows:

  Ernst & Young

  No. Contracts

  Total Value £

  01 April 1999–31 March 2000

  3

  407,165

  01 April 2000–31 March 2001

  58

  829,043

  01 April 2001–04 January 2002

  10

  879,679

  Contracts let by core DTI to Deloitte & Touche are as follows:

  Deloitte & Touche

  No. Contracts

  Total Value £

  01 April 1999–31 March 2000

  6

  1,265,252

  01 April 2000–31 March 2001

  6

  1,839,428

  01 April 2001–04 January 2002

  4

  4,489,189

  Contracts let by core DTI to KPMG are as follows:

  KPMG

  No. Contracts

  Total Value £

  01 April 1999–31 March 2000

  1

  11,642

  01 April 2000–31 March 2001

  4

  30,009

  01 April 2001–04 January 2002

  3

  92,131

  1580W
  Information is not held centrally for the earlier years and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  For contracts let to Andersen I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on 14 January 2002, Official Report, column 41W, where exceptionally information was given for earlier years.

  The Department's Executive Agencies will be responding separately.

  Post Office Closures
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices are undergoing a consultation process for considered closure in connection with Postwatch, broken down by county. [35544]

  Mr. Alexander
  73 post offices are currently undergoing consultation with Postwatch under the procedures of the Code of Practice for Post Office branch relocation, closure and conversion. The figures on a country basis are:

  England 63

  Wales 8

  Scotland 2

  Northern Ireland 0

  Figures are not available on a county basis.

  I understand from Post Office Ltd that the majority of these consultations concern outlets in rural areas where the subpostmaster has resigned and there are no applicants for the vacancy. The Code of Practice requires seeking alternative ways of continuing provision of post office services.

  Pakistan (Imports)
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from representatives of(a) industry and (b) trade unions about the effect on the UK textile industry of the removal of duty from finished goods imported from Pakistan. [36250]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry received representations from the British Apparel & Textiles Confederation (BATC) and the Knitting Footwear and Allied Trades Union (KFAT) last October, including at a meeting to discuss the effect on the UK textile industry of the removal of duty from finished goods imported from Pakistan. In addition, and following on from correspondence, I met with representatives from the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) and BATC on this subject earlier this month.
  1581W
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how she will ensure that the decision to support Pakistan by the removal of duty from imported made up goods will not have a destabilising effect in the far eastern region. [36252]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government's view is that the removal of duty on imports of made up goods from Pakistan will not have a destabilising effect on the far eastern region. Imports of most made up goods from Pakistan are currently subject to quantitative restriction by the EU under the Multi-Fibre Arrangement (MFA), limiting the effect of the removal of duty.

  Gas Refuelling Points
  Mr. Lazarowic
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many public refuelling points in the UK, broken down by area, sell(a) liquid petroleum gas and (b) natural gas for vehicles. [36386]

  Mr. Wilson
  The website of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Association (www.lpga.co.uk) gives a regional breakdown of the number of public refuelling points in the UK. As at 13 February 2002, it is recorded as follows:

  England

  840

  Wales

  89

  Scotland

  89

  Northern Ireland

  21(1)

  (1) The data for Northern Ireland were obtained from the website of the Energy Saving Trust (www.estpowershift.org.uk) as at 7 February 2002. Both websites also give further detail on regional breakdown.

  New sites are currently opening at more than one per day. On 14 February I launched a £1 million Boost initiative, as a supplement to the DTLR's PowerShift program, which aims to increase the uptake of LPG vehicles by:
  raising consumer awareness through a targeted publicity campaign;
  introducing, for the first time, grants for garages to become PowerShift approved converters;
  promoting the benefits to rural communities where motoring costs tend to be higher taking rural mid-Wales, East Anglia and the Highlands and Islands of Scotland as focus areas for the initiative; and working with manufacturers to put more production line LPG vehicles in show rooms.

  According to the Natural Gas Vehicle Association (NGVA), there are 30 sites for refuelling with natural gas in the UK, 29 in England and 1 in Scotland. According to the NGVA, third party access is possible by arrangement with the suppliers at about 50 per cent. of these sites.

  Oil and Gas Directorate Posts
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) of 24 January,Official Report, column 1064W, what plans she has to increase the proportion of oil and gas directorate posts in Aberdeen; and if she will make it her policy to ensure that by the next election a majority of oil and gas directorate posts are based in Aberdeen. [36446]
  1582W
  Mr. Wilson
  Oil and Gas Directorate maintains offices in both London and Aberdeen in order to provide an effective service to its wide range of clients and stakeholders. Decisions on the location of particular posts are based on operational considerations. For example, staff dealing with downstream oil issues and international oil policy are located in London; whilst staff dealing with the Scottish and north-east parts of the oil industry supply chain are located in Aberdeen. The oil and gas responsibility of Trade Partners UK are located in Glasgow.

  Universal Banking Services
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on establishing the proposed Universal Banking Service.
  [37491]

  Mr. Alexander
  While there are still issues to be resolved, substantial progress is being made towards delivery of the project as planned.

  European Energy Markets
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when(a) she, (b) her Ministers and (c) officials from her Department last met (i) the European Commission, (ii) the Government of France and (iii) the Government of Germany to discuss liberalisation of European energy markets and completion of the single market in energy; and if she will make a statement. [36788]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: Ministers and officials are in frequent and regular contact with the Commission, France and Germany to take forward European energy liberalisation objectives.

  I last met Loyola de Palacio, Vice President of the Commission, in Norway in February when we discussed this topic.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is next meeting Loyola de Palacio, to discuss this topic on 7 March.

  Electronics Manufacturers:
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of average profit margin in the last five years of(a) audio-visual equipment manufacturers and (b) consumer electronics manufacturers. [38126]

  Mr. Wilson
  Information on profit margins at industry level is not available.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the contribution to gross domestic product of (a) audio-visual equipment manufacturers and (b) consumer electronics manufacturers. [38127]

  Mr. Wilson
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The nearest equivalent to audio-visual equipment manufacture within the Standard Industrial Classification is SIC 32.3 (Manufacture of television and radio receivers, sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus and associated goods). This
  1583W

  industry is estimated by ONS to have contributed 0.1 per cent. of economic activity (in terms of Gross Value Added at basic prices) in 1999, the latest year for which data are available.

  It is not possible to distinguish between manufacture for the consumer and business markets of many electronics products within the Standard Industrial Classification.

  Croes Wind Power Station
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason she decided not to hold a public inquiry into the proposed CEFU Croes wind power station in Cardiganshire; and how many applications of similar size have been put before her.
  [38386]

  Mr. Wilson
  As with any application under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, Ministers have to weigh up all aspects of an application consider all representations—both for and against—and come to a conclusion. In the case of the Cefn Croes application it was concluded that there was sufficient information to approve the application in principle without sending it to public inquiry.

  There has been one other application for a 60 megawatt windfarm at Humble Hill, Kielder, Northumberland. It was decided on 29 March 2001 that consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 could not be given. Copies of the Press Notice and decision letter were placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Exports
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list British exports as a percentage of total exports for each of the nations to whom Britain exports in each year from 1972. [38445]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Annual figures on UK exports of goods, to each country, are published by HM Customs and Excise in Business Monitor OTSA, Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Statistics on exports of goods to major trading partners, for ten years at a time, are also available from the Annual Abstract of Statistics, published by the Office for National Statistics.

  Both publications may be obtained from the Libraries of the House.

  Employment Tribunals Service
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Employment Tribunals Service is permitted to exercise greater flexibility in the application of the Tribunal rules of Procedure when the respondent is a Government agency. [38784]
  1584W
  Alan Johnson
  The Employment Tribunals Service does not exercise greater flexibility in the application of the Tribunal Rules of procedure when the respondent is a Government agency.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Employment Tribunals Service adhered to rules two and three of the rules of procedure of the Employment Tribunals Service in relation to applications lodged with the Birmingham Employment Tribunal on behalf of staff employed at HM Prison, Blackenhurst. [38785]

  Alan Johnson
  Yes.

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the contribution small construction companies provide to(a) Government departments and (b) the economy as a whole. [38687]

  Mr Wilson
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]:

  (a) Government Departments

  Data on the contribution of small construction companies to Government Departments are not held centrally.

  (b) the economy as a whole

  In 2000 small construction companies were responsible for £36.8 billion of construction (£30.7 billion in 1995 prices). This represents about 2¾ percent. of GDP. Figures for 2001 are yet to be published.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of(a) the economic benefits of procuring from smaller firms and (b) the improved value for money to be achieved by increasing competition in construction projects (i) within Government Departments and (ii) outside. [38686]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The Government have made no assessment of either

  (a) the economic benefits of procuring from smaller firms or

  (b) the improved value for money to be achieved by increasing competition in construction projects within Government Departments.

  Over the past year the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) has undertaken research to identify the barriers to effective competition in the Government marketplace. Part of this research looked at the issues facing small firms, but not specifically in the construction sector. OGC and the Small Business Service carried out this work jointly. A range of public sector organisations were asked for their views on the impact of their procurement strategy and practice on small firms. The organisations highlighted the potential benefits of dealing with small firms: they can often bring innovation, responsiveness, flexibility and quality of service to Government work. These are all important elements of value for money.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ministerial Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each of the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team in each of the last four years, specifying the purpose and cost of each trip. [30183]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 4 February 2002,Official Report column 707W.

  Victim Support
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the recent projects inspired by the victims' charter which have been put into place which give victims the opportunity to explain how crime has affected them. [37070]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There is one such project, namely, the victim personal statement scheme—which is now a national scheme.

  A key standard in the 1996 victim's charter was that victims of crime should be given the chance to say how the crime had affected them. Pilot projects to test how this might be done led to the introduction nationally of the new victim personal statement scheme with effect from 1 October 2001.

  The scheme provides a chance for victims to say how the crime has affected them, and to include anything else they wish to add. The victim personal statement then becomes part of the case papers, and will be seen by all criminal justice personnel subsequently dealing with the case.

  Fuller details of the scheme and accompanying documentation are given in Home Office Circular 35/2001 of 14 August 2001, available on the Home Office website (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk). The scheme is being evaluated during 2002.

  Anti-Terrorist Powers
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people, within his anti-terrorist powers, have been(a) held in detention, (b) appealed against this and (c) used the opportunity of judicial review; and if he will make a statement. [36628]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: Nine foreign nationals have so far been detained using powers in Part IV of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act. Of those detained one has left the United Kingdom voluntarily.

  Eight of those originally detained have lodged appeals. The ninth detainee has not lodged an appeal to date.

  None of those held have sought leave to move for judicial review.

  Prison Visits (Clerics)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on what vetting procedures are carried out on clerics visiting jails in England and Wales to provide support and spiritual advice to prisoners. [37712]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: The Prison Service carries out checks to establish a job applicant's or worker's identity, reliability, integrity, eligibility and that there is no apparent threat to security. These arrangements apply to the appointment of ministers of religion.

  Tetra Masts
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average annual payment was to landowners for the siting of Tetra masts in the last three years. [37744]

  Mr. John Denham
  The Home Office does not make payments to landowners for the siting of Terrestrial Trunked Radio System (Tetra) masts. The location of the sites, and agreements with site owners, are the responsibility of Tetra network operators. For the Airwave service this is Airwave mm02, (formerly British Telecom Airwave). Payments for the use of sites are a commercial matter between the network operator and the site owners.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent evaluation has been made of the health risks associated with Tetra masts.
  [37745]

  Mr. Denham
  In early 2001, the Home Office commissioned a report from the National Radiological Protection Board on the potential health risks from Terrestrial Trunked Radio System (Tetra) technology.

  The report concluded that it was unlikely that the special features of Tetra posed a hazard to health, and made recommendations for further research in the remaining areas of uncertainty. The Home Office has accepted the report and is taking forward all its recommendations in a comprehensive programme of work which is already well underway. This includes a large study commissioned by the Home Office from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory on the possible effects of Tetra signals on cell biology. The initial results of this work are expected by April, 2002.

  Antiosocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in each police authority area.
  [37626]

  Mr Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member, for the Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 48W.

  Entitlement Card
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department
  1587W
  has had with private companies on the feasibility of introducing an entitlement card for UK citizens; and if he will make a statement. [37671]

  Angela Eagle
  My officials have met with trade associations representing the financial services, retail and computer software and services industries. In the context of discussions with Post Office Ltd, officials have also met representatives of N M Rothschild & Sons who invited the ALCO Partnership to one meeting. No discussions have been held on the feasibility of an entitlement card scheme with individual private companies. However, the Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS) (Administration) Ltd, which is a non-profit private company owned and financed by the United Kingdom's major financial institutions, was present at the discussions with the financial services industry. Also a number of Information Technology companies were present at the meeting with that industry group, the contents of which was reported to its very wide membership.

  Prisoners (Self-Harm)
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) attempted hangings and (b) other acts of deliberate self-harm were recorded in prisons in England and Wales in the last two years.
  [37790]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: There have been 2,986 attempted hangings and 9,700 other acts of self-harm in prisons during the last two years as set out in the table.

  Table showing the number of attempted hangings and other acts of deliberate self-harm in prisons in England and Wales in the last two years

  Year

  Attempted hanging

  Other acts of deliberate self-harm

  Total

  2000

  1,395 (27 per cent.)

  3,826 (73 per cent.)

  5,221

  2001

  1,591 (21 per cent.)

  5,874 (79 per cent.)

  7,465

  A downward trend in the reduction of self-harm, including attempted hangings, is being sought within the Prison Services holistic three-year safer custody programme. Key elements of the programme include better identification and case management by trained staff of prisoners at risk; the establishment of mental health in-reach teams; and improved physical environments within prisons.

  Police Authorities (Research)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were employed in a research capacity in each police authority in each year since the inception of the CPS as a percentage of(a) turnover and (b) the number of people employed. [37778]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The information requested is not collected. The deployment of resources within a police force is a matter for individual Chief Officers of Police.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Broadspring Wood, (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement concerning the proposed sale of Broadspring wood, Denham, Buckinghamshire by the Highways Agency; [36090]

  (2) what steps (a) the Highways Agency and (b) his Department have taken to stop (i) the dumping of spoil materials, (ii) the creation of bunds and a car park area and (iii) the introduction of pre-fabricated buildings in Broadspring wood, Denham, Buckinghamshire,
  [36093]

  (3) when the Highways Agency learned that the Uxbridge gun club was (a) bringing spoil material into Broadspring wood, Denham, Buckinghamshire and (b) creating car parking areas and bunds, therein; [36091]

  (4) when the decision was taken by the Highways Agency to sell Broadspring wood, Denham, Buckinghamshire, to the Uxbridge gun club. [36092]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The decision was taken by the Highways Agency to sell Broadspring Wood, Denham, Buckinghamshire to the Uxbridge and District Rifle Club on 16 August 2001 following professional advice and opinion on its status, condition and potential. The Club had operating on the land under Licence since 1 June 2000. There were no concerns raised about their activities.

  The Highways Agency learned that the Uxbridge and District Rifle Club were bringing spoil material into Broadspring Wood, Denham Buckinghamshire and were creating car parking areas and bunds in November 2001.

  A letter was sent to the Uxbridge and District Rifle Club on 21 November 2001 requesting that no further activity of any sort was carried out on site. A letter was also sent from our solicitors on 23 November 2001 addressed to the solicitor acting for the Rifle Club requesting that the depositing or permitting to be deposited of waste material on the site and access ways leading to it be stopped immediately. A second letter was sent by the Highways Agency on 1 February 2002 pointing out that we were aware that the Rifle Club had changed the use of the land by the inclusion of bunding on the land and using it as a combat area, that this should stop and the Rifle Club should use the land as set out in their licence. The Highways Agency was unaware of the introduction of pre-fabricated buildings in Broadspring Wood until now. The Highways Agency have arranged for their Managing Agent to urgently inspect the land and provide a report.

  The sale of this land from the Highways Agency to the Uxbridge and District Rifle Club was agreed in good faith last summer. However, following these most recent events officials in the Highways Agency are conducting a full review of the case.

  Tramway Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the development of a tramway service within the Greater London area. [38201]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government's Ten Year Plan for Transport envisages at least two tram or guided bus schemes in London. However, this is a matter for the Mayor of London and Transport for London. I understand that Transport for London (TfL) is considering four new "intermediate mode schemes", so called because they are neither bus nor rail but share some characteristics of both. They are: Cross-River Transit; Uxbridge Road Transit; Greenwich Waterfront Transit; and East London Transit.

  TfL has made no decision yet on whether to take any of these forward. TfL's Business Plan only provides for one to be taken forward as a tram scheme. TfL will need to review their priorities and take Firm decisions on the four proposals in the light of the forthcoming Spending Review settlement.

  State Aid Funding
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many applications for state aid funding have been refused in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [38054]

  Ms Keeble
  Without doing an exhaustive search of Departmental records, I am aware of only one occasion in the last three years on which the European Commission withheld approval for state aid in the field of the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions or its predecessor the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (excluding environment functions transferred to DEFRA). This was the state aid relating to the Partnership Investment Programme.

  Partnership Investment Programme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to offer alternative funding to local authorities which had planned to use the Partnership Investment Programme. [38053]

  Ms Keeble
  The Partnership Investment Programme was only available for use by English Partnerships and has never been available to local authorities.

  Following its closure in 1999, significant extra resources were made available to RDAs to help compensate for the loss of PIP: £60 million in 2000–01, rising to £150 million in 2001–02; thereafter, land and property funding would form part of a new single RDA economic development and regeneration budget, with increases of £350 million in 2002–03 and £500 million in 2003–04.

  In addition, we have introduced five new land and property regeneration schemes which partially replace PIP. The new schemes will enable RDAs and English Partnerships to support a wide range of land and
  1590W
  property regeneration projects, including projects which can be taken forward in partnership with the private sector.

  Travel Methods
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of journeys were made by(a) public transport, (b) bicycle and (c) on foot as the main method of travel in (i) St Helens, South, (ii) the North West and (iii) England in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [38271]

  Ms Keeble
  The latest available data relate to the three-year period 1998–2000. The National Travel Survey, from which estimates are derived, does not allow disaggregation of data below county level. At county level, estimates for bicycle use are based on very small numbers and should be regarded with caution.

  The proportion of journeys made by (a) public transport, (b) bicycles and (c) on foot as the main method of travel for residents of (i) Merseyside, (ii) the north-west and (iii) England are given in the table:

  1998–2000

  Merseyside

  North West and Merseyside

  England

  Public Transport

  13

  10

  9

  Bicycle

  1

  1

  2

  Foot

  25

  24

  26

  Departmental Minutes
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library copies of departmental minutes recording conversations between Sir Richard Mottram and Mr Martin Sixsmith. [38449]

  Mr. Byers
  Under Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information it is not the practice to disclose details of internal meetings. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by Sir Richard Mottram, the permanent secretary of my Department, on Monday 25 February, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the departmental minutes for which Sir Richard Mottram was responsible since he became permanent secretary of the Department. [38446]

  Mr. Byers
  It is not the usual practice to disclose details of internal communications and meetings in accordance with Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Departmental Development
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how often the Department has applied the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of Circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments) to a development by the department; and if he will make a statement. [38713]
  1591W
  Ms Keeble
  The Department does not maintain a record of cases where it has relied on the special urgency provisions set out in Circular 18/84. Development by the Department generally has to go through a tendering procedure; in these circumstances it is unlikely that the Department would have to use the special urgency provisions.

  Shoreham Port Authority
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list(a) members of the Shoreham Port Authority appointed in the last 30 years, (b) their dates of appointment and length of office and (c) the nominating bodies where appropriate. [39240]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]The information requested can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Hackney Carriage Licences
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the criteria local authorities should consider when assessing the application for a Hackney carriage licence. [39488]

  Ms Keeble
  A hackney carriage must have fewer than nine passenger seats; any further criteria for determining whether a vehicle is suitable for licensing as a hackney carriage are formulated by individual local licensing authorities.

  Learner Drivers
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to consult on measures to improve the safety of novice drivers. [40054]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As stated in the Government's Road Safety Strategy Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone, we want to ensure that new drivers have a broader and more extensive experience of driving conditions before they take the practical driving test. We have therefore published today a consultation document Introducing a More Structured Approach to Learning to Drive. This sets out a wide range of options for improving the safety of newly qualified drivers. Comments have been requested by 7 June 2002. All the views received will be considered carefully before any decisions are taken on the way forward.

  Copies of the document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Pensioner Bus Passes
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he plans to introduce a nationwide pensioner bus pass. [39690]

  Ms Keeble
  We have no immediate plans to pursue such a scheme.

  Historic Cities
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of urban capacity studies on housing development and the character of historic cities. [39372]

  Ms Keeble
  Local planning authorities are responsible for undertaking the urban housing capacity studies required by Planning Policy Guidance Note 3Housing (PPG3). We expect these studies to lead to updated development plans that given priority to reusing brownfields for new housing in preference to greenfields. We have research underway to consider the implementation of PPG3 and this will report the progress made by local authorities in carrying out urban housing capacity studies. The research is considering the influence of capacity studies on housing development but will not report specifically on their impact on the character of historic cities.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Environment Council
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on(a) matters discussed and (b) decisions taken at the European Union Environment Council on 29 to 30 October, indicating on which matters votes were taken and how, in such instances, the United Kingdom voted. [14272]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, on 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 94W.

  End of Life Vehicle Directive
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she has taken with regard to the European End of Life Vehicle Directive; and if she will make a statement. [31586]

  Mr. Meacher
  The EC Directive on End of Life Vehicles (ELV) passed into European law in October 2000 and requires member states to transpose the Directive into national legislation by 21 April 2002. The Department for Trade and Industry leads on the implementation of the majority of the Directive, however my Department leads on the implementation of improved treatment facility standards under Article 6 and Annex I of the Directive. An initial Consultation paper was issued last year, and a further paper is expected to be issued shortly.

  Refrigerators and Freezers
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library details of information and advice given by her Department to consumers about purchasing refrigerators and freezers from May 2001 to date. [34840]
  1593W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]Copies of the advice leaflet for householders were placed in the Libraries of both houses on publication in December 2001. The leaflet was produced by DEFRA, DTI and the Environment Agency.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many occasions in 2000 and 2001 UKREP were requested to establish the understanding of other EU states on its applicability of EU Regulation 2037/2000 to matters connected with the disposal of refrigerators and freezer insulating materials. [38867]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: My officials and those from EU Member States met regularly during 2000 and 2001 to discuss EC Regulation 2037/20000 at meetings of the Management Committee on the implementation of the Regulation. Officials also contacted colleagues in other Member States informally regarding the issue of implementation. The Department therefore did not request UKREP to take up this matter separately.

  Fly Ash
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what procedures are in place to ensure regulation of the disposal of fly ash from UK incinerators; and what the disposal routes for fly ash are from each operating municipal waste incinerator in the United Kingdom. [36393]

  Mr. Meacher
  Fly ash is incorporated into air pollution control residues which are special waste and subject to the Duty of Care and the Special Wastes Regulations. Currently, all fly ash from municipal solid waste incinerators is sent to sites licensed for special waste.

  The Environment Agency is carrying out a thorough investigation into the solid residues from all MWIs. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a copy of their report when it is published, and that a copy is placed in the Library of the House.

  CO2 Emissions
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the change has been in CO2 emissions in the UK in the past three years; and what estimates she has made of change in the next three years. [37384]

  Mr. Meacher
  UK CO2 emissions expressed in million tonnes of Carbon (MtC) for the years 1997–2000 were 152.5, 153.2, 150.8 and 152.1 MtC respectively. The 2000 figure is provisional. Projections are made on a five year basis and the projected figure for CO2 emissions in 2005 is 149.1 MtC.

  Warm Front Grants
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what data she has collated on the number of householders in privately rented accommodation who have been unable to obtain warm front grants because they have not been able to obtain the landlord's permission for works to be carried 1594W
  out; and in how many of these cases refusal to grant permission has resulted from an unwillingness on the part of the landlord to participate in a leasing agreement related to the installation of a central heating system. [37739]

  Mr. Meacher
  Work in private sector landlords' properties is only undertaken once a no rent rise agreement is in place. This requirement was introduced following consultation on the proposed scheme in 1999. Many groups representing tenants and older people expressed concern that some private sector landlords would use the grant-funded improvements to justify an increase in rent. Agreements are time-limited to either one year for insulation measures only or two years where heating measures are installed.

  In the period June 2000 to January 2002 some 32,400 private sector landlords agreed to the no rent rise agreement. This represents about 5 per cent. of all applications accepted under the scheme.

  In the same period, 8,400 tenants had their applications turned down by the landlord. The precise reasons in each case are not known, but we are now investigating these. While there has been very little concern expressed on this issue, we do continue to keep it under review.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average amount of a Warm Front plus grant has been. [37641]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) in England is now marketed as the Warm Front Team. The scheme was launched on 1 June 2000 and provides two levels of financial assistance for the installation of insulation and heating measures dependent upon the needs of the householder and the property type:

  HEES—£1,500 for low income households with children under 16, disabled persons or suffering long-term sickness on a qualifying benefit; and

  HEES Plus—£2,500 for over-60s on an income-related benefit.

  Between June 2000 and January 2002 the average HEES Plus grant was £664.

  Waste Disposal
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people were convicted of fly tipping in 2001; and what sentences were imposed. [37722]

  Mr. Meacher
  Both local authorities and the Environment Agency may prosecute for fly tipping offences. The Environment Agency keeps records of breaches to section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Until December 2001, this did not single out fly tipping offences from other instances of illegally depositing controlled waste on land. This situation changed, in December 2001 and records now show whether an incident involves fly tipping. Between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2001 the total number
  1595W
  of Environment Agency prosecutions under section 33 of the 1990 Act were 234. Further information is as follows:

  Individuals prosecuted: 196

  Organisations prosecuted: 38

  Range of Fines: £30—£8,000

  Custodial Terms: four, ranging from one to six months

  Conditional Discharges: 25, ranging from one to two years

  Community Service: six, ranging from 80 to 220 hours

  Requirement to pay compensation: four instances, with amounts ranging from £237 to £750

  No central register is kept of local authorities' prosecutions.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what costs were incurred in setting up the Department's CHP Club; and what its operational costs were in the financial year 2000–01. [37709]

  Mr. Meacher
  The CHP Club provides a one-stop shop for independent information and guidance for potential and new users on the design, implementation, and operation of CHP schemes. Responsibility for the management of the Government's Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme including the CHP Club will soon be passed to The Carbon Trust. The total cost of setting up and operating the CHP Club in 2000–02 was around £200,000.

  Rights of Way Orders
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to consult on proposed rules for inquiries and hearings into rights of way orders coming to her for confirmation. [40646]

  Mr. Michael
  We are today publishing our proposals for procedure rules for rights of way inquiries and hearings, on which we are inviting views by 31 May 2002. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what appeal mechanism exists to change the categorisation of parish councils listed as barely active by the Countryside Agency. [39553]

  Mr. Michael
  The work being undertaken by the Countryside Agency towards a national indicator of community vibrancy is not a categorisation of parish councils or their effectiveness. The components of the 1596W
  indicator are proxy measures of the opportunities for members of a community to contribute to community activities collected as part of the Agency's Rural Services Survey. An appeals mechanism is therefore not appropriate.

  For further details on the community vibrancy indicator and its components, I refer to the hon. Member to my answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 24 January 2002, Official Report, column 1033W and to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on 14 February 2002, Official Report, column 652W.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) visits, (b) telephone calls and (c) items of correspondence her officials or officials from the Countryside Agency have sent to (i) Ellesmere rural, (ii) Grinshill, (iii) Hodnet, (iv) Hordley, (v) Petton and (vi) Whitchurch urban parish councils before categorising them as barely active. [39557]

  Mr. Michael
  The Countryside Agency used information for its community vibrancy indicator which was gathered as part of its Rural Services Survey. As part of the survey each rural parish was sent a questionnaire form and instructions on how to complete it and the telephone number of the "helpline" for assistance in filling in the questionnaire. If no response was received by early December 2000, two reminders were sent (one in mid December 2000 and one in mid January 2001).

  The information was gathered as the first stage of work in progress towards the development of a national indicator. I am now aware of any other contact that either the Department or the Countryside Agency has had with the listed parishes.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will publish the lists of the payment of legal aid to(a) solicitors, (b) barristers and (c) legal practices on an annual basis. [39436]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans to publish such a list. Records of legal aid payments are not held in a suitable format which would facilitate the production of a list of practitioners' earnings.

  Prosecutions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General in how many cases referred to the DPP in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years a decision was made not to prosecute; and in how many cases he contacted the(a) victims and (b) relatives of the victim. [38400]
  1597W
  The Solicitor-General
  Information held by the Department of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland indicates that directions for no prosecution issued as follows:

  Year

  Persons reported for consideration of prosecution

  Persons in respect of whom no prosecution was directed

  1999

  10,676

  3,225 (30 per cent.)

  2000

  10,504

  3,166 (30 per cent.)

  2001

  10,315

  3,110 (30 per cent.)

  The Department does not hold information in regard to contact with victims on their relatives in individual cases. The policy of the Department is that it will consider the proper interests of victims and witnesses at every stage of the criminal process.

  Prosecutions (Conduct)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what(a) internal and (b) external reviews have been conducted on the conduct of prosecutions, on what dates and by whom in the last three years. [35950]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 February 2002]Each prosecuting authority has in place systems that support performance reviews generally, and case specific reviews when appropriate. HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has a rolling programme of inspections covering the performance of all CPS Areas over a two-year period, and it undertakes thematic reviews of areas of prosecution work three or four times a year. With effect from 1 April it will assume responsibility for the inspection of Customs & Excise prosecutions.

  There is no central log maintained of individual internal and external reviews of the conduct of the prosecution by prosecuting authorities operating within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Speedy collection and provision of this information could not be undertaken without disproportionate cost.

  Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Solicitor-General (1) what discussions she has had with the Inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service about the number of Crown Court prosecutions for death by dangerous driving. [38532]

  (2) when she intends to publish the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate's report on sentencing policy with regard to road traffic accidents. [38533]

  The Solicitor-General
  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate is at present in the closing phases of a thematic review of the advice relating to, and the prosecution of, road traffic offences involving fatalities in England and Wales. The purpose of the inspection is to analyse and assess the quality of advice to police, decision-making, case preparation and presentation by the CPS in relation to those cases. It has also examined the extent, adequacy and consistency of communications and assistance provided by the CPS to 1598W
  relatives of the victims and witnesses in the cases. However, it does not extend to sentencing policy which is outside the remit of the Inspectorate.

  The Chief Inspector has kept me and the Attorney General informed of the progress of the inspection but we have had no other discussions about prosecutions for death by dangerous driving.

  The Chief Inspector expects to publish the report in June.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment has been made of the effect of the Working Time Directive on her Department's employees; how many employees are working in excess of 48 hours per week; what steps she is taking to reduce this number; and if she will make a statement. [35898]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Under the Working Time Regulations the Department is required to:inform employees that they cannot be forced to work for more than 48 hours a week on average over a 17-week period and that they can only opt out of the limit by signing a written agreement;
  keep opt out records for two years;
  check how much time each employee spends working and monitor those close to the working limit;
  keep records of night workers and offer regular health assessments; and
  check that the Department has complied with the new regulations on night work, time off, rest breaks and paid annual leave.
  In line with these responsibilities, staff were informed that there is no obligation to work more than 48 hours per week over a 17-week period but they can volunteer to do so by signing a written agreement. We instructed managers that they must avoid imposing workloads or setting deadlines that oblige their staff to work excessive hours unless it is necessary to meet operational need. In addition, we required local managers to check on staff who may work close to the limit and make arrangements to reduce hours wherever possible.
  Copies of all opt out agreements are kept for two years and currently cover two per cent. of the workforce. We also confirmed that employee terms and conditions already covered the requirements in the regulations relating to night work, time off, rest breaks and paid annual leave. The percentage of staff opting out is reviewed regularly to ensure that the number required to work in excess of the limit is kept to the absolute minimum.

  Prisoners (Distance Learning)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many prisoners undertook distance learning courses, including Open University courses, in the last 12 months for which figures are available; how many of these courses were paid for(a) at their own expense and (b) through a charitable trust or person; and if he will make a statement. [37679]

  John Healey
  Information on the number of prisoners undertaking distance learning courses is not available. The number of prisoners in the first year of an undergraduate course at the Open University in 2000–01 in England and Wales was 144, whilst the number registered for Open University courses at all levels is 398. It is not possible to give an accurate
  1599W
  breakdown on the numbers of courses that are self-financed or funded through a charitable trust or person; however, upwards of 950 distance learning courses were funded or part funded by charitable bodies last year.

  Maintained Primary Schools
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills(a) how many and (b) what

  Number and percentage of pupils in one teacher classes of 31 or more in Maintained Primary Schools1

  Position in January each year

  East Sussex Local Education Authority

  South East Government Office Region

  England

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  %of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  % of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  % of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  2001

  12,687

  36.0

  132,487

  21.5

  848,961

  21.1

  2000

  13,960

  40.1

  172,262

  27.7

  1,071,720

  26.5

  1999

  18,621

  50.8

  210,761

  35.6

  1,278,607

  31.5

  1998

  17,511

  49.1

  219,040

  35.1

  1,411,366

  34.8

  1997

  23,330

  45.7

  205,178

  33.3

  1,344,231

  33.4

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census.

  1Includes middle deemed primary schools.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 555W, on the Social Exclusion Unit, what steps have been taken to train Connexions workers in child and adolescent mental health. [39779]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  It is very important that young people with mental health problems are identified quickly and referred to the specialist services that they need. Connexions personal advisers are not intended to be specialists in the area of mental health but they are being trained to identify behaviours in young people that might indicate the need for support from a specialist. To date over 1,900 Personal Advisers have either completed or are currently undertaking Connexions training.

SCOTLAND

  Asylum Centre (Edinburgh)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with ministers and officials of the Scottish Executive about the proposed asylum centre near Edinburgh. [39671]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office has regular contacts with the Minister for Social Justice about asylum seeker issues, including the latest Home Office proposals about the development of new centres.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to meet the Home Secretary to discuss his plans for an asylum seekers' centre near Edinburgh. [39688]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department is in regular contact with Lord Rooker, Home Office Minister for immigration and nationality matters, to discuss a range of issues, including those affecting asylum seekers.
  1600W
  percentage of pupils were in maintained primary school classes of 31 or more in each year from 1997 for (i) East Sussex Local Education Authority, (ii) the South-East region and (iii) England. [37909]

  John Healey
  The data requested are shown in the table:

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she first learned of plans to build an asylum seekers' centre near Edinburgh; and what her policy is on the construction of the centre. [39673]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department keeps in regular touch with the Home Office on asylum seeker and other relevant policy issues. The former RAF Turnhouse site is one of a number of potential areas for development and will be subject to detailed consultation with relevant interests.

PRIME MINISTER

  LNM Holdings
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements are in place to ensure that officials advising him on(a) LNM's purchase of Sidex and (b) other overseas investments by UK-based companies on which he is considering making representations are (i) not influenced by and (ii) not aware of political donations by persons connected with such companies. [39364]

  The Prime Minister
  All advice is given in accordance with the Civil Service Code and the Ministerial Code.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister in what way writing to the Romanian Government was calculated to assist LNM Holdings to obtain the contract to purchase Sidex. [39366]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him and the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 610–12W.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those press officers who reported to his
  1601W
  officialpress spokesman and have ceased to hold office since May 1977, identifying those who have resigned due to (a) reaching retirement age and (b) completion of a predetermined term of office. [39365]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not our policy to comment on individuals.

  Business Contacts
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasion he has written to the Czech Government about the possible award of contracts to companies with British connections in the last five years. [39670]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Members for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 610–11W.

  Hammond Inquiry Review
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to publish Sir Anthony Hammond's review of the conclusions of the 2001 Review of the circumstances surrounding an application for naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja in 1998. [40587]

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified community and district nursing staff within each health authority area in England and rate per 100,000 population as at 30 September 2001

  headcount

  Of which

  All Community Nurses

  Number per 100,000 population

  District Nurses

  Number per 100,000 population

  Northern & Yorkshire

  Bradford HA

  890

  180

  120

  20

  Calderdale & Kirklees HA

  950

  160

  120

  20

  County Durham & Darlington HA

  700

  120

  160

  30

  East Riding & Hull HA

  1,180

  210

  330

  60

  Gateshead & Tyneside HA

  460

  130

  80

  20

  Leeds HA

  870

  120

  100

  10

  Newcastle & North Tyneside HA

  640

  140

  120

  30

  North Cumbria HA

  390

  120

  100

  30

  North Yorkshire HA

  820

  110

  180

  20

  Northumberland HA

  450

  150

  100

  30

  Sunderland HA

  540

  190

  80

  30

  Tees HA

  950

  170

  150

  30

  Wakefield HA

  520

  160

  70

  20

  Trent

  Barnsley HA

  310

  140

  40

  20

  Doncaster HA

  540

  180

  100

  30

  Leicestershire HA

  1,220

  130

  110

  10

  Lincolnshire HA

  840

  130

  160

  30

  North Derbyshire HA

  520

  140

  100

  30

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  800

  210

  40

  10

  Nottingham HA

  800

  130

  110

  20

  Rotherham HA

  370

  140

  60

  20

  Sheffield HA

  630

  120

  80

  20

  South Humber HA

  360

  120

  150

  50

  Southern Derbyshire HA

  790

  140

  300

  50

  West Midlands

  Birmingham HA

  1,520

  150

  370

  40

  Coventry HA

  440

  150

  50

  20

  Dudley HA

  340

  110

  80

  30

  Herefordshire HA

  250

  150

  50

  30

  North Staffordshire HA

  960

  200

  140

  30

  Sandwell HA

  370

  130

  70

  30

  Shropshire HA

  580

  130

  130

  30

  1602W
  The Prime Minister
  I am publishing Sir Anthony Hammond's review today. I am most grateful to Sir Anthony Hammond for all his work.

  Sir Anthony Hammond remains satisfied that nothing improper has occurred in relation to the application for naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja. He also remains of the view that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) behaved entirely properly throughout.

  I have placed a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are available from the Vote Office.

HEALTH

  District and Community Nurses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district and community nurses there are per head of population in each of the health authority areas in England and Wales. [24345]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table.
  1603W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified community and district nursing staff within each health authority area in England and rate per 100,000 population as at 30 September 2001

  headcount

  Of which

  All Community Nurses

  Number per 100,000 population

  District Nurses

  Number per 100,000 population

  Solihull HA

  220

  110

  70

  40

  South Staffordshire HA

  900

  150

  140

  20

  Walsall HA

  450

  170

  120

  40

  Warwickshire HA

  700

  140

  200

  40

  Wolverhampton HA

  340

  140

  120

  50

  Worcestershire HA

  790

  150

  110

  20

  North West

  Bury & Rochdale HA

  620

  160

  140

  30

  East Lancashire HA

  890

  170

  190

  40

  Liverpool HA

  720

  160

  150

  30

  Manchester HA

  700

  160

  140

  30

  Morecambe Bay HA

  670

  220

  80

  30

  North Cheshire HA

  820

  260

  150

  50

  North West Lancashire HA

  790

  170

  100

  20

  Salford & Trafford HA

  620

  140

  120

  30

  Sefton HA

  310

  110

  70

  20

  South Cheshire HA

  720

  110

  180

  30

  South Lancashire HA

  460

  150

  90

  30

  St Helens & Knowsley HA

  430

  130

  50

  10

  Stockport HA

  400

  140

  150

  50

  West Pennine HA

  550

  120

  130

  30

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  900

  150

  160

  30

  Wirral HA

  550

  170

  60

  20

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire HA

  740

  130

  120

  20

  Cambridgeshire HA

  990

  140

  170

  20

  Hertfordshire HA

  1,710

  160

  330

  30

  Norfolk HA

  870

  110

  240

  30

  North Essex HA

  1,130

  120

  270

  30

  South Essex HA

  880

  120

  270

  40

  Suffolk HA

  970

  140

  140

  20

  London

  Barking & Havering HA

  360

  90

  60

  10

  Barnet Enfield & Haringey HA

  930

  110

  230

  30

  Bexley Bromley & Greenwich HA

  1,100

  150

  240

  30

  Brent & Harrow HA

  280

  60

  60

  10

  Camden & Islington HA

  490

  130

  30

  10

  Croydon HA

  460

  140

  100

  30

  Ealing Hammersmith & Hounslow HA

  710

  100

  170

  20

  East London & City HA

  840

  130

  120

  20

  Hillingdon HA

  380

  150

  90

  30

  Kensington Chelsea & Westminster HA

  1,290

  300

  170

  40

  Kingston & Richmond HA

  270

  80

  80

  20

  Lambeth Southwark & Lewisham HA

  1,190

  160

  350

  50

  Merton Sutton & Wandsworth HA

  1,150

  180

  160

  20

  Redbridge & Waltham Forest HA

  480

  110

  100

  20

  South East

  Berkshire HA

  1,280

  160

  310

  40

  Buckinghamshire HA

  1,010

  150

  180

  30

  East Kent HA

  750

  120

  280

  40

  East Surrey HA

  300

  70

  30

  10

  East Sussex, Brighton & Hove HA

  1,300

  170

  240

  30

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth & South East

  Hampshire HA

  970

  140

  120

  20

  North & Mid Hampshire HA

  300

  50

  90

  20

  Northamptonshire HA

  700

  110

  190

  30

  Oxfordshire HA

  730

  120

  190

  30

  Southampton & South West Hampshire HA

  610

  110

  100

  20

  West Kent HA

  1,070

  110

  220

  20

  West Surrey HA

  1,070

  160

  210

  30

  West Sussex HA

  770

  100

  180

  20

  South West

  Avon HA

  1,220

  120

  180

  20

  Cornwall & Isles of Scilly HA

  680

  140

  60

  10

  1604W 1605W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified community and district nursing staff within each health authority area in England and rate per 100,000 population as at 30 September 2001

  headcount

  Of which

  All Community Nurses

  Number per 100,000 population

  District Nurses

  Number per 100,000 population

  Dorset HA

  840

  120

  170

  20

  Gloucestershire HA

  840

  150

  150

  30

  North & East Devon HA

  620

  130

  190

  40

  Somerset HA

  490

  100

  110

  20

  South & West Devon HA

  860

  140

  110

  20

  Wiltshire HA

  580

  90

  120

  20

  Notes: Community nurses are qualified nurses working in community psychiatry, community learning difficulties and community services. Practice nurses are not included within the definition.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  Figures exclude agency staff

  Population estimates for 2000 based on 1991 data

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  Office for National Statistics (ONS)

  City of London Corporation (Events)
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those functions, engagements and events which Ministers, his officials and advisers have attended which have been sponsored, funded, promoted and hosted by the City of London Corporation since 1997. [35704]

  Ms Blears
  According to our records there have been no such events.

  Delayed Discharges
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the variations that exist in delayed discharges between districts served by the same NHS acute hospital trust. [33616]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: Any variation in management of delayed discharges from an acute hospital should be managed through the local capacity planning group, which includes representatives of the acute trust, primary care trusts and social services.

  Repair and Maintenance
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the outstanding repair and maintenance backlog figures were in each health authority in each of the last two years. [36077]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures collected which generally reflect the cost of outstanding repair and maintenance of hospitals is known as the "cost to achieve Estatecode condition B". In relation to a building's physical condition this is the condition whereby the property is considered to be physically sound, operationally safe and exhibits only minor deterioration.

  The table shows costs to achieve Estatecode condition B (physical condition) for the year 1999–2000, grouped into each health authority in England, in column 1. Similar costs for the year 2000–01 in column 2 are still in the process of collection and validation. Where figures have been received they have been included, gaps having been filled with extrapolated estimates based on the previous year's return.
  1606W
  Special Health Authorities (SHA), figures are only collected in connection with Special Hospitals and therefore exclude costs relating to all other SHA organisations (e.g. Family Health Services Appeal Authority, Commission for Health Improvement, NHS Information Authority).

  Last year's returns (1999–2000) saw the total backlog reduce for the first time since 1994–95. Whilst this year has seen a small increase, backlog maintenance costs are holding relatively firm when taking into consideration that the collection of data from Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) has probably introduced a number of properties whose backlog maintenance costs were not identified in previous returns. The continuation of major capital investment in new buildings, and improvements to existing buildings, should see the level of backlog maintenance costs begin to fall again over the coming years.

  Health Authority

  Cost to Achieve Estate Code Condition B 1999–2000 £

  Cost to Achieve Estate Code Condition B 2000–01 £

  Avon

  57,879,000

  57,628,261

  Barking and Havering

  28,934,000

  30,681,170

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  46,206,000

  37,795,400

  Barnsley

  2,110,000

  4,071,200

  Bedfordshire

  12,804,000

  10,896,116

  Berkshire

  74,205,000

  75,519,900

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  70,395,000

  35,365,766

  Birmingham

  172,926,000

  180,511,622

  Bradford

  26,722,000

  21,659,290

  Brent and Harrow

  29,783,000

  33,178,000

  Buckinghamshire

  30,607,000

  18,326,745

  Bury and Rochdale

  7,539,000

  6,541,763

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  52,980,000

  44,382,608

  Cambridgeshire

  33,866,000

  36,816,585

  Camden and Islington

  79,819,000

  78,892,959

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  13,279,000

  21,470,477

  County Durham

  13,538,000

  26,840,961

  Coventry

  74,391,000

  72,291,500

  Croydon

  31,100,000

  18,559,930

  Doncaster

  14,368,000

  9,469,900

  Dorset

  10,203,000

  67,739,932

  Dudley

  28,070,000

  27,943,484

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  96,230,000

  73,992,837

  East Kent

  11,517,000

  24,042,500

  East Lancashire

  29,117,000

  18,712,286

  1607W

  Health Authority

  Cost to Achieve Estate Code Condition B 1999–2000 £

  Cost to Achieve Estate Code Condition B 2000–01 £

  East London and the City

  113,466,000

  104,846,918

  East Riding

  59,189,000

  59,226,933

  East Surrey

  4,802,000

  1,632,000

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  18,970,000

  17,150,000

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  7,228,000

  7,471,259

  Gloucestershire

  15,704,000

  12,671,520

  Herefordshire

  7,661,000

  887,192

  Hertfordshire

  80,084,000

  61,171,228

  Hillingdon

  6,030,000

  33,536,960

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth & South East Hampshire

  9,422,000

  17,661,800

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  63,276,000

  41,970,834

  Kingston and Richmond

  8,667,000

  2,133,609

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  126,844,000

  164,393,813

  Leeds

  81,440,000

  112,016,222

  Leicestershire

  81,519,000

  64,954,896

  Lincolnshire

  32,449,000

  29,257,000

  Liverpool

  27,675,000

  35,316,000

  Manchester

  110,612,000

  107,788,162

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  35,151,000

  36,304,150

  Morecambe Bay

  11,700,000

  17,267,500

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  44,542,000

  52,470,731

  Norfolk

  30,123,000

  27,338,522

  North and East Devon

  8,103,000

  13,433,305

  North and Mid Hampshire

  17,216,000

  11,807,472

  North Cheshire

  3,201,000

  3,143,000

  North Cumbria

  20,268,000

  21,159,255

  North Derbyshire

  5,748,000

  4,257,502

  North Essex

  38,632,000

  24,968,083

  North Nottinghamshire

  13,211,000

  17,325,450

  North Staffordshire

  40,824,000

  44,686,500

  North West Lancashire

  33,003,000

  38,845,982

  North Yorkshire

  23,115,000

  26,805,119

  Northamptonshire

  21,652,000

  21,750,184

  Northumberland

  15,984,000

  12,311,689

  Nottingham

  71,949,000

  82,289,904

  Oxfordshire

  52,084,000

  41,178,872

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  63,457,000

  5,635,200

  Rotherham

  4,306,000

  3,777,250

  Salford and Trafford

  17,861,000

  18,532,274

  Sandwell

  7,681,000

  6,871,512

  Sefton

  10,679,000

  20,222,200

  Sheffield

  27,142,000

  26,287,325

  Shropshire

  35,628,000

  55,049,705

  Solihull

  1,656,000

  1,569,000

  Somerset

  10,211,000

  13,517,000

  South and West Devon

  13,210,000

  19,035,000

  South Cheshire

  5,266,000

  19,296,792

  South Essex

  17,333,000

  7,375,125

  South Humber

  5,073,000

  3,545,000

  South Lancashire

  4,855,000

  3,094,769

  South Staffordshire

  10,283,000

  3,690,103

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  24,627,000

  28,236,352

  Southern Derbyshire

  4,565,000

  7,363,376

  Special Trusts

  9,022,000

  1,195,000

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  8,095,000

  25,142,950

  Stockport

  16,168,000

  36,626,000

  Suffolk

  31,056,000

  27,007,000

  Sunderland

  11,621,000

  11,269,000

  Tees

  46,361,000

  37,740,100

  Wakefield

  30,028,000

  34,121,921

  Walsall

  7,402,000

  9,302,460

  Table 1: Gross and net expenditure on general dental services: national totals and as a percentage of total gross and net National Health Service expenditure. Financial years 1979–80, 1992–93, 1997–98 and 2000–01

  1979–80

  1992–93

  1997–98

  2000–01

  Gross

  Net

  Gross

  Net

  Gross

  Net

  Gross

  Net

  Spend

  £336 m

  £267 m

  £1,306 m

  £911 m

  £1,348 m

  £959 m

  £1,555 m

  £1,102 m

  Proportion

  4.3%

  3.6%

  4.4%

  3.3%

  3.6%

  2.8%

  3.2%

  2.5

  1608W

  Health Authority

  Cost to Achieve Estate Code Condition B 1999–2000 £

  Cost to Achieve Estate Code Condition B 2000–01 £

  Warwickshire

  6,093,000

  6,095.105

  West Kent

  78,524,000

  39.441,283

  West Pennine

  10,207,000

  8,816,506

  West Surrey

  21,332,000

  59,427,019

  West Sussex

  50,027,000

  41,010,825

  Wigan and Bolton

  12,343,000

  15,774,727

  Wiltshire

  30,824,000

  70,338,810

  Wirral

  8,877,000

  10,546,724

  Wolverhampton

  18,831,000

  16,203,500

  Worcestershire

  23,655.000

  22,694,624

  Total

  3,074,431.000

  3,119,417,304

  Dentistry
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) percentage of the NHS budget and (b) amount of money invested in NHS dentists, broken down by health authority, in (i) 1979, (ii) 1992, (iii) 1997 and (iv) 2001 or the most recent available date was. [36391]

  Ms Blears
  Table 1 shows the total gross and net spend on general dental services and the proportion that national gross and net general dental service expenditure represented of national gross and net National Health Service expenditure for the years 1979–80, 1992–93, 1997–98 and 2000–02.

  General Dental Services expenditure for 1979–80 is not available at health authority level.

  Table 2 gives General Dental Service gross and net fees after deductions of patient charges by Family Health Service Authority in 1992–93.

  In April 1996, FHSAs were replaced by health authorities. Table 3 gives General Dental Service gross and net fees by health authority in 1997–98 and 2000–01.

  Fee expenditure covers dentists' claims for treating patients and patient registration payments. It excludes some other payments to dentists where breakdown by health authority is not collected centrally, for example reimbursement of practice rates.

  Figures for all GDS payments are included in table 1 and this explains why the totals in table 1 are higher than those in tables 2 and 3.

  Funding for community and hospital dental services is not collected centrally.

  Personal dental services spend has also been omitted as PDS are a relatively recent innovation and data cannot be provided for all the years in question.
  1609W

  Table 2: General Dental Service: Gross and net fees paid by Family Health Service Authority in 1992–93 (England)

  1992–93

  FHSA

  Gross fees (£)

  Net fees (£)

  Avon

  25,689,470

  16,818,209

  Barking & Havering

  9,547,621

  6,378,739

  Barnet

  6,828,213

  4,932,644

  Barnsley

  5,314,981

  3,821,505

  Bedfordshire

  12,141,446

  8,173,197

  Berkshire

  18,980,756

  12,456,945

  Birmingham

  26,149,608

  19,195,553

  Bolton

  6,505,716

  4,494,973

  Bradford

  11,960,533

  8,300,095

  Brent & Harrow

  13,187,497

  9,760,239

  Bromley

  5,787,781

  4,127,140

  Buckinghamshire

  15,299,511

  10,143,357

  Bury

  5,089,635

  3,620,804

  Calderdale

  5,641,094

  3,773,835

  Cambridgeshire

  16,110,650

  10,323,967

  Camden & Islington

  11,470,159

  8,482,642

  Cheshire

  25,406,671

  16,803,599

  City & East London

  15,632,632

  12,687,312

  Cleveland

  14,916,635

  10,935,077

  Cornwall & Isles of Scilly

  11,962,609

  8,277,274

  Coventry

  7,948,665

  5,621,111

  Croydon

  10,142,496

  7,007,275

  Cumbria

  12,187,230

  7,907,774

  Derbyshire

  21,766,157

  14,541,930

  Devon

  28,542,635

  18,986,111

  Doncaster

  8,045,380

  5,779,074

  Dorset

  18,700,697

  11,743,782

  Dudley

  7,374,850

  4,775,060

  Durham

  13,438,473

  9,731,117

  Ealing, Hammersmith & Hounslow

  18,965,515

  13,815,881

  East Sussex

  20,959,274

  13,778,567

  Enfield & Haringey

  12,010,814

  9,081,691

  Essex

  38,622,162

  25,942,200

  Gateshead

  4,668,650

  3,384,106

  Gloucestershire

  14,450,340

  9,146,825

  Greenwich & Bexley

  11,585,178

  8,180,494

  Hampshire

  41,340,617

  26,014,190

  Hereford & Worcester

  16,674,647

  10,790,498

  Hertfordshire

  29,934,974

  19,458,033

  Hillingdon

  6,962,919

  4,439,277

  Humberside

  20,008,902

  13,726,467

  Isle of Wight

  3,384,187

  2,194,837

  Kensington, Chelsea & Westminster

  9,515,642

  7,179,382

  Kent

  36,954,747

  24,850,553

  Kingston & Richmond

  6,661,616

  4,556,391

  Kirklees

  9,905,001

  6,822,425

  Lambeth, Southwark & Lewisham

  21,152,246

  15,963,434

  Lancashire

  35,735,834

  24,903,147

  Leeds

  20,736,896

  14,212,809

  Leicestershire

  21,237,939

  14,383,837

  Lincolnshire

  12,942,160

  8,418,869

  Liverpool

  13,315,109

  10,691,778

  Manchester

  14,874,341

  11,605,637

  Merton, Sutton & Wandsworth

  15,884,061

  11,050,940

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  7,045,196

  5,120,019

  Norfolk

  19,856,212

  12,985,307

  North Tyneside

  4,887,665

  3,381,003

  North Yorkshire

  19,128,455

  12,079,722

  Northamptonshire

  13,487,400

  8,896,588

  Northumberland

  6,880,182

  4,684,270

  Nottinghamshire

  25,672,988

  17,510,978

  Oldham

  6,166,102

  4,567,231

  Oxfordshire

  13,267,481

  8,705,126

  Redbridge & Waltham Forest

  12,106,660

  8,846,167

  Rochdale

  5,297,386

  3,879,942

  Rotherham

  5,698,755

  4,141,233

  Salford

  6,502,921

  4,958,003

  Salop

  10,078,928

  6,542,769

  Sandwell

  7,186,188

  5,277,666

  Sefton

  7,971,166

  5,539,600

  Sheffield

  14,369,320

  10,015,997

  Solihull

  4,877,356

  3,181,364

  1610W 1611W

  Table 2: General Dental Service: Gross and net fees paid by Family Health Service Authority in 1992–93 (England)

  1992–93

  FHSA

  Gross fees (£)

  Net fees (£)

  Somerset

  13,010,423

  8,245,151

  South Tyneside

  3,581,896

  2,700,910

  St. Helens & Knowsley

  8,432,364

  6,486,495

  Staffordshire

  22,641,275

  15,159,740

  Stockport

  8,463,678

  5,522,368

  Suffolk

  17,485,963

  11,102,144

  Sunderland

  6,681,971

  5,013,098

  Surrey

  27,270,661

  16,762,260

  Tameside

  5,833,725

  4,246,137

  Trafford

  6,923,506

  4,721,514

  Wakefield

  8,330,348

  5,606,803

  Walsall

  6,045,629

  4,328,271

  Warwickshire

  11,178,481

  7,120,447

  West Sussex

  20,407,289

  12,863,878

  Wigan

  8,247,193

  5,928,956

  Wiltshire

  12,741,558

  8,141,841

  Wirral

  8,911,593

  6,289,215

  Wolverhampton

  5,546,426

  3,880,566

  England

  1,242,467,909

  848,463,391

  Table 3: General Dental Service Gross and Net fees paid by Health Authority in 1996–97 and 2000–01 (England)

  1997–98

  2000–01

  Health Authority

  Gross fees (£)

  Net fees (£)

  Gross fees (£)

  Net fees £)

  Avon

  26,695,689

  18,095,057

  30,222,996

  20,671,232

  Barking and Havering

  10,907,046

  7,534,452

  12,592,961

  8,727,047

  Barnet

  7,178,206

  5,628,409

  9,594,294

  7,577,431

  Barnsley

  5,896,790

  4,121,866

  6,726,175

  4,579,009

  Bedfordshire

  12,596,585

  8,690,993

  14,301,611

  9,501,398

  Berkshire

  17,968,153

  12,723,585

  19,433,485

  13,502,928

  Bexley and Greenwich

  11,525,223

  8,540,095

  12,846,047

  9,453,967

  Birmingham

  28,263,508

  21,156,469

  31,420,372

  23,868,614

  Bradford

  12,070,620

  8,466,663

  13,551,092

  9,339,143

  Brent and Harrow

  14,113,425

  10,660,067

  15,912,046

  12,041,914

  Bromley

  6,210,919

  4,578,070

  6,664,389

  4,816,402

  Buckinghamshire

  13,086,414

  9,146,993

  14,983,718

  10,387,784

  Bury and Rochdale

  10,759,884

  7,721,361

  12,065,825

  8,543,021

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  16,823,218

  11,334,844

  19,233,259

  12,938,319

  Cambridge

  —

  —

  17,615,204

  11,242,615

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  9,459,213

  5,981,792

  —

  —

  Camden and Islington

  12,456,865

  9,548,586

  14,118,373

  10,959,307

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  10,691,652

  7,664,884

  11,896,859

  8,440,704

  County Durham

  14,194,283

  10,142,733

  16,750,262

  11,707,664

  Coventry

  7,959,410

  5,644,393

  9,141,212

  6,277,397

  Croydon

  9,423,754

  6,783,659

  10,314,150

  7,474,945

  Doncaster

  8,794,538

  6,209,241

  10,140,965

  6,971,065

  Dorset

  17,605,810

  11,147,262

  20,399,566

  12,702,827

  Dudley

  7,674,111

  5,009,658

  8,300,147

  5,376,106

  Ealing, Hounslow and Hammersmith

  20,291,362

  15,076,481

  23,125,121

  17,346,804

  East and North Hertfordshire

  15,081,661

  9,838,157

  16,931,910

  11,016,024

  East Kent

  14,203,534

  9,883,322

  16,848,636

  11,646,832

  East Lancashire

  13,328,457

  9,434,339

  13,924,438

  9,762,940

  East London and The City

  16,692,731

  14,201,723

  20,189,357

  17,297,054

  East Norfolk

  17,098,361

  11,504,639

  —

  —

  East Riding

  13,410,687

  9,471,791

  15,347,018

  10,743,247

  East Surrey

  9,891,052

  6,245,951

  10,631,564

  6,686,408

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  20,634,150

  13,676,708

  23,240,422

  15,043,952

  Enfield and Haringey

  15,636,046

  12,182,647

  17,726,993

  14,054,462

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  9,670,056

  6,961,626

  11,095,972

  7,905,166

  Gloucestershire

  10,800,989

  7,818,584

  11,873,999

  8,632,490

  Herefordshire

  4,503,566

  2,761,070

  5,023,409

  3,233,832

  Hillingdon

  7,500,302

  4,842,188

  8,031,753

  5,261,382

  Isle of Wight

  3,222,949

  2,235,953

  3,558,463

  2,387,895

  Kensington, Chelsea & Westminster

  9,513,317

  7,635,181

  11,009,319

  9,095,710

  Kingston and Richmond

  6,820,980

  4,700,420

  7,427,915

  5,284,795

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  21,808,912

  17,007,759

  24,383,845

  18,798,384

  Leeds

  20,747,627

  14,283,916

  23,011,757

  15,731,791

  Leicestershire

  23,032,271

  15,480,230

  26,157,959

  17,635,700

  Lincolnshire

  13,698,632

  8,515,283

  16,470,226

  10,017,768

  1612W 1613W

  Table 3: General Dental Service Gross and Net fees paid by Health Authority in 1996–97 and 2000–01 (England)

  1997–98

  2000–01

  Health Authority

  Gross fees (£)

  Net fees (£)

  Gross fees (£)

  Net fees (£)

  Liverpool

  14,602,852

  11,820,069

  15,511,247

  12,363,726

  Manchester

  14,786,881

  11,623,968

  16,956,682

  13,133,820

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  16,532,188

  11,895,894

  18,888,512

  13,497,410

  Morecambe Bay

  7,911,473

  5,068,765

  8,752,528

  5,436,838

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  13,020,549

  9,210,902

  14,426,907

  10,081,290

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  23,084,172

  14,752,617

  North and East Devon

  11,616,943

  7,722,632

  14,900,019

  9,718,826

  North and Mid Hampshire

  11,987,603

  7,276,304

  13,811,575

  8,291,087

  North Cheshire

  8,065,267

  5,618,048

  9,201,269

  6,289,200

  North Cumbria

  6,977,920

  4,625,956

  8,324,241

  5,393,558

  North Derbyshire

  8,635,375

  5,782,520

  9,826,608

  6,383,702

  North Essex

  24,836,225

  16,175,977

  28,996,704

  18,378,601

  North Nottinghamshire

  10,504,869

  7,027,738

  13,015,532

  8,541,020

  North Staffordshire

  9,168,480

  6,372,061

  11,164,923

  7,503,940

  North West Anglia

  8,381,662

  5,604,647

  —

  —

  North West Lancashire

  14,053,803

  9,665,063

  15,876,971

  10,914,906

  North Yorkshire

  18,855,394

  11,909,000

  21,934,881

  13,677,114

  Northamptonshire

  15,396,436

  9,638,637

  16,996,087

  10,630,368

  Northumberland

  7,775,189

  5,202,598

  8,631,599

  5,572,248

  Nottingham

  19,654,449

  14,016,870

  22,680,007

  15,902,936

  Oxfordshire

  10,123,670

  6,901,639

  13,211,776

  9,016,236

  Portsmouth and SE Hampshire

  12,246,552

  7,752,539

  12,849,206

  8,285,179

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  13,850,541

  10,416,877

  16,227,515

  12,169,203

  Rotherham

  6,195,968

  4,418,379

  7,121,705

  4,937,983

  Salford and Trafford

  14,374,477

  10,298,361

  15,982,211

  11,394,519

  Sandwell

  8,259,814

  6,275,135

  10,120,163

  7,697,578

  Sefton

  8,949,986

  6,068,754

  8,977,900

  5,839,930

  Sheffield

  15,770,640

  10,761,759

  17,822,663

  11,978,032

  Shropshire

  8,449,699

  5,753,333

  9,656,874

  6,826,897

  Solihull

  4,267,878

  2,915,640

  4,755,801

  3,357,235

  Somerset

  11,877,042

  7,555,204

  13,977,748

  9,021,720

  South and West Devon

  14,571,028

  10,235,971

  16,949,424

  11,604,801

  South Cheshire

  18,341,857

  12,052,218

  19,463,059

  12,772,770

  South Derbyshire

  12,597,026

  8,458,837

  14,945,383

  9,805,330

  South Essex

  16,588,566

  10,969,734

  22,038,580

  14,438,504

  South Humber

  7,331,513

  5,075,708

  8,604,420

  5,767,722

  South Lancashire

  7,020,833

  4,868,479

  8,621,431

  5,861,692

  South Staffordshire

  12,187,233

  8,187,510

  13,152,793

  8,545,189

  Southampton & SW Hampshire

  13,810,726

  8,802,230

  14,460,319

  8,988,105

  St Helens and Knowsley

  9,599,999

  7,308,781

  9,916,814

  7,401,831

  Stockport

  8,888,024

  5,639,365

  10,150,394

  6,361,797

  Suffolk

  17,962,735

  11,435,899

  20,828,480

  12,954,879

  Sunderland

  7,376,516

  5,419,213

  8,708,249

  6,246,887

  Tees

  17,207,541

  12,525,413

  19,980,340

  14,363,518

  Wakefield

  8,939,570

  5,957,952

  10,069,127

  6,644,321

  Walsall

  5,980,212

  4,144,685

  6,617,252

  4,514,604

  Warwickshire

  10,503,638

  6,659,454

  12,201,295

  7,943,540

  West Hertfordshire

  14,655,984

  9,668,185

  17,686,428

  11,781,345

  West Kent

  22,427,972

  16,046,432

  28,354,258

  20,025,401

  West Pennine

  14,566,823

  10,490,795

  16,200,383

  11,446,708

  West Surrey

  15,325,610

  9,943,013

  16,607,638

  10,852,501

  West Sussex

  19,846,120

  12,966,918

  22,987,385

  14,818,360

  Wigan and Bolton

  17,355,841

  12,090,745

  18,805,174

  13,058,149

  Wiltshire

  11,400,715

  7,621,795

  14,992,129

  9,805,807

  Wirral

  10,012,603

  7,020,720

  11,672,250

  8,060,602

  Wolverhampton

  5,984,369

  4,238,194

  7,228,158

  5,162,669

  Worcestershire

  13,535,748

  8,747,273

  14,466,035

  9,294,079

  England

  1,271,091,313

  882,239,885

  1,453,626,305

  1,000,191,852

  Drafting Guidelines are attached to the PQ Reference Guide.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a substantive reply will be given to Mrs. T. Harper's letter of 28 November 2001, concerning care homes. [36842]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent on 21 February.

  Macmillan Cancer Relief
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with Her Majesty's Treasury on the VAT on building costs paid by Macmillan Cancer Relief. [36914]

  Mr. Hutton
  Responsibility for the Value Added Tax law rests with by right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the
  1615W
  Exchequer. Officials from the Department have recently accompanied officials from Customs and Excise at an initial meeting with Macmillan.

  NHS Estates
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when NHS Estates was disposed of to a partnership company; and if he will place in the Library(a) the partnership agreement, (b) a list of the unwanted NHS Estates disposed of, (c) the partners in the partnership and (d) the names and interests of the partnership company board. [37288]

  Mr. Hutton
  National Health Service Estates has not yet selected a preferred partner for the disposal of surplus estate.

  The transaction is not due to take place until October 2002 at which point further details will be available.

  Residential Homes
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial assistance he has made available to(a) local authorities and (b) private and voluntary sector residential homes for the elderly to help them bring those homes up to the standards set by the Government. [37215]

  Jacqui Smith
  The resources provided for personal social services are increasing by, on average 3.4 per cent. per annum in real terms over the next three years. We expect home owners will cover the costs of meeting the standards through the fees they charge. Local authorities are funded to meet these additional costs. Through the agreement between the statutory and independent social care, health care and housing sectors, "Building Capacity and Partnership in Care", issued in October 2001, we made it clear that service commissioners should not set contract prices for care places mechanistically. We expect them to have regard to providers' costs and efficiencies and planned outcomes for service users.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many overseas visits have been undertaken by

  Headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Change 1997–2001 (per cent)

  Change 2000–01 (per cent)

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting and practice nursing staff total

  318,860

  323,460

  329,640

  335,950

  350,400

  9.9

  4.3

  Qualified nursing midwifery and health visiting staff

  300,470

  304,560

  310,140

  316,750

  330,500

  9.9

  4.3

  Practice nurses

  18,390

  18,890

  19,500

  19,200

  19,800

  7.7

  3.1

  1616W
  parliamentary private secretaries in his Department at departmental expense in each of the last four years; and at what cost to public funds. [36815]

  Ms Blears
  None.

  Nurses
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent nurses are employed in the NHS on non-clinical duties. [37371]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  The 2001 non-medical workforce census includes 5,485 qualified nurses classified as working as managers and within education services. Their roles may include some clinical duties.

  There are over 30,000 more nurses working in the National Health Service in 2001 than there were in 1997.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) EU trained nurses and(b) those trained elsewhere registered with UKCC in the year to 31 March 1997. [37377]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is in the table.

  Year to 31 March 1997

  EC Initial Entrants

  1,141

  Overseas Initial Entrants

  2,633

  Total

  3,774

  Trust Staffing
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many total nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff there were in each trust in each year from 1997 to 2000; and what the whole time equivalent figures were. [37380]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. The full census results, and other data from the NHS hospital and community health services non-medical staff in England: 1991–2001 bulletin can also be consulted on-line at www.doh.gov.uk/public/nhsworkforce.htm.

  Headline figures shown in the table for both headcount, and whole time equivalent. Please note that Headcount Practice Nurse figures are estimated for 1998 and 1999, and that headline figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts. Figures exclude learners and agency staff.
  1617W

  Whole-time equivalent

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Change1997–2001 (per cent)

  Change2000–01 (per cent)

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting and practice nursing staff total of which

  256,090

  257,600

  261,340

  266,990

  277,334

  8.3

  3.9

  Qualified nursing midwifery and health visiting staff (HCHS)

  246,010

  247,240

  250,650

  256,280

  266,171

  8.2

  3.8

  Practice nurses

  10,080

  10,360

  10,690

  10,710

  11,163

  10.7

  4.2

  Hospices
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 380W, on palliative care, if he will estimate the percentage of the additional £50 million to go to the specialist palliative care costs which will be available to the voluntary sector hospices. [37054]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The level of funding voluntary hospices receive is a matter for local decision based on a strategic view of local palliative care services. We have required all cancer networks to develop costed strategic investment plans for palliative care, which will inform the wider National Health Service planning process through health improvement programmes and service and financial frameworks for 2002–03. The strategic plans they develop will reflect local population needs and are part of the cancer network service delivery plans. This mechanism will help us address the current inequalities in palliative care service provision across both NHS and voluntary providers.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase hospice funding; and if he will make a statement. [38079]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS Cancer Plan set out our commitment to increase National Health Service investment in specialist palliative care (including hospices) by £50 million by 2004. This investment is intended to help tackle inequalities in access to specialist palliative care and enable the NHS to increase their contribution to the cost hospices incur in providing agreed levels of service. We have commissioned NICE to develop evidence-based guidance on palliative care to assist cancer networks, including voluntary hospices, to identify core services.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost of residential care homes in Lancashire was in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) today. [37840]

  Jacqui Smith
  The gross expenditure by Lancashire County Council on residential care home placements 1618W
  between 1997–98 and 1999–2000 (the latest year for which data are available) was as follows (figures is £ millions):

  Year

  Lancashire pre 1 April 1998 boundary

  Lancashire post 1 April 1998 boundary

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackpool

  1997–98

  92.5

  —

  —

  —

  1998–99

  101.7

  77.6

  11.2

  12.9

  1999–2000

  110.2

  85.7

  10.7

  13.7

  Source: Form RO3.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost of maintenance of residential care home buildings in Lancashire was in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) today. [37839]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the cost of maintaining residential care homes is not held centrally.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases there were of food poisoning in(a) Coventry and (b) the UK in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2000 and (iv) 2001. [37309]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The table sets out the numbers of notified cases of food poisoning for Coventry and the United Kingdom for 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. The numbers of notified cases of food poisoning are likely to underestimate considerably the actual incidence of food poisoning.

  Notified cases of food poisoning for Coventry and UK 1998–2001

  Year

  Coventry

  United Kingdom

  1998

  464

  105,060

  1999

  434

  96,866

  2000

  322

  98,076

  2001*

  406*

  95,807*

  *Provisional figures.

  Sources:

  England and Wales— Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS).

  Scotland—the Information and Statistics Division (ISD) and the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health (SCIEH) divisions of the Common Services Agency of the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Northern Ireland—Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety Northern Ireland (DHSSPS).
  1619W
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has undertaken into new strains of bacteria that lead to food poisoning. [37619]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The Food Standards Agency has a programme of research the objectives of which are to increase the understanding of how an where pathogenic micro-organisms enter the food chain and to assess how specific food handling and production processes affect the survival, growth and toxin formation of micro-organisms in food. Details of recent research are available in the "Food Standards Agency Research Programme Annual Report 2001" and under "Science" on the Food Standards Agency website (www.food.gov.uk). A copy of the latest report has been placed in the Library.

  SHA (York)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations were undertaken with local authorities before the decision was made for the strategic health authority for North and East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire to be established in York. [38332]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: A project team, made up of representatives of the local health economy, set up to establish the strategic health authority for North and East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire, commissioned an independent appraisal into the location of the headquarters of the new health authority. No consultations were undertaken with local authorities during the option appraisal process. However, local authorities were informed that the option appraisal recommended that York Science Park was the preferred location. This recommendation is to be discussed at the next meting of the shadow board of the North and East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire strategic health authority on 20 March 2002. here representations from local authorities will be considered.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects to answer Question 15320, tabled on 15 November 2001; [39775]

  (2) when he expects to answer Question 15321, tabled on 15 November 2001; [39777]

  (3) when he expects to answer Question 12771, tabled on 6 November 2001; [39784]

  (4) when he expects to answer Question 12718, tabled on 6 November 2001; [39785]

  (5) when he expects to answer Question 15051, tabled on 15 November 2001; [39773]

  (6) when he expects to answer Question 12715, tabled on 6 November 2001; [39783]

  (7) when he expects to answer Question 16852, tabled on 21 November 2001; [39772]
  1620W
  (8) when he expects to answer Question 12711, tabled on 6 November 2001; [39778]

  (9) when he expects to answer Question 12778, tabled on 6 November 2001; [39790]

  (10) when he expects to answer Question 15323, tabled on 15 November 2001; [39774]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him on Monday 25 February 2002,Official Report, columns 935W-36W (Question 15051), columns 965-66W (Question 15321), column 966W (Question 12778), and columns 966-67W (Question 15320). I will let the hon. Member have a reply to Questions 12711, 12715, 12718, 12771, 15323 and 16852 as soon as possible.

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase(a) charges in the NHS and (b) the value of optical vouchers; and if he will make a statement. [40499]

  Ms Blears
  We shall lay before the House regulations to increase National Health Services charges in England from 1 April 2002. There will be a cash increase in the charge of 10p, (1.64 per cent.) from £6.10 to £6.20 for each quantity of a drug or appliance dispensed.

  The cost of prescription prepayment certificates will rise to £32.40 for a 4 month certificate and £89.00 for an annual certificate. These offer savings for those needing more than 5 items in four months or 14 in one year.

  Prescription charges are expected to raise some £434 million for the NHS in 2002–2003.

  Charges for elastic stockings and tights, wigs and most fabric supports supplied through the Hospital Service will be increased similarly.

  The maximum patient charge for a single course of dental treatment begun on or after 1 April 2002 will increase from £360 to £366.

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

  Optical voucher values will increase overall by 1.95 per cent. to help children, people on low income and certain people with complex sight problems with the cost of spectacles or contact lenses.

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

  Details of the revised charges and optical voucher values have been placed in the Library.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths are attributable to drug misuse in each of the last five years. [38651]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.
  1621W
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgel to Mr. Kelvin Hopkins, dated 28 February 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question concerning how many deaths were attributable to drug misuse in each of the last five years. I am replying in his absence. (38651)
  The figures requested are given in the table below:

  Drug misuse-related1 deaths, England and Wales, 1996–20002

  Calendar year

  Number of deaths

  1996

  1,247

  1997

  1,302

  1998

  1,459

  1999

  1,568

  2000

  1,662

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, Report. Deaths related to drug poisoning: results for England and Wales, 1993 to 2000. Health Statistics Quarterly 13 (2002), 76-82.

  Notes:

  1 Defined as deaths where the underlying cause is poisoning, drug abuse or drug dependence and where any of the substances controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) are involved.

  2 Data are for occurrences of death per calendar year.

  Life Expectancy, St Helens
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the most recent figures are for life expectancy at birth for(a) males and (b) females in St Helens South. [38267]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Shaun Woodward dated 1 March 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question asking what are the most recent figures for life expectancy at birth or (a) males and (b) females in St Helens South. (38267)Figures for life expectancy at birth in parliamentary constituencies are not routinely produced and data are not available to readily allow their calculation.Figures for life expectancy at birth in the local authority of St Helens, which comprises the parliamentary constituencies of St Helens North and St Helens, South, are as follows:

  1998 to 2000 - aggregated years

  Males - 73.7 years

  Females - 79.0 years.

  Benefit Reviews
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Department has made an assessment of the suitability of EMPS carrying out examinations in respect of benefit reviews. [36131]
  1622W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  All doctors carrying out examinations in respect of benefit claims or reviews must be approved by the Department's Chief Medical Adviser. There are stringent recruitment criteria and in order to gain approval doctors must complete prescribed training and demonstrate a satisfactory level of competence in carrying out assessments. The quality standards of all doctors are regularly monitored by SchlumbergerSema Medical Services. Ongoing approval is subject to satisfactory performance.

  Overseas Military Personnel
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which overseas countries military personnel were trained in the United Kingdom in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001; and if he will indicate in each case how many personnel were trained. [39517]

  Mr. Ingram
  During 2000, a total of 3,504 overseas military personnel from 106 countries were trained at UK military establishments. In 2001, 3,731 military personnel were trained from 101 countries. A full breakdown of the numbers trained, by country, is as follows:

  Overseas military personnel trained in the UK during 2000 and 2001

  Country

  2000 (1 January-31 December)

  2001 (1 January-31 December)

  Albania

  7

  15

  Algeria

  —

  2

  Antigua & Barbuda

  1

  —

  Argentina

  6

  13

  Australia

  84

  100

  Austria

  5

  14

  Azerbaijan

  1

  —

  Bahamas

  2

  2

  Bahrain

  29

  30

  Bangladesh

  2

  2

  Barbados

  2

  1

  Belgium

  82

  87

  Belize

  20

  25

  Bermuda

  14

  14

  Botswana

  5

  14

  Brazil

  20

  17

  Brunei

  152

  177

  Bulgaria

  5

  6

  Canada

  273

  322

  Chile

  4

  5

  China

  13

  32

  Croatia

  4

  10

  Czech Republic

  29

  27

  Denmark

  35

  27

  Ecuador

  1

  —

  Egypt

  6

  16

  El Salvador

  3

  1

  Estonia

  8

  6

  Fiji

  3

  2

  Finland

  6

  11

  France

  67

  59

  Gambia

  1

  1

  Georgia

  7

  5

  Germany

  115

  130

  Ghana

  3

  8

  Greece

  25

  49

  Guatemala

  5

  5

  Guyana

  2

  3

  Honduras

  1

  —

  1623W

  Overseas military personnel trained in the UK during 2000 and 2001

  Country

  2000 (1 January-31 December)

  2001 (1 January-31 December)

  Hong Kong

  7

  4

  Hungary

  17

  28

  India

  18

  15

  Ireland

  27

  56

  Israel

  43

  16

  Italy

  119

  154

  Jamaica

  22

  41

  Japan

  8

  8

  Jordan

  96

  67

  Kazakhstan

  —

  1

  Kenya

  5

  8

  Korea (South)

  9

  10

  Kuwait

  311

  307

  Latvia

  12

  14

  Lebanon

  5

  9

  Lithuania

  11

  8

  Luxembourg

  —

  1

  Macedonia

  8

  14

  Malawi

  5

  6

  Malaysia

  27

  22

  Maldives

  1

  —

  Malta

  6

  2

  Mauritius

  4

  —

  Moldova

  1

  2

  Morocco

  6

  6

  Mozambique

  —

  5

  Namibia

  1

  —

  Nepal

  14

  31

  Netherlands

  283

  253

  New Zealand

  44

  33

  Nicaragua

  1

  —

  Nigeria

  27

  28

  Norway

  247

  205

  Oman

  186

  178

  Pakistan

  36

  49

  Papua New Guinea

  1

  —

  Paraguay

  2

  2

  Philippines

  6

  10

  Poland

  28

  25

  Portugal

  33

  34

  Qatar

  53

  66

  Romania

  16

  19

  Russia

  5

  10

  Rwanda

  —

  2

  Saudi Arabia

  47

  63

  Senegal

  15

  17

  Seychelles

  1

  —

  Sierra Leone

  3

  22

  Singapore

  131

  113

  Slovak Republic

  16

  19

  Slovenia

  4

  8

  South Africa

  28

  19

  Spain

  17

  22

  Sri Lanka

  70

  7

  St. Kitts & Nevis

  1

  —

  St. Lucia

  1

  —

  St. Vincent

  1

  2

  Swaziland

  1

  1

  Sweden

  24

  27

  Switzerland

  4

  11

  Syria

  —

  1

  Tajikistan

  —

  1

  Tanzania

  6

  8

  Thailand

  29

  27

  Tonga

  1

  4

  Trinidad & Tobago

  2

  3

  Turkey

  50

  56

  Uganda

  2

  3

  Ukraine

  26

  39

  United Arab

  83

  95

  1624W

  Overseas military personnel trained in the UK during 2000 and 2001

  Country

  2000 (1 January-31 December)

  2001 (1 January-31 December)

  Emirates

  United States of America

  126

  163

  Uruguay

  8

  4

  Yemen

  2

  6

  Zimbabwe

  6

  2

  Total Students

  3,504

  3,731

  Total Countries

  106

  101

  Service Law
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Case of Morris v. the United Kingdom; and what plans he has to bring forward legislation to make changes to service law in response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. [39687]

  Mr. Ingram
  The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Morris v. the United Kingdom on 26 February. The Court noted that the changes to the court martial system made by the Armed Forces Act 1996 have gone a long way to meeting the concerns expressed in the Findlay case. However, it found that there had been a violation of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which concerns the right to a fair hearing, as regards some aspects of Mr Morris's trial by court martial in 1997.

  The Court was concerned about the potential for undue external influence over certain members of the court martial panel; and about the procedures for involving non-judicial authorities in the review of court martial findings and sentences. We are assessing the implications of the Court's judgment for the future conduct of court martial and whether any changes that may be necessary require the legislation to be amended. Army and Royal Air Force court martials that are imminently scheduled are being postponed, but for the time being trials in the Royal Navy are continuing in view of the nature of the regulations in that Service concerning the position of court martial members.

  I shall make an announcement as soon as our assessment of the implications of the judgment has been completed. However, we do not consider that the judgment fundamentally affects the court martial system, which we intend to retain as an effective and fair means of administering discipline and justice in our armed forces.

  Royal Navy (Pay Banding)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the Royal Navy does not impose a two tier system of high and low pay banding based on Pay 2000 JE for the Rating Corp; and if he will make a statement. [38289]

  Mr. Ingram
  A two tier system of high and low pay ranges was introduced for Royal Navy ratings (and also for soldiers and airmen) with effect from 1 April 2001 as
  1625W
  part of Pay 2000, the new pay structure for the Armed Forces. Job Evaluation underpins the allocation of trades to one of the two pay ranges. Pay 2000 was devised in close collaboration with the single services and was the subject of a high profile and extensive communications programme throughout the Armed Forces.

  HMS Sheffield
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Sheffield will be withdrawn from service. [38951]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans HMS Sheffield will be withdrawn from service towards the end of this decade. In the shorter term she will be reduced to a low readiness state, commensurate with force levels endorsed within the Strategic Defence Review, from November 2002 until September 2004.

  HMS Exeter
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if HMS Exeter breached the Harmony guidelines following her deployment last year. [38945]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Exeter has not breached the Harmony guidelines. She has been deployed for a total of 12 months in the past three years and has spend 48 per cent. of her time in her base port of Portsmouth during the last two years. Harmony guidelines state that ships should spend a minimum of 40 per cent. of their time in their base port over a two-year period, and that total deployed time over a three-year period should not exceed 18 months.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Policies (Bristol, East)
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bristol, East constituency, the effects on Bristol of her Department's policies and actions(a) from 5 May 1994 to 2 May 1997, (b) from 2 May 1997 to 7 May 1998, and (c) since 7 May 1998. [35597]

  Mr. Caborn

  (a) 5 May 1994 to 2 May 1997

  There were 31 national lottery awards to Bristol East totalling £2,068,137.

  (b) 2 May 1997 to 7 May 1998

  There were 39 national lottery awards to Bristol East totalling £1,748,764.

  (c) Since 7 May 1998

  Forty Four Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Bristol East at a grant commitment of £129,557.

  7 May 1998 to 13 February 2002

  There were 105 national lottery awards to Bristol East totalling £5,611,239.
  1626W
  Information on the National Lottery is in accordance with the information supplied to the Department by the Lottery Distributors for the National Lottery Awards Database.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the Bristol East constituency. These are:

  (a) 5 May 1994 to 2 May 1997

  English Heritage

  5 grants offered for repairs to Grade I and II* listed buildings totalling £124,314

  1 grant offered for repairs to a scheduled ancient monument of £81,080

  3 grants offered for repairs to Grade II listed buildings in a conservation area totalling £98,723

  2 grants offered to Conservation Area Partnership (CAP) Schemes totalling £100,000

  (b) 2 May 1997 to 7 May 1998

  English Heritage

  3 grants offered for repairs to Grade I and II* listed buildings totalling £121,130

  1 CAP scheme grant offer of £50,000

  (c) Since 7 May 1998

  English Heritage

  4 grants offered for repairs to Grade I and II* listed buildings totalling £460,700

  1 Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme grant offer of £70,000

  Designated Museums Challenge Fund (DMCF)

  Bristol Museum and Art Gallery received the following:

  Award

  Claimed

  Year 1 (1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000) £59,475

  £59,475

  Year 2 (1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001) £80,000

  £73,639.45

  Year 3 (1 April 2001 to 2002) £120,100

  still in progress

  The awards were made towards improvements to care, interpretation and access for all designated collections.

  DCMS Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund
  Since May 1998 DCMS Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund has granted £24,000 towards a British History Project (covering all of Bristol libraries).
  Space for Sport and the Arts
  Bristol has provisionally been allocated with £1.75 million under the Space for Sport and Arts programme. Subject to the approval of detailed applications, the area will benefit from new/modernised sport and arts facilities based in four primary schools, but open for use by the wider community outside school hours. Building work on the four projects should be completed by Summer 2003.
  Creative Partnerships
  Bristol has been chosen as one of the first pilots for the Creative Partnerships programme, due to start in April 2002.
  Artsmark Schools
  There is currently only one Artsmark school in the City of Bristol. Seven have applied for Artsmark status in this year's round of applications.
  National Foundation for Youth Music
  Bristol is part of a Youth Music Action Zone also encompassing Gloucester. Since its inception the zone has received £512,176. The National Foundation for Youth Music has also made separate grants to projects in Bristol totalling £149,284.1627W
  Libraries
  Bristol library service has been awarded grants of £598,587 for People's Network ICT infrastructure and £121,040 for librarian ICT training by the New Opportunities Fund (NOF). According to Resource, the body responsible for monitoring implementation of the People's Network, all 26 public libraries in Bristol are now connected to the Internet through the People's Network and all offer free internet access to users.
  Sport
  There are 2 School Sport Co-ordinators in Bristol at Ashton Park School and Portway Community School which have received £315,537 and £289,239 respectively.
  Free Television Licences
  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 7,600 people aged 75 or over living in the Bristol East constituency.

  Company

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  CAP Gemini

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  PWC

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  83,000 (2)

  96,000 (1)

  KPMG

  32,000 (2)

  Nil

  Nil

  23,000 (1)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  PA Consulting

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  WS Atkins

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  55,000 (3)

  33,000 (2)

  Nil

  Nil

  Accentor

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Deloitte & Touche

  Nil

  109,000 (2)

  Nil

  207,000 (1)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  McKinsey

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Capita

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  39,000 (3)

  Nil

  Nil

  26,0002

  AEA Technology

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  23,000 (1)

  Nil

  Ansa Group

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Sea Group1

  C.G. Admiral

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  NAL Group

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Logic

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Notes:

  1 SchlumbergerSema have been the Department's outsourced IT service provider since 1993. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of fees annually from 1995–96 but the payment to SchlumbergerSema for direct services was of the order of £1.5 million in 2000–01 and will be a similar figure in 2001–02. Expenditure in previous years will not have exceeded that amount.

  2 Recruitment advisory services using central government's framework contract.

  Includes Royal Parks Agency.

  Number of contracts in brackets.

  National Lottery
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the role and function of Global Crossing is with regard to(a) Camelot and (b) the running of the National Lottery; [38166]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the implications of the collapse of (a) Global Crossing and (b) its subcontractors upon the National Lottery; [38164]

  (3) what steps her Department has taken to ensure that the possible collapse of Global Crossing has no impact on the running of the National Lottery; [38165]

  (4) what representations she has received from Camelot about the possible collapse of Global Crossing. [38169]

  Mr. Caborn
  The operation of the National Lottery is a matter for Camelot as the private operator and the National Lottery Commission as the independent regulator. We have received no representations from Camelot about the future of Global Crossing (UK) Telecommunications Ltd. which is a key supplier of communication networks for the National Lottery. Camelot has been in detailed discussions with Global Crossing (UK) Telecommunications Ltd. to assess the

  Contracts
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many contracts in each financial year since 1995–96(a) Cap Gemini Ernst and Young, (b) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (c) KPMG, (d) PA Consulting, (e) WS Atkins, (f) Accenture, (g) Deloitte and Touche, (h) McKinsey, (i) Capita, (j) AEA Technology, (k) Xansa Group, (l) Sema Group, (m) CMG Admiral, (n) ICL Group and (o) Logica were awarded for advising her Department; what fees each firm earned in each year from work for her Department; and if she will make a statement. [38178]

  Dr. Howells
  Contracts awarded to the named companies were as follows:

  level of risk to the National Lottery and set in place contingency arrangements, and has kept the National Lottery Commission informed.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what meetings have been held between Ministers and special advisers and(a) Camelot, (b) Global Crossing and (c) other companies with regard to the possible collapse of Global Crossing; [38167]

  (2) on what date discussions between her Department and Global Crossing have been held since 1999; and what has been discussed on each occasion; [38170]

  (3) what meetings have been held between (a) Minister and (b) special advisers and Global Crossing since May 1997. [38168]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have held no meetings with Global Crossing since May 1997.

  Capita
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many contracts the Department has with Capita; and how much they are worth. [38380]
  1629W
  Dr. Howells
  My Department has no standing contract with Capita. However, we have used their services recently on three separate occasions. Brief details and the costs involved are as shown:

  (i) providing training, candidate assessment exercises and independent chairs for the interview panel in connection with the Department's open recruitment scheme for middle and senior managers (November 2001)—£17k

  (ii) providing and marking standard Civil Service written tests for short-listed candidates in connection with the Department's open recruitment scheme or administrative staff (February 2002)—£1k

  (iii) providing 7 successful candidates off the national Civil Service Junior Manager recruitment scheme run by Capita (November 2001-February 2002)—£8k.

  Regional Museums
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking in response to the findings of the Regional Museums Task Force. [38095]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has accepted, in principle, the task force's key recommendations for a new framework for regional museums. We are currently working with Resource to start implementing the recommendations with £10 million per annum which was allocated to Resource in the last spending review.

  We will take the task force's recommendations into account in the current spending review, alongside other priorities.

  J Samuel White's Yard
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the hammerhead crane at the former J Samuel White's Yard in Cowes. [38207]

  Dr. Howells
  I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considers all applications for statutory listing on their individual merits. DCMS officials will write to the hon. Member outlining the listing procedures in greater detail.

  Tourism
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she has assessed the effect of the proposed six-term school year on the domestic tourism industry. [38206]

  Dr. Howells
  The traditional calendar for the school year is increasingly seen as a barrier to the development of more sustainable tourism and to the spreading of the benefits of domestic tourism more evenly throughout the year.

  Research has shown that while the total amount of UK trips made by the family tourism market is unlikely to change significantly as a result of a six-term year, an extended and more constant tourism season would be one result. This would lighten the load on tourism hotspots that struggle to cope with the huge numbers at
  1630W
  peak times and mean that more attractions and tourism businesses, which currently close at the end of the summer, would be encouraged to stay open for longer.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tourist visitors there were to each(a) region and (b) country of the UK for each year since 1995. [38863]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Numbers of tourist visits involving an overnight stay by both overseas and UK residents to each region/country of the UK for 2000 are shown in table 1.

  Numbers of tourist visits by overseas residents for 1995–2000 are shown in table 2.

  Information on domestic visits for 1995–99 was published by the National Tourist Boards in The Uk Tourist and may be obtained from the Library of the House. However these figures for 1995–99 are not comparable with data for 2000 in table 1.

  Figures for 2001 are not yet available at sub-UK level.

  Table 1—Tourism visits in the UK in 2000

  Millions of staying visits

  Tourist board region/Country

  Overseas residents' visits

  Visits by UK residents

  Total

  London

  13.1

  18.5

  31.6

  Northumbria

  0.4

  5.6

  6.0

  Cumbria

  0.2

  5.0

  5.2

  North West

  1.3

  14.8

  16.1

  Yorkshire

  0.9

  13.1

  14.0

  Heart of England

  2.3

  23.4

  25.7

  East of England

  1.8

  13.2

  15.0

  West Country

  1.6

  18.6

  20.2

  Southern

  2.1

  14.7

  16.8

  South East England

  2.1

  12.1

  14.2

  All England1

  21.5

  140.4

  161.9

  Wales

  1.0

  10.9

  11.9

  Scotland

  1.7

  19.7

  21.4

  Northern Ireland

  0.3

  n/a2

  n/a2

  UK

  23.2

  175.4

  198.6

  Sources:

  International Passenger Survey and UK Tourism Survey.

  1 Figures do not sum due to trips that included visits to more than one region/country.

  2 Comparable data not available.

  Table 2—Visits to the Uk by Overseas' residents

  Millions of staying visits

  Tourist board region/Country

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  London

  11.9

  12.3

  12.3

  12.3

  13.3

  13.1

  Northumbria

  0.5

  0.4

  0.5

  0.4

  0.5

  0.4

  Cumbria

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  North West

  1.1

  1.2

  1.1

  1.2

  1.2

  1.3

  Yorkshire

  1.0

  1.0

  0.9

  0.9

  0.9

  0.9

  East Midlands3

  0.7

  0.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Heart of England (old boundary)

  1.4

  1.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Heart of England

  —

  —

  2.0

  2.0

  2.1

  2.3

  East Anglia3

  1.4

  1.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East of England

  —

  —

  1.5

  1.6

  1.7

  1.8

  West Country

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1.6

  Southern

  1.9

  1.9

  1.9

  2.0

  2.1

  2.1

  1631W

  Table 2—Visits to the Uk by Overseas' residents

  Millions of staying visits

  Tourist board region/Country

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  South East England

  2.1

  2.3

  2.2

  2.3

  2.3

  2.1

  All England1

  18.7

  19.5

  19.6

  19.9

  21.4

  21.5

  Wales

  0.7

  0.8

  0.8

  0.7

  0.8

  1.0

  Scotland

  1.8

  1.8

  1.9

  1.9

  1.9

  1.7

  Northern Ireland

  n/a2

  n/a2

  n/a2

  n/a2

  n/a2

  0.3

  UK1

  19.7

  20.9

  21.0

  21.4

  23.3

  23.2

  Source:

  International Passenger Survey, Office for National Statistics.

  1 Figures do not sum due to trips that included visits to more than one region/country.

  2 Comparable data not available.

  3 These regional tourist board areas ceased to exist following the reorganisation in 1996.

  Tourism spending in the UK in 2000

  £ million

  Tourist board region/Country

  Overseas visitors

  Domestic trips with overnight

  Domestic tourism leisure day trips3

  Fares to UK air carriers3

  Total

  London

  6,900

  3,070

  n/a

  n/a

  9,970

  Northumbria

  170

  740

  n/a

  n/a

  910

  Cumbria

  50

  770

  n/a

  n/a

  820

  North West

  450

  1,980

  n/a

  n/a

  2,420

  Yorkshire

  260

  1,690

  n/a

  n/a

  1,950

  Heart of England

  770

  2,790

  n/a

  n/a

  3,560

  East of England

  680

  1,540

  n/a

  n/a

  2,220

  West Country

  550

  3,120

  n/a

  n/a

  3,680

  Southern

  780

  2,050

  n/a

  n/a

  2,830

  South East England

  700

  1,490

  n/a

  n/a

  2,200

  All England1

  11,360

  19,890

  n/a

  n/a

  31,250

  Wales

  270

  1,140

  n/a

  n/a

  1,400

  Scotland

  790

  3,700

  n/a

  n/a

  4,490

  Northern Ireland

  110

  n/a2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a2

  UK1

  12,670

  26,130

  32,700

  3,300

  74,800

  Sources:

  International Passenger Survey and UK Tourism Survey.

  1 Figures may not sum due to spending not attributable to regions/countries.

  2 Comparable data not available.

  3 Estimated figures.

  (b) Data at county level for categories 1 and 2 can be found on the Tourism Boards' statistics website http:// www.staruk.org.uk.

  Bishopsgate Goods Yard
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will announce her decision on whether to list Bishopsgate Goods Yard. [37869]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce in due course her decision of whether Bishopsgate Goods Yard meets the criteria for inclusion on the list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.
  1632W
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total revenue was from tourists in 2000 broken down by(a) region and (b) country. [38836]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Tourism revenue comprises expenditure by:

  1. Overseas residents during visits to the United Kingdom.

  2. UK residents on domestic trips with overnight stays.

  3. UK residents in days trips outside of each individuals' usual environment, and

  4. Expenditure by overseas visitors which relates to their trip, but which is made abroad and is transferred to UK companies, i.e. fares to UK air carriers.

  (a) Revenue from tourist expenditure for 2000 is shown for regions and countries of the UK in the table. Regional data are not available for categories 3 and 4.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent communication she has had with English Heritage concerning the possible listing of Bishopsgate Goods Yard. [37870]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked English Heritage to provide advice on whether Bishopsgate Goods Yard meets the criteria for inclusion on the list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. She has received their advice and will announce her decision in due course.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent instructions she has given to English Heritage about the listing of Bishopsgate Goods Yard. [37871]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given no instructions to English Heritage. She has received advice from English Heritage on whether
  1633W
  Bishopsgate Goods Yard meet the criteria for inclusion on the list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at what point a decision to list a building becomes effective. [37873]

  Dr. Howells
  A decision becomes effective at the point an amendment is made to the list; the list is a publicly accessible document.

  New Wembley Stadium
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) football matches, (b) rugby league matches and (c) other sports events she estimates will be played each year if the new Wembley Stadium is built. [38960]

  Mr. Caborn
  The long-term events profile for the proposed National Stadium at Wembley is a matter for the FA and Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL). WNSL have indicated that in 2006 a new Wembley Stadium would host a total of 20 football and rugby league matches.

  Non-Governmental Organisations
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list non-Governmental organisations operating in the South West Region that receive public funds from her Department; and what amount of annual funding they received in the most recent year for which figures are available. [39191]

  Mr. Caborn
  Non-governmental organisations operating in the South West Region do not receive public funds directly from my Department.

  Sports Tests
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 184W, whether the research by Professor Peter Sonkson at St. Thomas' Hospital has been continued in the UK since his retirement. [39322]

  Mr. Caborn
  Research into the use of Human Growth Hormone (hGH) is continuing in the UK. However, the main sources of funding for this work, the International Olympic Committee and the European Commission, have not extended their financial investment beyond the initial funding agreed for this research.

  Worldwide, research teams continue work in this field with grants awarded by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). At present WADA is committing US$5 million per year to research in five priority areas which include compounds that aid the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood, such as Erythropoietin (EPO), the factors that regulate and increase growth, such as human growth hormone hGH.

  Drug Taking
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was spent on research into drug taking in sport in each of the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [39323]

  Mr. Caborn
  UK Sport does not assign a specific budget for research activities into drug taking in the UK and therefore an exact amount is not identifiable. UK Sport's funding for the UK's anti-doping programme has been focused on delivering appropriate testing programmes for sport. However, UK Sport have provided funding for key projects, such as the Nandrolone review that was undertaken in 2000 and the development of the international working group on human growth hormone (hGH).

  Independent research projects are also funded by other organisations in the UK and abroad. Examples include a programme of research on Nandrolone commissioned by UK Athletics, which was undertaken by Aberdeen University in 2000. The International Olympic Committee has also funded research at the Cologne Laboratory into Nandrolone.

  The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is committed to increasing the volume of research dedicated to developing new and improved detection methods for the growing list of performance enhancing substances and methods. WADA currently provides US$5 million per year to further this research in five priority areas:

  Compounds that aid oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood, such as EPO;

  Endogenous anabolic agents, such as testosterone;

  Factors that regulate and increase growth, such as hGH;

  Gene technology and performance enhancement; and

  Other prohibited substances and methods.

  Tennis (Drug Tests)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many drug tests were conducted by(a) UK Sport and (b) another agency responsible to her during (i) all tennis tournaments with professional players in the United Kingdom and (ii) during the Wimbledon tennis tournament. [39031]

  Mr. Caborn
  UK Sport is the only Government agency funded to undertake anti-doping work in the UK. Since 1 April 2001 UK Sport has conducted testing at six events at which professional tennis players were present. A total of 65 tests have been collected as part of the Lawn Tennis Association's Anti-Doping Programme.

  Testing at Wimbledon tournament is not undertaken by UK Sport, this is done by the International Tennis Federation (ITF). In 2001 the ITF conducted 120 tests during the Wimbledon tournament and 56 in other tennis tournaments in the UK. The testing programme is independently administered and all analysis of samples is carried out at IOC accredited laboratories.

  Lottery Funding
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what obligations are placed on athletes receiving lottery funding to(a) coach, (b) visit schools and (c) promote participation amongst the wider public. [39028]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Sports Councils do not place any obligations on athletes when receiving lottery funding to coach, visit schools or promote participation amongst the wider public.

  Broadcast Licences
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what licences and other permissions are required by broadcasters before they can transmit their channel via(a) digital satellite, (b) digital terrestrial and (c) digital cable. [38958]

  Dr. Howells
  The Independent Television Commission is responsible for licensing commercial digital television services in the UK. Broadcasters will need a Satellite Television Service Licence for transmission via(a) digital satellite; a Digital Programme Service Licence for (b) digital terrestrial television; and a Digital Programme Service Licence for (c) digital cable television.

  Free-to-air Channels
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make an assessment of the costs to consumers of receiving only free-to-air television channels via(a) digital satellite television, (b) digital terrestrial television and (c) digital cable television. [38959]

  Dr. Howells
  To receive only the free-to-view television channels via(a) digital satellite television, consumers will need to pay for either a digital set top box and satellite dish and for the cost of installation, or for an integrated television set (idTV) that can be connected to a satellite dish; (b) digital terrestrial television, consumers will need to pay for either a digital set top box and possibly a new aerial, or an idTV that can be connected to an aerial and; (c) digital cable television, consumers can receive free-to-view digital services only by subscribing to a package of services. The Digital Television Action Plan includes a specific action to conduct a comprehensive review of progress towards digital switchover, with particular reference to

  Production inward investment to the UK, 1995–2000

  Year

  Foreign productions

  £ million

  British productions

  £ million

  Total inward investment

  1995

  14

  216.45

  34

  94.00

  310.45

  1996

  25

  387.10

  73

  172.20

  559.30

  1997

  20

  261.90

  84

  202.89

  464.79

  1998

  16

  214.20

  67

  174.96

  389.16

  1999

  22

  336.37

  70

  170.31

  506.68

  2000

  28

  366.57

  52

  211.70

  578.27

  1636W
  the accessibility, availability and affordability tests announced in September 1999. The review will refine the tests and report on how progress towards meeting them is to be measured. A first report is due by the end of March 2002.

  Capita Group
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by the Department. [39337]

  Dr. Howells
  The following is the information:

  Capita

  £

  1998–99

  Recruitment of Chairman and Members—New Opportunities Fund

  14,000

  1998–99

  Recruitment of Chairman and Trustees—National Endowment for Science & Technology (NESTA)

  13,000

  1998–99

  Recruitment for BBC Appointments

  12,000

  2001–02

  Training for Recruitment Scheme Middle and Senior Managers

  17,000

  2001–02

  Providing and Marking Standard Civil Service Written Tests

  1,000

  2001–02

  Civil Service Junior Manager Recruitment Scheme

  8,000

  Total

  65,000

  Includes Royal Parks (nil return).

  Fair Trade
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether fair trade products are sold in her Department. [39825]

  Dr. Howells
  There is little opportunity to sell anything in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but contractors working with the Department are encouraged to use Fair Trade goods where possible.

  Film Industry
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what income has been generated from the film industry in each(a) region and (b) country in the United Kingdom in each year since 1995. [38837]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The following table shows film production investment to the UK from 1995–2000. Figures are not kept by region or country. Information for 2001 is not yet available.

  Theatres
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding has been made available(a) from her Department and (b) from the National Lottery for assisting in renovation work to theatres in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001. [37189]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: This is a matter for those bodies sponsored by my Department who deal specifically with theatre and/or the built environment—the Arts Council of England, English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund.

  The following figures supplied by these organisations are for lottery awards for theatre renovation:

  £

  1999

  13,674,605

  2000

  4,278,566

  2001

  23,380,917

  Sport England
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will provide an additional £500,000 to Sport England to compensate it for the severance package given to Sport England's former chief executive. [39694]

  Tessa Jowell
  Sport England recognise that the costs of the departure of their former Chief Executive must be funded from existing resources. There will not be any charge to Lottery Funds.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Retirement Ages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of his Department and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on flexible retirement. [32820]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The FCO's current retirement age is 60 for all grades of staff. From April this year staff in clerical grades will be able to work until 65 and those in junior and middle management grades until 63 if they so wish. Staff in the Senior Management Structure will be required to retire at 60 as at present. There are currently 1,441 staff in the clerical grades, 3,716 in junior and middle management and 454 in the Senior Management Structure.

  Ministerial Boxes
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what means ministerial boxes are conveyed from private offices in his Department to(a) himself and (b) his fellow Ministers; how frequently and at what expense private courier firms are employed for such a task; and which courier firms have been used for such duties. [36276]
  1638W
  Mr. Straw
  FCO ministerial boxes are transported to Ministers' homes by Government car or by a service provided by the Royal Mail.

  Racism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer on 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 886W, on the UN World Conference against Racism, what the results of his consultation on drawing up a National Action Plan on 4 February were; what bodies were represented at the meeting; if he will place the notes of the meeting in the Library; what arrangements have been made for a follow-up meeting; what plans he has to make the WCAR report available to hon. Members; and what plans he has to debate the report and publicise UK support for the Declaration. [38306]

  Mr. MacShane
  On 4 February, the Home Office held informal consultations with NGOs who had been involved in national consultations on the World Conference Against Racism, including the 1990 Trust, the Runnymede Trust, the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities, UNA-UK, the Churches Commission for Racial Justice and the Women's National Commission and representatives from the devolved administrations.

  The purpose of the meeting was for Home Office officials to seek views on how work on the National Action Plan should be taken forward before putting advice to Ministers. The meeting's main concern was to ensure that a fully representative group of NGOs were consulted on the development and implementation of the plan and discussion focused around which organisations should be included. The Home Office is currently considering these proposals. As this meeting was informal, there are no plans to put a record in the Library of the House. There will be a further meeting of the informal group on 19 March.

  The UK World Conference Against Racism report is available to hon. Members on the UN website (http://www.un.org/WCAR/aconf189_12pdf) which is accessible through the House Library.

  We will of course inform hon. Members as soon as we have identified and agreed the best way to take forward work on the National Act Plan.

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the UN Economic and Social council report "Discrimination against Women and Girls in Afghanistan"; and if he will adopt its recommendations in respect of UK operations in Afghanistan. [38129]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We welcome the report "Discrimination against Women and Girls in Afghanistan" and support its recommendations. We have always said that the restoration of human rights, including women's rights, will be the key to the establishment of stable systems of government in Afghanistan. We expect the Afghan Government to ratify the convention on the elimination of discrimination against women.
  1639W
  We welcome the role that women are playing in the Afghan Interim Authority, both in the Interim Administration and on the Loya Jirga Commission. Whilst the form of any future Afghan Government is for the Afghan people to decide, we expect that women will be involved.

  On reconstruction, our projects have always involved women and this will continue in the recovery and rehabilitation process. The involvement of women in projects, and use of expertise on gender issues will help to ensure that the rights of women are promoted—particularly recognising the complexity of gender issues in Afghanistan.

  Overseas Territories
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place the final draft of the overseas territories model legislation for implementation of the report to the Counter Terrorism Committee, pursuant to paragraph 6 of Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001 and 20 December 2001, in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [38117]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Copies of the final draft of the Order In Council which will replicate in several Overseas Territories the terrorist financing provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 will be placed in the Library as soon as they are available.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress(a) the Cayman Islands, (b) Bermuda and (c) Gibraltar have made in bringing forward legislation to implement the report to the Counter Terrorism Committee, pursuant to paragraph 6 of Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001 and 20 December 2001. [38116]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Bermuda, Gibraltar and the Cayman Islands have agreed to enact local legislation equivalent to the terrorist financing provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The United Kingdom is producing model draft legislation, which we hope the legislature in each territory will be able to approve by June 2002.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work is in progress on the designation of exclusive economic zones in respect of(a) the Falkland Islands, (b) St. Georgia, (c) St Helena and (d) Ascension Island; what deadline is for designation under Article 76 of the UN Law of the Sea Convention 1984; and if he will make a statement. [37751]

  Mr. MacShane
  Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) coastal states may declare an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) beyond and adjacent to their territorial sea up to 200 nautical miles from their baselines. Coastal states may declare instead an equivalent zone and exercise more limited jurisdiction in that zone. The Falkland Islands and St. Helena and Dependencies (which include Ascension Island) have declared a 200 nautical 1640W
  mile fisheries zone. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands have declared a 200 nautical mile maritime zone.

  Under Article 76 of UNCLOS coastal states claiming a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles are required to make a submission to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). In respect of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Ascension Island and St. Helena any submission should be made as soon as possible, but in any event by 13 May 2009.

  The preparatory work to make submissions to the CLCS in respect of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and Ascension Island is under way and it is expected that the submissions will be made before the deadline.

  No work is being undertaken to make a submission to the CLCS under Article 76 of UNCLOS in respect of St. Helena because the geomorphology of the seabed around the island does not support a claim to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.

  Pakistan
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) Pakistan and (b) United States authorities regarding Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh; and if he will make a statement. [38994]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Officials at our High Commission in Islamabad have been in touch with the Pakistani authorities on consular aspects of Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh's detention. They are also in regular contact with officials at the US Embassy in Islamabad and our embassy in Washington has been in contact with the US State Department.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Ministers from his Department have to visit(a) Morocco and (b) Western Sahara. [38490]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  FCO Ministers have no current plans to visit either Morocco or Western Sahara. I visited Morocco in September 2001.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions the Government have had with the Spanish Government regarding the Western Sahara dispute. [38487]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government have no formal contact with the Spanish Government regarding the Western Sahara dispute.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions the Government have had with the Government of Morocco regarding the status of the Western Sahara. [38486]
  1641W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  We regularly discuss the issue of the Western Sahara with the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco. I raised the issue during my visit to Morocco in September 2001 and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the subject with Mohammed Benaissa the Moroccan Foreign Minister during his visit to London on 21 February 2002.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact the Government have had with the personal envoy of the UN Secretary-General with regard to his efforts to find a solution to the Western Sahara dispute. [38488]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to support the efforts of James Baker, the Personal Envoy of the United Nations Secretary General in trying to find a just and durable resolution to the Western Sahara dispute. UK Officials in New York are in regular contact with James Baker, most recently on 27 February when he addressed an informal group of United Nations Security Council members on his report on the situation in Western Sahara.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts the British Government are engaged in to encourage the Moroccan Government and the Polisario Front to reach an agreement in the Western Sahara dispute. [38489]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Foreign Office Ministers and officials in London and New York have regular contact with their counterparts from other nations and the parties to this dispute to attempt to reach an agreement.

  We continue to support the efforts of James Baker, the Personal Envoy of the United Nations Secretary General, in trying to find a mutually acceptable, just and durable resolution to the dispute. We encourage all parties to do the same.

  European Union
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will publish a report, specifying and quantifying the costs and benefits arising from the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union, together with a description of the methodology employed in the analysis; and if he will make a statement. [38404]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no plans to publish such a report.

  Romania
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the arrangements were finalised for the Romanian Government's visit to Britain in November 2001. [39043]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Most arrangements for the visit had been finalised by 2 November 2001.

  Laeken declaration
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give his 1642W
  understanding of the definition of the phrase the unification of Europe used in section 1 of the Laeken declaration. [39641]

  Peter Hain
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in his speech at the Warsaw Stock Exchange in October 2000, the Government see Europe as"free, independent sovereign nations who choose to pool that sovereignty in pursuit of their own interests and the common good, achieving more together than we can achieve alone."

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Maternity Rights
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the weekly rate is of maternity allowance offered to women who are self-employed in small businesses; [26050]

  (2) how many self-employed women have taken up full maternity leave and allowances in the last year and in the previous two years. [26052]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are improving maternity benefits as part of our drive to help women achieve a better balance between paid work and family life. In August 2000 we abolished the separate lower rate of Maternity Allowance paid to the self-employed. They now receive the same standard rate of Maternity Allowance as employees, which is £62.20 for up to 18 weeks, provided they pay Class 2 National Insurance contributions. At the same time we also extended Maternity Allowance to self-employed women who do not pay Class 2 National Insurance contributions provided they hold a certificate of Small Earnings Exception. These women receive £27 a week for up to 18 weeks. Maternity Leave is available only to employees not the self-employed.

  The standard rate of Maternity Allowance will be raised to £75 a week from April 2002. In 2003 the rate will be £100 a week and the payment period will be extended from 18 to 26 weeks.

  The information available on the number of self-employed women who have received Maternity Allowance since the improvements in August 2000 is in Table 1.

  Table 1

  Maternity Allowance awards to women shown as self-employed.

  Self-employed

  1 September 2000 to 31 August 2001

  9400

  Source:

  5 per cent. scan of the computer system. Excludes late notifications to the system, and a small number of cases held clerically.

  Notes:

  1. Figure includes a small number of cases where the woman has a combination of self-employment and employment during the qualifying period.

  2. Figure is rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Information was collected on a different basis prior to the improvements made to Maternity Allowance in August 2000. The information available for the previous two years is in Table 2.
  1643W

  Table 2

  Maternity Allowance awards where "self-employed" was shown as the reason for non payment of Statutory Maternity Pay.

  Self-employed

  5 April 1999 to 1 April 2000

  8,000

  6 April 1998 to 3 April 1999

  9,000

  Source:

  Figures are from a 1 per cent. sample of claims to Maternity Allowance, and subject to a degree of sampling error.

  Note: Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand or per cent.

  Employment Initiatives (Cynon Valley)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans there are to extend employment zones, action teams for jobs and JobCentre Plus to the Cynon Valley. [26872]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  An extension of the Action Team for Jobs initiative was announced in the 2001 Budget. This included a new Action Team in Rhondda-Cynon-Taff county borough, which started on 15 October 2001. The team works in the three most employment-deprived wards in the Cynon Valley constituency; Aberaman South, Mountain Ash West and Pen-y-waun.

  There are no plans at present to extend Employment Zones to Cynon Valley. We are currently fully evaluating the Zones before deciding how to take the initiative further. The full range of JobCentre help is available to the long-term unemployed in Cynon Valley. This includes new deal 25 Plus, which was extended and enhanced last April to help more long-term unemployed people get jobs and remain in them.

  JobCentre Plus is currently being delivered successfully in 56 pathfinder offices. The work-focused interview process is also operating in 39 further sites, including the Aberdare district office. JobCentre Plus will come into existence as a national organisation at the beginning of April 2002.

  Benefit and Pension Payments
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money has been saved by the social security budget in each of the last four years by the withholding of benefits for those who have been in hospital. [26808]

  Number of young people aged 16 or under living in households where an adult is in receipt of certain disability benefits, and percentage of these individuals living in households with below 60 per cent. of median income

  Percentage of young people aged 16 or under living with adults in receipt of benefits listed who are also in households with below 60 per cent. of median income

  Total number of young people aged under 16 living with adults in receipt of benefits listed

  Adult in Household in receipt of:

  Before Housing Costs

  After Housing Costs

  Incapacity Benefit

  44

  54

  340,000

  Disability Living Allowance

  25

  32

  430,000

  Notes: 1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The FRS does not include Northern Ireland, and 1999–2000 is the latest year for which data is available.
  1644W
  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: The information requested is in the tables:

  Total reduction in Benefits due to 6-52 weeks Hospital Downrating

  £ millions

  Benefit

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Incapacity Benefit

  5*

  5*

  6*

  5*

  Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA)

  3

  3

  3

  4

  Retirement Pension

  22

  24

  26

  28

  Total reduction in Benefits due to 52 week Hospital Downrating

  £ millions

  Benefit

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Incapacity Benefit

  8*

  8*

  8*

  9*

  SDA

  24

  23

  23

  21

  Retirement Pension

  33

  32

  30

  29

  Total reduction in Benefits due to withdrawal after 4 weeks

  £ millions

  Benefit

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Attendance Allowance

  46

  63

  76

  80

  Disability Living Allowance

  18

  23

  27

  32

  Invalid Care Allowance

  3

  3

  3

  3

  1. The information has been obtained from a number of administrative sources and a number of assumptions have been made, i.e. numbers marked * are taken from a small number of sample cases and are subject to a relatively high sampling error and should only be used as an indication of the current situation and it has been assumed that figures in a given quarter remain constant throughout the year.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest million.

  3. It is not possible to provide accurate total reductions for Income Support, Housing Benefit, or Council Tax Benefit.

  4. The figures are given in cash terms.

  Disability Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many young people aged 0 to 16 live in households in which an adult is in receipt of(a) incapacity benefit and (b) disability living allowance; and what percentage of these households have an income of less than 60 per cent. of the median household income. [33011]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Such information as is available is presented in the table:
  1645W
  2. Figures relating to the percentage of individuals living in households with below 60 per cent. of median income have been taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series which is derived from the FRS data set. These have been presented on both a Before and After Housing Costs basis to take into account variations in housing costs as is standard HBAI practice. No adjustment has been made to household disposable income as used in HBAI to take into account any additional costs that may be incurred due to the illness or disability in question.

  3. The estimates are sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using the multipurpose grossing factors that control for tenure type, Council Tax band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to both sampling error and variability in non-response. Numbers of people are rounded to the nearest 10,000 and percentages to the nearest whole percent.

  4. In this context, an adult has been defined as any individual aged 17 or over.

  5. Benefit receipt on the FRS is based on self-assessment and therefore may be subject to mis-reporting. In particular, caseload comparisons between FRS and DWP administrative data would suggest that the FRS under counts receipt of DLA and therefore the figure of 430,000 provided in the table should be treated with caution.

  6. Numbers in the two rows should not be added, as there will be some overlap between the two groups. For example, people in receipt of Incapacity Benefit may well receive in addition other benefits relating to their needs, including Disability Living Allowance Care component or Disability Living Allowance Mobility component depending on their care or mobility needs.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1999–2000.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent meetings he has had with the clearing banks on the universal bank; and what the outcome was of his discussions. [36056]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the British Bankers Association (BBA) recently. The BBA agreed to keep my right hon. Friend informed of developments.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions he has had with representatives of sub-post offices on the universal bank; and what items were discussed. [36058]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness has regular contact with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, and my officials have also had meetings with the NFSP.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of account holders that would be required to make the universal bank economically viable. [36051]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Our operating assumption is that there will be around 3 million Post Office Card Accounts.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what estimate he has made of the number of benefit recipients who would use accounts through the universal bank; and how that number has been calculated; [36052]

  (2) what his estimate is of the number of people receiving benefits who will opt to have those (a) paid into accounts with the post office card account and (b) paid into accounts with established clearing banks on the introduction of ACT. [36118]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  At the start of the main move to ACT in April 2003, there will be some 13 million benefit recipients paid by order book or giro. Our operating assumption is that about 3 million of these will open a post office card account. The vast majority of benefit recipients, most of whom have a bank account, are expected to use an existing bank or building society account or open a new account.
  1646W
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what sums have been allocated in his Department's budget for the costs of(a) setting up the universal bank and (b) implementing automated credit transfer of benefits. [36049]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Departmental Expenditure Limits for 2003/04 and subsequent years will be set in the 2002 spending review.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make it his policy that the automated credit transfer of benefits will not be introduced until such time as the universal bank is available in all sub-post offices; [36055]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the time that would be required to set up the universal bank in all sub-post offices; [36057]

  (3) on what date he estimates that the universal bank will be ready to begin operations; [36117]

  (4) in estimating the numbers who might use the universal bank what account he has taken of the effect on post offices in urban areas where there are existing banks should ACT be introduced before the establishment of the universal bank. [36364]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Post Office expects that the universal banking at post offices will be available from 2003, in line with the start of the main move to ACT.

  Employment Services
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase the amount of personal advice available to unemployed people. [37081]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The creation of Jobcentre Plus will bring together the former Benefits Agency and Employment Service to provide a stronger focus on work for people of working age. As part of that increased focus, more people, including lone parents and disabled people, will be given the opportunity of meeting a personal adviser to learn about the benefits of employment and the help available to find work.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 418W, on winter fuel

  1647W
  allowance, if the Department now has information about the reason why winter fuel allowance payments have been delayed for up to 28 days. [39771]

  Mr. McCartney
  The overwhelming majority of winter fuel payments are made automatically, based on details already held by this Department. These payments were issued on a rolling programme throughout November and early December 2001 to ensure that payments were received before Christmas.

  People who need to make a claim for winter 2001/02 have until 30 March 2002 to do so. Successful claims made prior to 24 September were paid at the same time as the automatic payments. Payments for claims received between 24 September and the March deadline are also made on a rolling basis, and our intention is to make all these payments by June. This payment process allows us to match claims in batches.

  This means that there will be some delay between the receipt of claims and making the payments.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if an assessment has been made of whether EMP reports have caused(a) ill and (b) disabled people to have benefits reduced. [36130]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Decisions on entitlement to benefit are made by Benefits Agency decision makers. Decision makers must take into account all the available evidence when reaching their decision. This evidence may include information from the claimant, a report from a GP, hospital consultant, or other health care professional, and a report based on an assessment by a specially trained Examining Medical Practitioner (EMP). No piece of evidence automatically takes precedence over another, and the benefit entitlement decision is never made on the basis of the EMP's report alone. If a decision maker considers an EMP's report not fit for purpose, the report is returned to SchlumbergerSema Medical Services as rework.

DEFENCE

  Overseas Military Personnel
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which overseas countries military personnel were trained in the United Kingdom in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001; and if he will indicate in each case how many personnel were trained. [39517]

  Mr. Ingram
  During 2000, a total of 3,504 overseas military personnel from 106 countries were trained at UK military establishments. In 2001, 3,731 military 1648W
  personnel were trained from 101 countries. A full breakdown of the numbers trained, by country, is as follows:

  Overseas military personnel trained in the UK during 2000 and 2001

  Country

  1 January to 31 December 2000

  1 January to31 December 2001

  Albania

  7

  15

  Algeria

  —

  2

  Antigua and Barbuda

  1

  —

  Argentina

  6

  13

  Australia

  84

  100

  Austria

  5

  14

  Azerbaijan

  1

  —

  Bahamas

  2

  2

  Bahrain

  29

  30

  Bangladesh

  2

  2

  Barbados

  2

  1

  Belgium

  82

  87

  Belize

  20

  25

  Bermuda

  14

  14

  Botswana

  5

  14

  Brazil

  20

  17

  Brunei

  152

  177

  Bulgaria

  5

  6

  Canada

  273

  322

  Chile

  4

  5

  China

  13

  32

  Croatia

  4

  10

  Czech Republic

  29

  27

  Denmark

  35

  27

  Ecuador

  1

  —

  Egypt

  6

  16

  El Salvador

  3

  1

  Estonia

  8

  6

  Fiji

  3

  2

  Finland

  6

  11

  France

  67

  59

  Gambia

  1

  1

  Georgia

  7

  5

  Germany

  115

  130

  Ghana

  3

  8

  Greece

  25

  49

  Guatemala

  5

  5

  Guyana

  2

  3

  Honduras

  1

  —

  Hong Kong

  7

  4

  Hungary

  17

  28

  India

  18

  15

  Ireland

  27

  56

  Israel

  43

  16

  Italy

  119

  154

  Jamaica

  22

  41

  Japan

  8

  9

  Jordan

  96

  67

  Kazakhstan

  —

  1

  Kenya

  5

  8

  Korea (South)

  9

  10

  Kuwait

  311

  307

  Latvia

  12

  14

  Lebanon

  5

  9

  Lithuania

  11

  8

  Luxembourg

  —

  1

  Macedonia

  8

  14

  Malawi

  5

  6

  Malaysia

  27

  22

  Maldives

  1

  —

  Malta

  6

  2

  Mauritius

  4

  —

  Moldova

  1

  2

  Morocco

  6

  6

  Mozambique

  —

  5

  Namibia

  1

  —

  Nepal

  14

  31

  Netherlands

  283

  253

  New Zealand

  44

  33

  Nicaragua

  1

  —

  1649W

  Overseas military personnel trained in the UK during 2000 and 2001

  Country

  1 January to 31 December 2000

  1 January to 31 December 2001

  Nigeria

  27

  28

  Norway

  247

  205

  Oman

  186

  178

  Pakistan

  36

  49

  Papua New Guinea

  1

  —

  Paraguay

  2

  2

  Philippines

  6

  10

  Poland

  28

  25

  Portugal

  33

  34

  Qatar

  53

  66

  Romania

  16

  19

  Russia

  5

  10

  Rwanda

  —

  2

  Saudi Arabia

  47

  63

  Senegal

  15

  17

  Seychelles

  1

  —

  Sierra Leone

  3

  22

  Singapore

  131

  113

  Slovak Republic

  16

  19

  Slovenia

  4

  8

  South Africa

  28

  19

  Spain

  17

  22

  Sri Lanka

  70

  7

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  1

  —

  St. Lucia

  1

  —

  St. Vincent

  1

  2

  Swaziland

  1

  1

  Sweden

  24

  27

  Switzerland

  4

  11

  Syria

  —

  1

  Tajikistan

  —

  1

  Tanzania

  6

  8

  Thailand

  29

  27

  Tonga

  1

  4

  Trinidad and Tobago

  2

  3

  Turkey

  50

  56

  Uganda

  2

  3

  Ukraine

  26

  39

  United Arab Emirates

  83

  95

  United States of America

  126

  163

  Uruguay

  8

  4

  Yemen

  2

  6

  Zimbabwe

  6

  2

  Total students

  3,504

  3,731

  Total countries

  106

  101

  Service Law
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Case of Morris v. the United Kingdom; and what plans he has to bring forward legislation to make changes to service law in response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. [39687]

  Mr. Ingram
  The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Morris v. the United Kingdom on 26 February. The court noted that the changes to the court martial system made by the Armed Forces Act 1996 have gone a long way to meeting the concerns expressed in the Findlay case. However, it found that there had been a violation of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which concerns the right to a fair hearing, as regards some aspects of Mr. Morris's trial by court martial in 1997.
  1650W
  The court was concerned about the potential for undue external influence over certain members of the court martial panel; and about the procedures for involving non-judicial authorities in the review of court martial findings and sentences. We are assessing the implications of the court's judgment for the future conduct of courts martial and whether any changes that may be necessary require the legislation to be amended. Army and Royal Air Force courts martial that are imminently scheduled are being postponed, but for the time being trials in the Royal Navy are continuing in view of the nature of the regulations in that service concerning the position of court martial members.

  I shall make an announcement as soon as our assessment of the implications of the judgment has been completed. However, we do not consider that the judgment fundamentally affects the court martial system, which we intend to retain as an effective and fair means of administering discipline and justice in our armed forces.

  Royal Navy (Pay Banding)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the Royal Navy does not impose a two tier system of high and low pay banding based on Pay 2000 JE for the Rating Corp; and if he will make a statement. [38289]

  Mr. Ingram
  A two tier system of high and low pay ranges was introduced for Royal Navy ratings (and also for soldiers and airmen) with effect from 1 April 2001 as part of Pay 2000, the new pay structure for the armed forces. Job Evaluation underpins the allocation of trades to one of the two pay ranges. Pay 2000 was devised in close collaboration with the single services and was the subject of a high profile and extensive communications programme throughout the armed forces.

  HMS Sheffield
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Sheffield will be withdrawn from service. [38951]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans HMS Sheffield will be withdrawn from service towards the end of this decade. In the shorter term she will be reduced to a low readiness state, commensurate with force levels endorsed within the Strategic Defence Review, from November 2002 until September 2004.

  HMS Exeter
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if HMS Exeter breached the Harmony guidelines following her deployments last year. [38945]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Exeter has not breached the Harmony guidelines. She has been deployed for a total of 12 months in the past three years and has spent 48 per cent. of her time in her base port of Portsmouth during the last two years. Harmony guidelines state that ships should spend a minimum of 40 per cent. of their time in their base port over a two-year period, and that total deployed time over a three-year period should not exceed 18 months.

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

Sex Discrimination (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
11.5 a.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975; to make provision with respect to discrimination concerning the provision of goods, facilities, services and access to governance by private member clubs; and to continue to permit wholly single-sex clubs and sporting events. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Faulkner of Worcester.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
Clause I [Meaning of "tobacco advertisement" and "tobacco product']:
Lord Skelrnersdale Lord Skelrnersdale moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new Clause—

"INTERPRETATION

(1) In this Act—

"appropriate Minister" means—

(a) in relation to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State, and

(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers.

"electronic means" means a service that is sent initially and received—at its destination by means of electronic equipment for the—processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and is entirely transmitted, conveyed and received by wire, by radio, by optical means or by other electromagnetic means,

"public" means the public generally, any section of the public or individually selected members of the public,

"purpose" includes one of a number of purposes, "tobacco advertisement" means an advertisement

(a) whose purpose is to promote a tobacco product, or

(b) whose effect is to do so.

"tobacco product" means a product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco and intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked or chewed.

(2) In this Act, references to publishing include any means of publishing and include, in particular, publishing by any electronic means, and references to distributing include any means of distributing and include, in particular, distributing by any electronic means, and distributing includes transmitting in electronic form, participating in doing so, and providing the means of transmission."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it falls to me to start proceedings today on the first amendment—a day which I hope will not last too long as we have had a full and lengthy innings on the Bill. In fact, I observe that tomorrow will be the three-month anniversary of the Second Reading. That is fairly dilatory in legislative terms. As we all know, normally a Bill is expected to take about six weeks to pass through this House.
On Second Reading I ventured to congratulate the Government on having a definitions clause at the very beginning of the Bill. I also said that I believed it was essential to amalgamate all references to the Internet and electronic communication into one part of the Bill, as opposed to the current drafting of scattering them willy-nilly throughout it. It was with those two thoughts in mind that I tabled Amendment No. 1.
On the first point, it struck me as more than a little confusing to have not one but two definitions clauses, one at the beginning and one at the end, especially as the current Clause 20 finds it necessary to refer back to Clause 1. At the very least, my amendment would save some words from going onto the statute book; namely, lines 30 and 31 on page 10 of the Bill. It is my contention that for the purpose of clear interpretation it is more appropriate to have the whole of the interpretation clause at the beginning of the Bill. Over the past decade or so there have, of course, been many precedents of which I shall cite just three: the Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Act 1991; the Charities Act 1992—which is rather different in that it is a long and complicated Act divided into parts and under which the first section in each part of the Act is an extensive interpretation section—and, more recently, as the Government are keen on their own Bills, surprise, surprise, the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2000. So, clearly, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with my approach.
Secondly, I believe that the interpretation clauses, wherever they are placed, should embody those meanings which are necessary for the clear comprehension of what follows in the Bill—any Bill. So far as this one is concerned, I do not propose that the interpretation clause should include meanings which are relevant only to the understanding and scope of one individual clause. Meanings which have relevance and application to only one clause are logically and properly, I believe, left in that individual clause. Thus, my amendment, for example, leaves the meaning of "specialist tobacconist", "a coupon" and "a sponsorship agreement" to the relevant Clauses 6, 9 and 10 respectively.
I have clearly not done a straight transposition. Although the Minister has driven me off my former intention of grouping all the Internet provisions together, I believe that in many cases we need common phraseology and, more importantly, the right form of words in the right place. I have, therefore, sought to expand the definition of "publishing" to make it much more comprehensive. Currently, Clause 20 explains that the term "publishing" includes any means of publishing, in particular, publishing by any electronic means, and gives the Internet as an example. As we discussed at great length in Committee, publishing is

1643
distinct from distributing. It is, therefore, somewhat surprising that the existing Clause 20 does not make it clear that distributing includes distributing by any electronic means.
Clause 2 only provides a clue. In subsection (3) of Clause 2 we find that distributing includes transmitting in electronic form, participating in doing so and providing the means of transmission. Thus, my new definition makes clear what is meant by reference to distributing a tobacco advertisement. The phraseology follows that used for publishing and draws on what is contained in Clause 2.
There are various consequential amendments which I hope I need not go into. For the moment I would say that I have taken the meaning used for "electronic means" in the new clause from EC directive 2000/31, the so-called "e-commerce directive" and the Commission's proposal for an amended proposal on certain legal aspects of electronic commerce in the internal market. I have done so to ensure that the meaning is consistent with other relevant legislation. The United Kingdom has still not transposed that directive into national law. Should it do so in terms that define "electronic means" any differently from those stated in the directive, the meaning in this new clause should be amended at that time. Of course, the famous Clause 7, the Henry VIII clause to which reference was made my noble friend Lord Lucas in Committee, would give the opportunity to do that.
I hope that I have said enough to cover the reasons for, and the content of, my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am genuinely impressed by the industry and application that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, brought to his attempt to order the Bill in his suggested way. I wish that my response could be slightly more positive.
As the noble Lord said, the amendment would bring together Clause 1, which defines "tobacco advertisement" and "tobacco product", and Clause 20, which provides an interpretation of what is meant by "appropriate Minister", "public", "purpose", "tobacco advertisement", "tobacco product" and "publishing". It also includes in subsection (2) the wording of Clause 2(3) relating to distribution. It further provides a new definition: of "electronic means". As the noble Lord said, he has drawn on the wording of the technical standards directive for "electronic means".
The definition of "electronic means" appears to have been imported, as suggested, from the technical standards directive. Under that directive, "by electronic means" is one of the four criteria that define an "information society service"; the others are "normally provided for remuneration", "at a distance" and "at the individual request of a recipient of a service". "Electronic means" is taken to include online entertainments offered on the Internet, including music on demand, video on demand and sports events on demand. It also includes services for accessing the Internet and the World Wide
1644
Web, e-mail, discussion fora and online telecommunications services such as videotelephony, videoconference and telephone and fax services.
While I appreciate the noble Lord's desire to clarify what is covered by the Bill, the Government believe that the amendment is not necessary. As we shall see when we look at its use in the context of the other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, it misses the central point that websites, almost uniquely, can be accessed by almost anyone at any time. Further, the Government believe that the definitions currently contained in Clauses I and 20 are appropriate. We therefore oppose the amendments and the proposed deletions from the clauses.
I turn to Amendment No. 4, which I also ask noble Lords to reject. It would mean that Clause 2(3) became part of the definition in Clause 1. Subsection (3) elaborates on what is meant by a distribution in subsection (2). As the Bill is drafted, later references to distributing and distribution refer back to Clause 2(3), and so the same effect is achieved by the current drafting. We therefore do not feel that there is added value in the amendment. On that basis we recommend that the House rejects it.
On Amendment No. 5, Clause 2(4) provides an exemption for tobacco advertisements on websites that are accessed in the UK if the person responsible for the website does not carry on business in the UK. However, any person distributing tobacco products within the UK who carries on business in the UK will be covered by the Bill. As I have already suggested in commenting on the noble Lord's proposed amendment to define "electronic means", we reject Amendment No. 5 because we feel that it misses the point of Clause 2(4). Websites, unlike almost any other form of electronic advertisement, are accessible beyond their intended target audience and across borders. For example, a French online advertiser wishing to advertise tobacco for sale only to Frenchmen cannot plausibly restrict access to his website to Frenchmen. Once on a website, it is there for all to see—and the viewers can. I hope, also read French. That is what is unique about websites and why the clause specifically addresses them. The need is simply not there for other "electronic means".
If the noble Lord's concern is to prevent the broader category of "information society services" from falling within the scope of the offence in Clause 2(1) if they are provided from overseas, I reassure him that that is precisely what the Government's implementation of the e-commerce directive will achieve. I understand that the DTI will be consulting publicly on draft regulations in the very near future.
I also ask the House to reject Amendment No. 20 because, as I have already said, the Government do not support the deletion of Clause 2(3). We believe that it and Amendment No. 24 are unnecessary.
When considering the considerable amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, we wondered whether there lay behind them an understandable and proper concern to try to ensure that the Bill was compatible with the e-commerce

1645
directive. To the extent that that is what lies behind the amendments, I shall place on the record a statement about how we intend to address the implementation of that directive.
Like other member states, the United Kingdom is required to incorporate the provisions of the e-commerce directive into UK law. It will do so by making regulations under the powers contained in the European Communities Act 1972. The DTI is implementing the directive generally. The Treasury is doing so in the specific area of financial services. Both departments will launch consultations on draft regulations in the very near future. By virtue of the European Communities Act, the implementing regulations may make any necessary changes to existing primary legislation to make it compatible with the directive. As the House would expect, the Government give the firm commitment that were there to be any inconsistency between the Act and the e-commerce directive, the Act will be brought into accordance with it.
11.15 a.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I observe—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is the noble Lord seeking to speak after the Minister? We are on Report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill and the promoter of the Bill has the right to speak after the Minister.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for allowing me to intervene on my own Bill. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for acknowledging that the Bill will have received a considerable amount of time and serious consideration in the course of its passage. We had a very full Committee stage, and I look forward to today as we have some serious amendments before us.
I also welcome the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, introduced his amendment. He clearly has considerable expertise in this area. But there is a substantive issue behind what may appear to be a drafting amendment. The key issue to be dealt with in this group of amendments concerns whether a website should be treated differently from any other electronic means of communication.
We heard the Minister say that he does not consider the amendments to be either necessary or helpful and that they risk pre-empting the outcome of the consultations on the e-commerce directive which will be held soon. I agree with the thrust of what he says.
I can see the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in relation to the amendments. They would treat websites as part of an information society service under the terms of the technical standards
1646
directive. However, I agree with the Minister that websites are a unique case. Unlike a fax, e-mail or other type of electronic transmission, it is nigh-on impossible to predict or control who has access to the information on a website. As a result, I consider that it is fair to treat websites as a special case and to regulate them accordingly. I believe that, as a matter of public policy, it should be possible and is desirable to treat advertisements on a website in the same way as one would if they were on a poster hoarding. The Bill, as drafted, allows us to do that. However, that would not be the case if the noble Lord's amendments were accepted.
I believe that it would be unwise to legislate here in haste on one e-commerce issue only to repent at leisure in a few months' time before we know the outcome of the forthcoming consultation on the e-commerce directive. I believe that, as drafted, the Bill allows the sensible regulation of advertising on websites. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and not to pursue those which are consequential on it.
The Minister's remarks about the way in which the Bill, if it were not consistent, would be brought into line with the e-commerce directive were extremely helpful. I very much hope that those assurances will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I assume that I am allowed to speak now. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—perhaps I should say particularly so—because he has covered points which I intend to raise under separate amendments as to whether the Bill should contain the word "website" in particular places or whether it should say "electronic communication". I believe that in many cases it should be the latter rather than the former, but we can go into that during debate on later amendments.
Secondly, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for clarifying the Government's position on the e-commerce directive. I recall that on 7th December the noble Lord said that,
"the Government's intention is to make the Bill, if it progresses, fully compliant with the European regulations, as previously indicated. Further details of that will be provided later".— [Official Report, 7/12/01; col. 11081.
From what the noble Lord has just said, I assume that those are the further details to which he then referred.
I was struck by a phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. In introducing my amendment I talked about the lethargy surrounding the Bill's progress. The noble Lord then promptly talked about legislating in haste. There must be a conflict of opinion here. That said, on reflection, it would have been easier in terms of the debate had I not pursued my thoughts in quite that way.
I may well find the need to return to the matter on Third Reading by seeking to amend the interpretation clause in the way that will be developed clearly during the course of today's discussions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"DEVELOPMENTS WITH REGARD TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS
(1) The Secretary of State may by order amend any provision of this Act if he considers it appropriate to do so in consequence of any significant scientific developments relating to tobacco products.
(2) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State shall publish his proposals and consult such persons or bodies as appear to him to be appropriate.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will have spotted that this is a Henry VIII clause. Like most of us, I do not like such clauses in principle. However, in Committee both the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, were adamant that a Henry VIII clause should remain in the Bill, to wit Clause 7. Therefore, the principle having been firmly established so far as concerns the Bill, it might as well be put to good use.
The fact is that, however successful government propaganda may be, millions of people will still want to smoke or take tobacco in some form. That being the case, it is surely desirable that they should take it in the least harmful form possible. That is certainly in the interests of manufacturers, who do not, after all, want to remain the nation's whipping boys.
But if the manufacturers are to go to the enormous expense of trying to develop, possibly by genetic modification or some other means, a tobacco which, while fully preserving flavour, contains significantly—I stress the word "significantly"—less tar and nicotine than even the lowest tar brands do at present, they must know that they can publicise it so as to recoup their costs. It must be in the best interests of the Government and of the community at large that they should be able to publicise such a development, thereby inducing people to switch away from more harmful brands.
Of course, that may never happen; the experiments may fail. But if they should be successful, the Government should have reserve powers in hand to permit the necessary publicity without having to wait for a slot for primary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has tabled an alternative amendment. I do not know which is more favoured by the Government and by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I believe that the safeguards
1648
contained in my proposal, which require there to be definite scientific evidence of potentially less harmful products on the market, are desirable. I also accept that the requirement that there should be an affirmative resolution to allow that to happen, as favoured by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is also desirable. Either way, I believe that this is a serious amendment which is not designed to weaken the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it comes as no surprise that my amendment is grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, because it is very similar, although mine is perhaps in slightly more legislative form than his. The Minister will doubtless want to comment on that.
I still believe, for two reasons, that it is appropriate to have a sunset clause in the Bill. If in five or six years' time it is discovered that cigarette smoking, or, rather, the consumption of tobacco, decreases rather than increases, as we all hope it will, then there is no point in continuing to have it on the statute book. However, as the Bill now stands, it would need primary legislation to remove it. That seems quite unnecessary.
But time moves on, and the tobacco companies are more than capable of producing new products. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, commented on my powers of imagination. Therefore, I have no hesitation in using them again. Perhaps noble Lords would imagine that it has become possible to so genetically modify the tobacco plant that it contains not nicotine but another drug—say, caffeine. Such a modified leaf could be ground up and converted into snuff, or otherwise sniffed. Were such a product to be invented, I imagine that it would be of little harm. In their compendium of measures to persuade people like me to give up cigarette smoking, the government of the day may want to encourage tobacco companies to promote it. They may even want to promote it themselves. Before any noble Lord remarks on that latter course, that may be stretching the imagination just a little too far.
The important point is that such a promotion would be illegal under the Bill, with the result that the Act, as it will assuredly become in a few months' or even a few days' time, would do more harm than good. Surely, noble Lords would not intend that to happen. My answer to this conundrum is to include either Amendment No. 2 or Amendment No. 3. It is up to the House to decide which, if either of the amendments, it prefers.
11.30 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I congratulate both noble Lords on their ingenuity in bringing forth these amendments that seek to replicate the intent in Clause 7, but relate it to scientific discoveries in relation to safe or safer tobacco products. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that it is true that we have been debating this Bill happily for a number of weeks now, but if he cares to

1649
join us in our forthcoming debates on the Bill dealing with NHS reform, I can promise him that we shall deal with that in rapid order.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I know that this is the Report stage, but I cannot forbear interrupting the Minister by saying, "Not if I have anything to do with it"!
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in that case I look forward to interesting discussions. There are two points to be made. First, these matters are of a different order. Clause 7 is in the Bill because we know that the pace of change in relation to electronic technology is very fast indeed. Even if tobacco smoking could be made much safer or absolutely safe, such products would not be known to be safe for many years because of the necessity of undertaking research through the lifetime of people using the safer products. These events are of a different scale and order.
I also argue that a safer tobacco product is qestionable. As noble Lords will know, there has been development of what have been promoted as safer brands: light, mild and low tar and other descriptors. The danger is that they give the appearance, but not the reality, of being less harmful. I believe that there are great dangers, particularly given the current state of knowledge, in promoting the use of so-called safer products. The tar and nicotine content of the tobacco in a light or a mild cigarette is frequently no lower, or may even be higher, than in a normal cigarette. Even if at some stage in the future the tobacco industry made claims that it had produced a safer or a safe cigarette, I believe that it would be many years before that could be proven effectively.
On that basis it appears to me that the Bill, as it currently stands, meets the circumstances of the times. Therefore, I do not recommend that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, accepts the amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I congratulate both noble Lords on their ingenuity. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, made a neat attempt to turn the tables in terms of producing his own Clause 7 which suited his purpose rather better and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has exercised his imagination with his amendment.
As both noble Lords have said, this issue boils down to what one should do if, at some point in the future, the tobacco industry somehow comes up with a new product or a version of an existing product that is not harmful to health. I shall resist the temptation to debate why on earth the tobacco industry would do that, when it continues to refuse to admit that the products that it already manufactures cause any diseases.
Today is the first time that I have seen a senior executive admit that, as Mr Martin Broughton has on the front page of The Times. What a notable occasion this is. We should all cheer, perhaps not three times, but certainly twice. That is a notable statement. But, in relation to senior executives in the tobacco industry, that is the exception rather than the rule. As your
1650
Lordships no doubt know, the Health Select Committee in another place has certainly had much to say on the way in which the tobacco industry has buried its head in the sand on this subject.
The argument of the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Skelmersdale, is that if tobacco is rendered harmless there is no continued justification for banning its advertising. I understand that argument, but I certainly do not agree with it for two principal reasons. First, even if such a product were to be invented tomorrow, there is no reason to believe that it would replace existing brands, or that there would even be a substantial demand for it, any more than the advent of alcohol-free beer had any substantial effect on the sales of alcoholic drinks. Instead, I imagine that we would see it branded similarly to existing cigarettes. We may see "Camel Harmless" or "Silk Cut Ultra-Low Death Rate" cigarettes being released on to an unsuspecting public. Advertisements for those brand variants would also advertise the harmful, and more widespread variant, in the same way that advertisements for Marlboro clothing are used to advertise Marlboro cigarettes. That would completely undermine the good that this legislation will do.
The Minister discussed whether there was such a thing as a safer cigarette. Products such as low tar cigarettes tend not to be any safer. People smoke them harder to get the same quantity of nicotine into the blood stream. I dare say that a number of smokers in this Chamber can testify to that fact. The tobacco industry denies that mild or light, and so on, are health claims. Those cigarettes are no safer. That argument holds true no matter how low the tar and nicotine content falls.
Secondly, I do not believe that this amendment should be accepted for the simple reason that the circumstances with which it is designed to deal will almost certainly never arise. Apart from increased levels of mechanisation, tobacco production has hardly changed in the past 50 years. The cigarettes smoked today have almost exactly the same constitution as they had decades ago. The pace of change in the tobacco industry is glacial. Forty years after the first Royal College of Physicians report into the link between smoking and disease, the manufacturers do not accept that their products cause disease. Only now, through the words of people like Martin Broughton, are they beginning to admit that nicotine may be addictive, albeit in the same way that exercise can be. There is simply no incentive to produce a harmless tobacco product, even if the technology existed to do so. That would be an admission that their existing products are harmful.
It is unnecessary to give Ministers this power, and I am certainly not a fan of giving Ministers more powers than they absolutely need to get a job done. The power proposed in the amendment, as the Minister pointed out, is very different from the power given under Clause 7 of the Bill. Given the incredibly fast pace of change in electronic communications, it is probable that this power will have to be used, even if we cannot predict in exactly what way. The power under Clause 7 is a necessary tool for the Minister to do the job that

1651
we are legislating for him to do. That is not the case with these amendments which, in all probability, will never be applicable. The technology that would make it relevant does not exist, and even if it did, there is no reason why the industry would choose to take advantage of it. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I point out to the noble Lord that we are on Report.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it would have been useful to know what the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, was going to say. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. His amendments dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s to a slightly greater extent than mine. He also fleshed out the skeleton of my argument most successfully.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is extremely pessimistic. He tried to draw a comparison with low alcohol beer. There are two reasons why that has not taken off in the way it should. First, it is not favourably taxed by the Government. If the Government really want to push low alcohol beer they should tax it at a much more favourable rate than strong beer. Secondly, they have not yet succeeded in making it taste as good as the higher strength stuff, and the same goes for wine. It may happen in the future. It may be possible to make extremely low tar and low nicotine tobacco taste as good as the higher strength stuff.
The Minister, too, was pessimistic. The point is that, were one of these amendments to be accepted, there would be no requirement on a Minister to make use of the powers. They would be reserve powers. However, in the absence of any support from other quarters of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Prohibition of tobacco advertising]: [Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Advertising: exclusions]:
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved Amendment No. 5A:
Page 2, line 13, leave out from "made" to end of line 15 and insert "in the course of a business which is part of the tobacco trade, and for the purposes of that trade, and directed solely at persons who—

(i) are engaged in, or employed by, a business which is also part of that trade, and

(ii) fall within subsection (1A), in their capacity as such persons,"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5A, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8A and 38.
The purpose of all three amendments is to ensure that loopholes are not created in terms of advertising exclusions in the case of Amendments Nos. 5A and 8A, or of free distributions to the trade which are covered by Amendment No. 38.
Under Clause 4(1)(a) it is not an offence to produce a tobacco advertisement,
"if it is, or is contained in, a communication made for the purposes of the tobacco trade and directed solely at persons engaged in any capacity in that trade (even if they are also engaged in another trade)".
The first two amendments narrow the exemption in Clause 4(1)(a) and their purpose is to specify what exactly is meant when we talk about "persons engaged in the trade", for the term "trade" is not defined.
As the clause is currently drafted, that could mean anyone who is selling cigarettes anywhere. It could be a senior buyer for Sainsbury's or the person in the tobacco kiosk at Sainsbury's who only works there one day a month or who may be working on tobacco products one week but on the cheese counter the next. I am sure it was never the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to include those sorts of people as part of the tobacco trade.
I accept that tobacco companies will wish to send materials to those who have a substantial involvement in the tobacco trade. But it is not acceptable for them to be able to bombard those who would not consider themselves to be part of the tobacco trade but would, for example, think of themselves as general retail sellers.
We need to draw a distinction between, for example, the specialist tobacconist and the part-time worker in the supermarket. Numbers working in the retail sector are increasing and many of those who work in supermarkets are young people, so to allow tobacco companies this exemption would leave them with a huge loophole. And we know from 50 years' experience how tobacco companies behave. They exploit even the smallest opportunity to target the young. I have a cutting from Marketing Magazine, dated as recently as 24th January, which says,
"Some of the world's biggest tobacco companies are taking legal advice in an attempt to exploit potential loopholes in international efforts to restrict cigarette advertising and sponsorship. Tobacco industry sources say manufacturers are analysing proposed legislation around the world to see how they can delay its implementation or circumvent its provisions by running alternative promotional activity".
So there needs to be a line drawn between those who obviously need to receive communications from the tobacco companies and those for whom it is not a necessary part of their job. My amendment distinguishes between those who are responsible for taking decisions on behalf of the business about the purchase of tobacco products—the buyers and those above them in the management chain—and those who would not describe themselves as being in the tobacco trade at all, and quite clearly are not, but might find themselves being so regarded by the tobacco companies.
Amendment No. 38, which is grouped with the first two, seeks to narrow the exemption in Clause 9(3) in a similar way to the way in which I have sought to clarify

1653
Clause 4( 1)(a). Under Clause 9(3), those who give away a product or a coupon for the purposes of the tobacco trade to persons engaged in any capacity in that trade (even if they are also engaged in another trade) are exempt from the provisions of the Bill. The purpose of this clause is to ban any free distribution whose purpose or effect is to promote a tobacco product. The exemption has been provided so as to ensure that tobacco companies who, in the course of normal business, wish to market their products are able to do so.
There is, however, a danger in the current drafting of the Bill that tobacco companies could use that exemption to promote tobacco products through free distributions or other enticements to anyone involved in selling tobacco products. I do not dispute that promoting products is a bona fide activity. But we need to make clear how far we want that to reach and the arguments which apply to advertising communications apply equally here. That is why I propose that we amend Clause 9 to make the exemption specific to those who, in the course of their business, are responsible for making purchases of tobacco products and their managers. I beg to move.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I appreciate the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, in connection with this amendment. In previous stages of the Bill we did not debate what is meant by "people engaged in the trade".
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will repeat his oft-used phrase, "It has its natural meaning". Its natural meaning, to me, means that a person working in a shop or supermarket is not engaged in the tobacco trade. It is quite right that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, should seek to make that absolutely clear, which he does in these amendments. I shall be extremely interested to hear what both the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the Minister say about this group of amendments, which I applaud.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, with apologies to the noble Lord. Lord Faulkner, I intervene to ask guidance from the House, having been "barred"—if I can put it that way—from speaking on the previous amendment.
As I understand it, anyone who is not a proposer of an amendment, is not the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, whose Bill it is, and is not a Minister, will need to intervene between the comments of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Either that or he has to intervene before the Minister speaks. If that is so, then it is impossible to make any comment, other than as the proposer of the amendment, on what either the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said. I find that curious. But if those are the rules of the House then I shall abide by them. I should like guidance on that point.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. Standing Orders say that only the mover of an amendment or the Peer in charge of the Bill speaks after the Minister on Report,
1654
except for short questions of elucidation to the Minister or, where the Minister speaks early to assist the House, in debate. Standing Orders also go on to say that arguments fully deployed in a Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that is most helpful.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would doubtless say what I want to say rather better, or perhaps not.
I quite agree with what is being said. We have a forum coming up on this point, which is a review of the procedures of this House. If we are going to deal with Bills much more in the Moses Room then we need a Report stage where we can debate things and make comments when we know what the Minister thinks about what is being said. I find it to be a real problem with Bills. On my amendments I shall speak at length, perhaps half an hour, whereas if I were able to ask the Minister a question I might be able to take half a minute. It is a time-consuming process and I quite understand my noble friend's frustration.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was not going to comment on that but on the amendment, which may fill people with great horror. However, 1 must say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that, as someone devoted to this House, I am a firm believer in sticking both to our precise rules and to our conventions. In particular. I draw the noble Lord's attention to remarks in the Companion regarding the length of speeches. But his approach to the House is up to him.
I support my noble friend Lord Faulkner and, being an extremely naive person, thank him for one remark that he made. I have been approaching the Bill purely at its level; in other words, taking it seriously. But my noble friend reminded us that the people that we are dealing with—I hold no one in this country in lower esteem than the people in the tobacco industry and those who associate with them, as noble Lords are aware will seek to undermine everything that we seek to do here. I hope that that colours all noble Lords' contributions to the amendments. Noble Lords should ask themselves in all cases, "Should we be absolutely certain that the one thing that we do not do is give them any opportunity to undermine what we are seeking to achieve in the Bill?" So I particularly want to thank my noble friend for introducing that thought under the heading of this amendment. But I must say that I think that it applies to a great many of the other amendments to the Bill.
I take it for granted that we are bona fide people. I wish that the people out there for whom we are legislating were equally so.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, my Amendment No. 40 has been grouped with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. I shall therefore speak to it now, although it relates to a different issue from the ones that he raised.

1655
I would not have tabled the amendment were it not for my concern about remarks made during consideration of the Bill regarding private hospitality. I really cannot believe that it is being suggested that it would be an offence for a tobacco supplier to offer his guests cigarettes or cigars after a meal but it would not an offence if the offer was made by a drinks company. The implication would be that the tobacco supplier for the purpose or effect by so doing was promoting a product. That is ridiculous because we are talking about hospitality on a private occasion. None the less, from what was said in debate in Committee and in another place in the previous Parliament it seems that that is what is intended by the supporters of the Bill.
I should like to suggest that we must not forget that the tobacco industry is an industry going about its legal and lawful business, and, incidentally, generating in excess of £7 billion per annum to the Exchequer. It would be extraordinary for it to be discriminated against in this way. Hence I make no apology for this amendment. It would not be called for if that was not the opinion of the promoter of the Bill.
In Committee, the principal discussion on the offering of tobacco products at private hospitality occasions took place in the context of Clause 10—sponsorship agreements. I believe that it would be more properly dealt with under Clause 9; hence the amendment in my name. I hope that by speaking to the amendment I shall receive an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that it is not necessary because an offence would not be committed in the circumstances I have described. If he is able to give that assurance it will surely be proof that the amendment is fully justified.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that the tobacco companies would do anything to undermine the Bill. In fact the position is, whether that be true or not, that the Bill undermines itself if it is drawn up in a manner which is not proportionate to the object—to protect public health—or if it is in restraint of trade, as contrary to the European treaty. So that, far from looking at it in the way in which, with respect, the noble Lord was looking at it, I merely intervene—as a result certainly of the International Transport case in the Court of Appeal, judgment of which was delivered on 26th of last month—to point out that there is a strongly arguable case on either score if the Bill undermines itself on either of those accounts. One must look at the Bill very carefully to try to ensure that it is not disproportionate.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool. I spoke on this issue in Committee, so I heartily support the amendment. It is quite a ridiculous state of affairs that one cannot do in one tent what is being done quite legally next door merely because one happens to be a tobacco company.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is quite right in his
1656
comments that the terms of the Bill need to be proportionate. We shall in due course come on to matters that the noble Lord addresses in a later amendment.
Having listened to my noble friend Lord Faulkner, I believe that he helps the Bill to be more proportionate by being much more specific as to what is meant by the term "the tobacco trade". It is worth stating that the purpose of Clause 4—and indeed of Clause 9—is to ensure that we get the right balance; that legitimate business is allowed to continue, but that the promotion and advertising of tobacco products is restricted. In that context, the wording put forward by my noble friend allows us to get that balance more nearly right. Under the proposed new wording it would still, for instance, be possible for trade magazines to be distributed to targeted individuals—namely, those responsible for making decisions on purchasing tobacco products as well as their managers but it would ensure that trade magazines do not reach those who, say, work in supermarket kiosks and so on.
The same point arises in Clause 9. Its purpose is to ensure that legitimate business is allowed to continue, but that the promotion and advertising of tobacco products is restricted. From the Government's point of view, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to be sympathetic to the amendments tabled by my noble friend.
I turn to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool. I agree with him that it is perhaps somewhat surprising that the amendment has been grouped in this way as it relates to a rather different issue. But I hope that I can reassure the noble Earl on the matter. Clause 9(3) covers the giving away of products and coupons to the trade. We are at the moment discussing the amendment of my noble friend Lord Faulkner to narrow this exemption to what he considers to be acceptable. When we are considering free distribution, we need to be clear that we are looking at this on the basis of whether or not it has the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product.
I do not consider that the giving away of cigarettes or cigars at the end of a meal necessarily constitutes an act whose purpose or effect is to promote a tobacco product. It really depends on how and why it was done. As the Minister for Public Health said in the other place during debates on the earlier Bill:
"The hon. Member … referred to the handing out of cigars at the end of a meal or as part of an entertainment. We want to stop the giving away of products or coupons for the purpose of promoting a tobacco product. We want to stop free gifts being handed out for the purpose of promoting tobacco products and encouraging people to buy them. Let us suppose that such a strategy includes making a big fuss about a particular cigar or cigarette; mention is made of how wonderful they are and details are given about where such products can be obtained … That is a promotion strategy. However, if cigars are handed out at the end of a meal to those who want to smoke them, that process is not about the promotion or sale of tobacco products".—[Official Report. Commons Standing Committee A, 6/2/01; col. 107.]
I hope that has made the Government's position clear to the noble Earl; I think that that meets his concerns.

1657
Noon.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was right to remind us that of course we need to consider the proportionality of the Bill—whether it is proportional in achieving its aims. We have been conscious of the arguments in Committee, but we need to remind ourselves of the Bill's purpose. Its purpose is to save lives lost through young people, in particular, taking up smoking. The terms of the Bill are proportionate; that will become clear during today's proceedings.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, may be surprised to hear that I agree with him that on occasion it is appropriate to go beyond simply saying that: the natural meaning of a word in a Bill is how it should be interpreted. On occasion, when it serves the purpose of the Bill, we should define terms more closely. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has done us a service by tabling the amendments.
The issue entirely concerns determining who is a genuine, bona fide member of the tobacco trade and who is not. At one end of the scale is someone who briefly worked for a supermarket chain selling cigarettes. I doubt that many noble Lords would class such a person as being in the tobacco trade. At the other end is the chief executive of, let us say, British American Tobacco, who is definitely in the trade. In between is a huge grey area that it is necessary to define if we are to give special privileges to people who are part of the trade. The point of giving a trade exemption in the Bill is that advertising to the trade is intended to influence shopkeepers over which products to sell, not which to smoke. Why, then, should everyone who works in a supermarket be targeted, when 99 per cent of them have no control over the products bought by the store?
That is why I urged noble Lords to support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. The amendments get the definition pretty much right. They would eliminate someone with a Saturday job in Tesco, but not, for example, Tesco's buyer of cigarettes or boss. I therefore agree with both the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the Minister that the amendments should be accepted. Not to do so risks leaving a large loophole, potentially leaving a large proportion of the population—more or less everyone who works in the supermarket sector—free to be targeted by the tobacco industry in its advertising supposedly aimed at the tobacco trade.
Turning to Amendment No. 40, I must confess that I have had cause to reflect since Committee entirely as a result of the amendments tabled then by the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool. The key issue is whether tobacco companies can distribute their products—or those of their competitors— to clients, members of staff or whoever, if they are doing so as part of some form of corporate hospitality.
Having carefully considered the Bill's provisions, I must agree that, for example, an Imperial Tobacco box at Wimbledon does not constitute a sponsorship agreement under the terms of the Bill. It is a different sort of commercial transaction. Imperial Tobacco
1658
would buy the use of a tent or box from the organisers of the event. That is different from sponsoring an event yourself. In addition, if the box is in the corporate name of the manufacturer—Imperial or Gallaher, for example—rather than the brand name of cigarettes, it cannot be said that the intention or effect of the commercial transaction is to promote a tobacco product. Rather, it is likely to be in order to further contacts with suppliers, clients or policy-makers, such as ourselves. Such activity is not intended to he caught by the Bill, and I do not believe that it will.
The difficulty comes if, in the course of that event, tobacco products are distributed free—for example, by the passing round of cigars at the end of a meal. Under Clause 9, it may appear at first glance that such distributions are prohibited. However, generally, as the Minister made clear, the purpose of such distribution of cigars is not to promote a product. Rather, they are provided for the same reason as are the rest of the evening's events: to try to influence opinion, reward successful staff, and so on. As such, I am confident that such activity is not covered by the Bill.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am most grateful to the sponsor of the Bill for agreeing to accept my amendments, and for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Penton.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale: moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 17, leave out "particular"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing the amendment I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that I am never surprised when he agrees with me; I am surprised only when he does not. The noble Lord and Ministers both here and in another place have repeatedly said that they have no intention of making it illegal to sell tobacco and tobacco products and have no desire to put anyone out of business. Unfortunately, by one provision of the Bill, I am sure that they will.
I have declared my interest in the mail order trade many times before. Mail order companies flourish because they send out catalogues describing their wares—what they are, how to order them and how much they cost. Such catalogues are sent to all recent customers and naturally generate a certain amount of business. As noble Lords will know, one needs a certain critical mass to succeed in business. It was the lack of that that put so many e-commerce businesses out of business. No mail order business can survive simply by relying on customers making contact with the trader. The trader needs to be able to make contact with his customers and to be able to use material promoting his goods or services in general terms, not at their particular request each and every time that they want a catalogue or product.
In the case of tobacco products, a code for such communication currently applies. In order to he able to hear from the supplier, the individual has formally

1659
to register the fact that he wishes to hear from the supplier and provide his personal details, such as name, address, age and status as an existing smoker. There is no doubt that Clause 4(1)(b) constitutes a severe restriction on freedom of expression and freedom to receive and impart information. Pace my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, it is notable that those are rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Under the present code for communication with smokers, every person, having registered their details as I described, is free to change his mind and have his name removed from any database. That right is also provided under the Data Protection Act 1990. The opinion survey that the government have previously cited is not proof of proportionality for the restriction of freedoms that Clause 4(1)(b) imposes. Like me, the Direct Mail Association, with which I have been in contact, approves of the general purpose of the Bill, but it tells me that that paragraph amounts to an excessive and disproportionate restriction of the individual's right to respect for his correspondence.
There is a way out of that conundrum and the amendment is a probing amendment, rather than one that I intend to press to a Division. Ministers have the opportunity to make the mail order code to which I have referred a statutory provision, which would sort out the problem once and for all. With that thought in mind, I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, this is a debate about reasonableness and proportionality that will be familiar to those of us who debated an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, in Committee. The amendment refers to Clause 4(1)(b), which sets out an exception to the general prohibition of advertising. That exception is made because it was thought unreasonable not to allow a person who had requested an advertisement or information about cigarette products to receive it. Although it may be surprising, the Bill allows that to take place. It does not, however, allow the repetitious use of that request into the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is right to say that it is a restriction. One could—but will not—debate whether it is severe. The Government's belief that it is a necessary restriction goes back to debates and discussions we have had during the rather lengthy passage of the Bill. It is necessary because, in the nature of their commercial transactions, businesses, if inhibited in one way from promoting their product, will naturally be inclined to seek every other possible means of doing so. They would be vigorous in using direct mail shots were they not able to do normal commercial advertising. It is necessary, if the purpose of the Bill is to be achieved, that that is inhibited in the reasonable way set out by the Bill.
This product makes people ill and shortens life for a large number of people who consume it. It is addictive and hard to give up. It is inevitable, if the amendment were to be made, that cigarette companies would, in the nature of their business, work hard to use direct
1660
mailing in a way that we have not seen before to try to encourage people to take up smoking or continue to smoke. For those reasons, the Government believe that we should not agree to the amendment.
For the light amusement of the House, I draw Members' attention to a report in The Times today. The chairman of British American Tobacco is on record as saying that people are better off avoiding tobacco. He goes on—generously, I think, if he is reported correctly—to say:
"I think [politicians] have a perfect right to try to control the level of smoking, from a health ministry kind of approach".
It is not particularly humane, but it is of some light amusement for us to get support from that quarter.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am afraid that, on this occasion, I shall break my habit—not quite of a lifetime—and disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, despite his extraordinary optimism. I must ask the House to reject the amendment. I appreciate the noble Lord's motives for proposing the amendment and his references to the mail order code. No doubt, there are all sorts of voluntary codes that might be brought into effect. However, the amendment risks leading, unexpectedly, to truly awful consequences for the Bill.
With the amendment, we are into coach-and-horses territory, and they are galloping away at this moment. The amendment would make it possible for a tobacco company to create or buy a database and continue to operate direct mail schemes as if the Bill had never come into force. If a smoker or non-smoker had, at any time in their life, requested any information about tobacco products, they could be inundated with direct mail from tobacco companies. That is far from the intention of the exception. The intention is too ensure that, if a customer requested information from a tobacco company—about the additives used in their products, for example he or she would get a response. That is the aim of the subsection; it is not to give blanket exemption to direct mail activities.
We have heard on several occasions that advertising bans work to drive down consumption only if they are comprehensive. The amendment would destroy any hope of the legislation being comprehensive. I urge the noble Lord, in the strongest terms, to withdraw it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, says that it is a restriction and that it is intended to be. Equally, he and other Ministers have said that it is not anyone's intention to put people out of business. There is an obvious conflict there. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, says that the amendment would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. It is not intended so to do. The amendment would ensure that legitimate forms of trade could continue. I shall certainly look for another way of achieving that object.
If tobacco companies were to set up their own mail order shop—for want of a better word—and advertise their catalogue, it would be illegal under the Bill. So there is not quite the danger that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to. I did not intend the debate

1661
on the amendment to be particularly vigorous; it is an inquiring amendment. I have inquired, and I shall study the results of my inquiry. It would not surprise me if I felt the need to come back next week. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Luke Lord Luke: moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, leave out line 20 and insert
"of which the total number of publications distributed in the United Kingdom (or any part of it) is less than the total number of publications distributed outside the United Kingdom,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must first state my interest. I enjoy very much the odd cigar.
In Committee, the Minister said that it was not the Government's intent to hinder the importation of foreign publications that carried tobacco advertisements so long as their principal market was outside the United Kingdom. Later, in response to a question from my noble friend Lord Howe, he said that he had not provided a specific definition of "principal market" because it would vary according to each circumstance.
He quoted the example of a publication with 40 per cent of its sales in the United Kingdom and the remaining 60 per cent spread between half a dozen other countries, suggesting that the UK might well be said to be the principal market, even though registering considerably less than half of the total sales. The Minister did not, however, draw any conclusions, not wishing, I believe, to define terms too tightly, thereby risking creating loopholes that could be exploited so that we should not be able to bring to book the perpetrators of any offence.
If I have it right, that is surprising. How will overseas publishers be able to determine whether any of their publications containing tobacco advertisements may be distributed in the UK? Is the Minister suggesting that they should simply wait until they are accused of committing an offence? In that case, it would be for the courts to decide. Is that an acceptable scenario? It is not, and it may also be against the spirit of the World Trade Organisation. The Minister should either accept the amendment or, together with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, come forward with an alternative that provides the essential element of certainty for foreign publishers and, of course, the distributors of their publications in this country.
It is for Parliament to define criminal offences and the actions that may lead up to them. The question of whether a publication has the UK as its principal market should not be left for pragmatic interpretation at the time, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said in Committee. That is neither proportionate nor balanced. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I feel terribly guilty. This is the first time 1 have had the chance to appear in person on the Bill, such are the logistic problems of living: in Scotland and parts of the Bill being taken on Friday.
1662
Many of your Lordships know that I think that tobacco smoking is the most revolting habit there is, albeit that I indulge myself.
I support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Luke, said, the fundamental basis of the amendment is that whether a publication has the UK as its principal market should not be a matter left, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said in Committee, for pragmatic interpretation at the time.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I rise to ask for clarification of the word "publication" as it is used in the amendment. Surely it would have been better to refer to "copies of issues" of a publication, because the word "publication" is far too wide a term.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, even though the amendment is well meant, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will not accept it. If I was in the business of producing such a magazine, I would simply take a sufficient number of copies and leave them in a Paris railway station. By doing that I would have set aside the conditions of the amendment. The way that the provision is worded at the moment is pretty much perfect.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like to comment briefly before the principal Opposition spokesman speaks on this matter. On the face of it. it never occurred to me that this could be a problem. When I first saw the amendment I thought about all the different publications that I read and I could not rind a practical example of which I have any experience. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Luke, has in mind a particular journal or publication to which we would all be extremely sensitive that could run foul of the Bill as it stands.
I have racked my brains to think of a relevant example, although I read only posh, intellectual stuff. None the less, I cannot think of a single case that could possibly arise in connection with the Bill.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the long and the short of the matter is that we simply do not know what the phrase means. I think that we do have a right to know exactly what it means.
Whenever it is suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that a term used in the Bill should be defined, he has a habit of resisting such suggestions on the grounds that it would risk creating legal loopholes. I would reply to that by saying that I do not wish to create legal loopholes in the Bill any more than does the noble Lord, but in this case, surely he has presented us with a false dichotomy.
There are only two possible meanings of the phrase, "principal market". The first is the meaning proposed in the amendment while the other is to say that a principal market is the largest single slice of a total market, even if that slice amounts to less than 50 per cent. If the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wish to guard against both possibilities then why cannot the Bill do just that? As

1663
my noble friend pointed out, it really will not do simply to say that it is a matter of pragmatic interpretation. Where does that statement leave magazine and newspaper publishers who want to understand exactly what the law is?
The Minister said that he did not think that the foreign owners of publications would be put off from allowing their publications into the UK simply because there is no rigid definition. While some foreign distributors might not be put off, I am not sure how many would be comfortable about taking a chance with regard to whether they were operating within the boundaries of UK law. For that reason, I applaud the spirit of my noble friend's amendment because I believe that we are now due for some clarification on this matter.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this amendment, but I am prompted to do so by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who told the House that he reads only intellectual publications. He will be able to confirm, therefore, my supposition that the Economist sells rather more copies in the United States than it does in this country. I do not suppose that it contains any tobacco advertisements, but I wonder how that publication would be treated, both under the terms of the amendment before us and by the Bill as it stands?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. It provides a means of clarifying the nature of a criminal offence. Surely there cannot be much objection to that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been an interesting discussion. I shall start my response by saying that I believe that the Bill as currently drafted is a sensible provision which has been designed so that the importation of foreign publications will not be hindered, even though they may carry tobacco advertisements—so long as their principal market is outside the United Kingdom.
I suspect that the amendment before us is somewhat technically deficient since it could be taken to refer to the number of publications produced by a single publisher, rather than what I believe is intended, which is the number of copies of a single publication; a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. However, I accept that it is still in the nature of a probing amendment.
The essential point here is that we do not want to inhibit the importation of foreign publications. It is perfectly understandable why the noble Lord, Lord Luke, wants to see as tight a definition as possible. But, as ever when we debate such matters, the problem always arises that the tighter the definition, the more that is excluded and the greater is the risk of loopholes and inconsistencies. As a result, the more likely it is that the provision will not be able to meet all the possible circumstances.
1664
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has often expressed a fondness for lists in legislation, but I am hoping that on this occasion he will not be tempted down that route. Notwithstanding the fears raised by a number of noble Lords, I think that in the vast majority of cases, the principal market will be pretty clear and that trading standards officers will, as ever, take a common-sense approach to these matters. It is always possible to point out potential anomalies, but I believe that that serves only to reinforce the strength of the current wording, which seeks to strike a sensible balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, referred to comments that I made in Committee. I agree that it is helpful to look at these matters on a case-by-case basis. I also agree that if one were looking at a situation where there were two markets, in which one had a 65 per cent share while the other had a 35 per cent share, then the noble Lord's amendment would have some merit. However, what is the position with regard to a magazine which has four markets, the UK share of which is around 40 per cent while the other three countries have 25 per cent, 25 per cent and 10 per cent respectively? This example was cited when we debate the matter in Committee. In that case it would be reasonable to say that the UK is the principal market as it has the highest individual market share. But then it would not have passed the test raised by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer.
I believe that, within the general intent not to inhibit the importation of foreign publications, the current wording probably provides a sensible balance, with trading standards officers themselves expected to take a common-sense approach, and ultimately allowing the courts to decide on the basis of the evidence before them.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Luke, together with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for putting forward the amendment. It continues some of the discussions that we held in Committee.
The issue of the principal market for a publication is important and is not a matter that easily can be captured in a few words in statute. In my view, it is best that this should be decided on a case-by-case basis. The reason for that is, as the Minister has just pointed out, that it would depend substantially on the circumstances of each case. A uniform definition will not lead to sensible outcomes in every case.
For example, under the definition proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, a magazine which sells 49 per cent of its copies in the UK while the other 51 per cent is spread through another 100 countries would not be deemed to have the UK as its principal market. That strikes me as being rather odd. In such a—admittedly hypothetical—case, it seems quite clear that the principal market is, in fact, the United Kingdom. We could avoid the anomaly by phrasing the definition in a slightly different way, perhaps by altering the phrasing of the definition or by describing the

1665
principal market as the country in which the largest number of copies are sold. Having done that, however, there could well be other ways in which a magazine could have a principal market that might escape. I have a feeling that it would throw up yet more problems.
In essence, I feel that to try to define the term too closely risks creating unnecessary loopholes which will be exploited. Conversely, I believe that by allowing the phrase to bear its natural meaning, we will avoid the problems that I have set out. In all the examples which have been cited by noble Lords, both today and in Committee, I see no problem in determining the principal market according to common sense.
In Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the case of Hello! magazine. While it is produced by a Spanish publisher, there is a UK edition which is produced in the UK and written in English, of which the overwhelming majority of copies are sold in the UK. It features interviews with UK celebrities and aristocracy who are not newsworthy in any other country and it carries advertising for brands which are available only in the UK. Its principal market is the UK.
On the other hand, the Spanish version of the magazine, called Hola! and not Hello!, does not have its principal market in the UK. The two editions already carry different advertising, so having to remove tobacco advertising from one edition and not the other will cause no problems.
I believe that to be the case with the Economist. The US edition is separate from the UK and European editions. I do not believe that advertisements for our major companies and banks are carried in the US edition of the Economist.
To further emphasise this point, my information is that no publication produced in the EU has more than 5 per cent of its circulation outside its country of origin. It is strange but true. Those are the facts. The problems described by noble Lords who support the amendment will not arise in practice.
However, substantial problems are likely to arise out of trying to over-define something which bears a sensible, natural meaning. It is likely that we will inadvertently create a loophole—no matter how hard we try not to—and it is for that reason that I oppose the amendment.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. I did not anticipate that it would provoke such an interesting debate. I do not altogether agree with either the Minister's answer or that of the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones. However, at this moment, I have no option but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved Amendment No. 8A:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
"( I A) A person falls within this subsection if—

(a) he is responsible for making decisions on behalf of the business referred to in subsection (I)(a)(i) about the purchase of tobacco products which are to be sold in the course of that business,

(b) he occupies a position in the management structure of the business in question which is equivalent in seniority to, or of greater seniority than, that of any such person, or

(c) he is the person who, or is a member of the board of directors or other body of persons (however described) which, is responsible for the conduct of the business in question."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 24, leave out "or on a website"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, given the speed at which we are progressing, it may he helpful to the House if I amalgamate Amendments Nos. 9. 10. I I and 35 unless there is any objection.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, good. In that case. I shall. The first amendment is a good old-fashioned opposition amendment to leave out "may" and insert "shall". I do not need to say very much about it except to express the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—or perhaps, on this occasion, more appropriately the Minister in his understanding of the Bill really does intend to make regulations. If he does not make regulations as mentioned in Clause 4(2), offences will be committed by any advertising for tobacco products in places where tobacco products are offered for sale. We know very well that that is not the Government's intention.
My understanding from what was said in Committee is that the Government do not plan rejection of current advertising for and displays of tobacco products at points of sale. None the less in order to legitimise that advertising, they will have to make regulations. It is most important that those regulations provide for the meaning of "place", and hence the replacement of "may" with "shall".
It is also important that the meaning of "place" embraces places relevant to publication by electronic means—not only websites, which I shall come to in a minute, but also, as I have said before, mail order catalogues. I took great note of what was said on my previous amendment on the subject of mail order catalogues, but I still believe that a reputable business operating by mail order should continue to be allowed to exist.
Of course these other places are quite separate and distinct from such places as the point of sale in a retail outlet. I do not even claim that "place" is the most appropriate word. I am looking hard at the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, because I am sure he

1667
would use something like the word "generic" to embrace all these relevant places. However, "place" is the term that he has used in his Bill.
Given the good temper that we have had so far today, the noble Lord may not find my amendments to be perfect in every respect but, if he does not, I trust that he will be prepared to come forward with amendments such as these on Third Reading.
I said that I would amalgamate Amendments Nos. 11 and 35 with this amendment, and another point occurs to me in regard to those two amendments. Where the Bill refers to "websites", it does not always mean "websites"—or I do not think it ought to mean "websites", let me put it like that.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lady O'Cathain is no longer in her place because she shares with me an interest in the subject of the mail. Indeed, she recently introduced in your Lordships' House a debate on the subject of Consignia, to which many noble Lords contributed. I reminded her during my speech in that debate that one of her pet hates is junk mail. What about junk faxes? Will they be legal? I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on Amendment No. 10. He is right, it is a classic opposition amendment. In those happy days when I sat on the Opposition Front Bench and I was desperate to make some contribution, if the Bill said "may" I said "shall", and if the Bill said "shall" I said "may". At least that meant I was doing my job.
As I understand it, in this case the proponents of the Bill want to be in a position to deal with the problems put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. Whether they will deal with them in a way he likes is another matter. If I remember rightly what former Conservative Ministers used to tell me, "may" was there to enable them to do what they wanted to do in other words, it somehow subsumed "shall".
I rise simply to recall happy days in the past and to congratulate the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I support my noble friend and the principle of Amendment No. 11 and other amendments in this recently acquired group, which is that a website is a place. If we incorporate in the Bill a definition which states "in a place or on a website", and imply that "place" does not include "website", we could be letting ourselves in for all kinds of dangerous quibbles in future as to what is a "place". If "place" does not include "website", what else does it not include? Does it not include, as my noble friend said, a fax or some other form of communication? Does it or does it not include something you can access through Teletext? If a website is not a place, why is a page on Teletext a place?
It would be much better and more comprehensive, as has been said elsewhere, if we give "place" its natural meaning, allow it to have its natural meaning and point out that a website is included in the definition of "place", as may be other forms of
1668
communication. If we start thinking of a more limited definition of "place" we will be in danger of allowing tobacco companies to find things which are not places in the sense of the Bill because, by analogy, if a website is not a place then they are not places.
The amendment—although perhaps using other words—would usefully tighten up the Bill. But certainly at the moment there is an opportunity which I, as a tobacco company, would hope to find several ways of exploiting quite fast.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken. There have been some good attempts to ensure that we do not cause problems. I hope I can give some crumbs of comfort on how we might proceed to issue regulations if the Bill were to be enacted.
The Government do not support this amendment because Clause 4(2) gives Ministers the power to make regulations on advertising tobacco products where offered for sale. It is the sibling of Clause 8(1) which gives a similar power in relation to the display of tobacco products where they are offered for sale. Without definition, "place" takes its usual meaning as a physical location.
We discussed websites in detail in Committee and in particular the fact that they do not have a physical location. Both Clause 8(1) and Clause 4(2) give the power to treat websites in the same manner as physical places. This is necessary so that e-commerce is treated neither more or less favourably than other means of trade. The Government do not support a ban on the selling of tobacco products by the internet, provided that all such transactions comply with the law on the payment of duty.
Amendment No. 10 relates closely to Clause 4(2). We believe there is need to differentiate between a place understood as a physical location and a website, for reasons previously referred to. This is a changing area of marketing and it would be inappropriate to second-guess what will be needed in future in terms of regulation. The provision, as the Bill is drafted, flags up a need to consider whether the meaning of "place" should be included. We do not see the need to make this a prerequisite and therefore do not support the amendment.
Turning to the further amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, Clause 4(3) provides for regulations on point-of-sale advertising, which may provide for the meaning of "place". The amendment seeks to ensure that any regulations would include mail order catalogues and offers for sale by electronic means. We do not think it is necessary for the Bill to specify what may be contained in the detail of regulations; nor do we consider it appropriate to extend unsolicited point-of-sale advertising to mail order catalogues and offers for sale by any electronic means.
There is already provision under Clause 4(1) for limited point-of-sale advertising. Any person who wishes to receive information in a catalogue either by post or by electronic communication may contact the business marketing the products, and anything sent in

1669
response will be covered by the exception in Clause 4(1)(b). We do not believe it would be right to allow more general exception for catalogues and electronic means.
Finally, Amendment No. 35 is not supported by the Government. Clause 8(1) gives Ministers the powers to make regulations concerning the display of tobacco products where they are offered for sale. It is the sibling of Clause 4(2) which gives similar power regarding the advertising of tobacco products where offered for sale. We discussed earlier at some length the distinction between an advertisement and a display in relation to shops. Some objects will clearly be advertisements and not displays such as the ubiquitous "open" and "closed" signs hanging in a shop door with a brand of a tobacco product. Other objects will clearly be either a display or an advertisement, such as rows of cigarette products in a shop gantry. That is why we need separate provisions for advertisements and displays.
Clauses 4(2) and 8(1) give the power to treat websites in the same manner as physical places. This is necessary so that e-commerce is treated neither more nor less favourably than other forms of trade. The normal meaning of display includes "exhibit", "exposed to view" or "show" and so a picture on a web page of tobacco products for sale over the Internet could be said to amount to a display of these products on a website. It is appropriate that there are powers to regulate such displays, if necessary. We have already said that Ministers have no immediate plans to make regulations under the powers contained in Clause 8, but a power is necessary to prevent potential future abuse.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, does not like the word "website" used in this Bill, but I believe that it is appropriate and that there is no need to define it further than the normal commonsense term, as it is now understood. Indeed, any attempt at definition would run the risk of being technologically obsolescent the moment it reached the statute book.
As to whether regulations might touch on some of these issues, there clearly will be regulations as regards mail. With regard to junk faxes, the House will be relieved to know that already these cannot be sent without the express permission of the recipient under the 1999 telecoms data protection and privacy regulations, implementing the telecoms data protection directive.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister has given a very full reply on these amendments and I agree with him wholeheartedly. On the issue of regulations, the Minister has told us that they will not be made in the short term. If they were, I believe that Amendment No. 11 would pre-judge the outcome of consultations to a degree that would not be helpful. It may be that discussions and arguments take place as consultations proceed, and to that degree the amendments might prejudge any aoutcome.
The issue is clearly whether or not "place" should be a compendium word used in the Bill to cover both physical and non-physical aspects. The essence of the
1670
clause as it stands is that "place" refers to physical matters. That is why the word "website" is introduced specifically into the clause. I discussed earlier whether or not "website" should be used specifically rather than the portmanteau words "by electronic means", the phrase used in the earlier set of amendments. We believe that websites are suis generis literally: they are a separate matter and should be dealt with quite specifically rather than simply as part of general information services. Specific provisions are appropriate for them, as for e-mails or direct mail.
I do not believe that these amendments add to the clarity of the Bill and I urge your Lordships not to accept them.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, offered me what he described as a ray of hope. That was immediately dashed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. One thing I found very interesting was the Minister's comment that junk faxes are already illegal under the telecoms Acts. How many prosecutions have taken place? Has there been a single one? How do you set about pursuing one? I get far too many junk faxes. I complain about them far more than about junk mail, because they actually cost me money; they use the roll in my fax machine and the roll runs out just at the time when there is a fax that 1 really want. I am sure that other noble Lords have shared t his experience. My noble friend hates junk mail. I find it sometimes to be a promotional or purchasing opportunity, but it costs me nothing but time to pick it up from the doormat and sling it into the trashcan.
I am interested in what has been said. Does the same, one wonders, apply to teletext messages on mobile phones? Those would most certainly constitute an advertising opportunity where these are of a junk nature. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I respond to the invitation to ensure that legislation, when passed, is enforced. This is a matter for the Office of the Information Commissioner. If the noble Lord will give us specific examples of junk faxes he has received recently, the Government will be delighted to seek to prevent the cost falling on him and draw them to the attention of the Office of the Information Commissioner. I invite the noble Lord not to hold his breath about too sudden a cessation.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, so far as concerns this Government, especially having looked this morning at the front page of the Daily Telegraph. I shall not hold my breath on anything.
That said, there was no answer to my question about junk teletext messages which are another method of advertising. If I do not receive a somewhat speedier reply than the letters I have had recently from the Department of Health, it will be necessary to put down a somewhat substantive amendment at Third Reading, In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that the position on mobile

1671
messages and teletexts is exactly the same. There is a law against them which does not appear at present to be automatically enforced. I note the point about the correspondence and the implied threat. We shall no doubt look to it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, since clearly the noble Lord has decided that I had not sat down I can respond. I am delighted to hear his response. It sounds as though my utterances about Third Reading and the preparation work entailed will be somewhat more limited than I threatened. I still beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Advertising: defences]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 30, leave out from beginning to "an" and insert "A person does not commit"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I cannot follow the procedural elegance which preceded the withdrawal of the previous amendment.
I wish to speak to the 30 amendments on the Marshalled List which bear my name and which I hope that the House will agree should be included on the face of the Bill. At Second Reading and in Committee, many noble Lords expressed concerns that the wording surrounding the burden of proof for some of the offences under the Bill was not quite right. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, among others, expressed concern that the Bill risked creating an absolute offence and a conditional defence. The noble Lord believed that this was an excessively high hurdle for some of those, in particular printers and newsagents, who are involved in the supply chain for a tobacco advertisement. The Bill, rightly, places a duty of reasonable care on these people to ensure that they are not knowingly distributing a tobacco advertisement. These amendments are being laid in order to clarify exactly what this duty will consist of and I hope that they will go a long way towards easing some noble Lords' concerns.
The principle of the Bill is unaffected by these amendments. Anyone, at any point of the supply chain for tobacco advertisements, will still be committing an offence if they participate in the distribution of tobacco advertisements.
The lawyers present in the House today will be aware that in a criminal trial the prosecution has to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That consists of proving the offence and negating any defence which is put forward. These amendments address the nature of the burden placed on the defendant and take account both of the debates at Second Reading and in Committee and the recent court judgment of R v Lambert heard recently in this place. They remove the need for defendants to "prove" that they were acting reasonably as on reflection it would be wrong to require a defendant to cross this threshold of proof. Instead, it places a duty on defendants to bring forward credible evidence in support of their defence.
If the evidence is sufficient to raise an issue on the matter then the prosecution must satisfy the court that the evidence brought forward is unacceptable beyond reasonable doubt.
The issue with these amendments is that they change the nature of the burden on the defendant from a legal or persuasive burden to an evidential burden. They must produce evidence but they do not have to prove anything. That is for the prosecution. For example, Clause 5(2) states:
"It is a defence for a person charged … to prove that he could not reasonably have foreseen that that would be the effect of the advertisement".
The wording would change to:
"A person does not commit an offence in connection with an advertisement … if he could not reasonably have foreseen that that would be the effect of the advertisement".
These amendments replicate similar wording in all areas of the Bill where the burden of proof is an issue.
Amendment No. 63A, which is a new clause to the Bill, will clarify each of the earlier amendments and make it clear that the court shall assume that the defence is satisfactory unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not. This creates an evidential, rather than legal, burden on the defence and ensures that the legislation is on all fours with the European Convention on Human Rights. Having this additional clause is necessary. It leaves no doubt as to the meaning of the earlier amendments and is thus an essential part of the Bill.
Having had an excellent debate in Committee, and having considered the points made, I hope that these amendments go a long way towards satisfying those points and will be acceptable to the House
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord is bringing forward these amendments. When he replies, I hope that he will feel able to enlarge slightly on their effect. Whatever time that takes, it will be a great deal less than the time I shall take on the subsequent group of amendments when arguing that the print and related industries should be allowed to continue their current trade practices.
In Committee, things were said, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which implied that the print industry would have to change its practices: that it would be necessary for the print industry to read everything it printed. The noble Lord was fairly fierce about that. That is not practical at present for the printing industry. If you are printing a magazine you probably receive it in electronic form about eight hours before it is due to hit the news stands. It goes straight on to the presses without anyone having anything to do with it. A press minder he is not legally qualified makes sure that the machine prints straight on the page. Once printed, it is automatically collated, bound and packaged. Nowhere in that process can one be sure that anyone will have a chance to see what is being printed.
If that process is delayed perhaps by a day—it occurred recently when the press minder noticed what he thought might be racist material—you are probably

1673
liable to recompense the publisher for 30 per cent of its sales if wrong. These are ephemeral issues. One has to be put on notice that it is a publication where care is necessary: that it is a publication where a tobacco advertisement has occurred before or which is likely to contain a tobacco advertisement.
McLaren's own publication, Racing Line, is entirely a tobacco advertisement. There is not a picture in it which does not contain a tobacco advertisement except one diagram of a race circuit which I cannot make into a cigarette! It is clear that anyone printing that magazine will have to take care. I do not think that there will be difficulty in printers accepting liability. But if, as printer, you are printing the Economist against that magazine's deadline, you cannot be expected to do anything.
I want to be sure that we are not enacting any provision which could result in some sort of practical "creep" whereby trading officers say, "No, you should be checking", and which would have enormous cost implications for an industry which is performing a service rather than executive creation or consideration of a tobacco advertisement. I understand that the amendments will address that problem in which case I and this House will have an easy time with the next group of amendments. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be able to help.
I thank the noble Lord for making these changes. As I understand them, they remove a lot of my concerns.
1 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing forward these amendments. I believe it is testimony to the spirit in which the Bill has been debated that, in the light of the discussion at Committee stage, particularly about the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others in relation to the offences created by the Bill and what was expected of a person charged in order for him to be able to rely on any of the defences provided, the 30 amendments put forward by the noble Lord go a long way to meet those concerns.
My understanding is that the key change arises here from the basis that in a criminal prosecution the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the individual beyond reasonable doubt. That is a very high standard of proof. The obligation means proving not only all the ingredients of the offence but also negating any defence that is put in issue. My understanding is that these amendments address the burden placed on the defendant arid what is required of him if he is to avoid conviction.
After due consideration, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is right to consider that the wording presently in the Bill, with the requirement to prove an element of a defence, means that a defendant would be expected to establish that it is more likely than not that I he facts were as he alleges. If he fails to do so then he will be convicted.
On reflection, it would be wrong to require a defendant to cross that threshold in order to be acquitted. Indeed, we believe that it could well be inconsistent with the
1674
interpretation given by the courts to Article 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Our understanding is that the amendments therefore make clear that what is required of a defendant charged with an offence under the provisions of this Bill is to bring forward credible evidence to support his alleged defence. If the evidence is sufficient to raise an issue on the matter, then the prosecution has the burden of satisfying the court or jury on the matter beyond reasonable doubt in the ordinary way. I believe that this is a distinct improvement. I hope that it will reassure noble Lords. The Government would certainly support the amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly sum up on these matters. I am not quite sure whether I am accepting my own amendments at this stage, but I believe I am. That is a slightly schizophrenic position to be in. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, clearly it is a little difficult simply to include a whole downloading of reasons why this provision is preferable to the previous one. His suspicions are entirely correct, however, that this measure is a considerable step forward in terms of the way that it would operate as regards a printer.
Perhaps I may try to elucidate that without bringing in the subject of the court case whose title I forget—which allows ministerial statements to be taken in evidence of the meaning of a Bill. That clearly does not apply to a Private Member's Bill, I am glad to say. The original clause said that,
"It is a defence for a person charged … to prove that he could not reasonably have foreseen that that would be the effect of the advertisement".
He would have to prove it. The burden of proof on the printer would obviously be quite high in those circumstances.
Under the proposed amendments that is different. A person does not commit an offence in connection with an advertisement if he could not reasonably have foreseen that that would be the effect of it. Basically, rather than proving something, the printer would simply adduce in evidence the steps that he had taken to make sure that he had discovered whether or riot there was an advertisement in the magazine. Proportionality and so forth would be prayed in aid in terms of the interpretation of the word "reasonable". It seems to me that that is a much less burdensome requirement.
It would be quite difficult to prove absolutely a proposition of reasonably foreseeing in any event. The printer would simply have to take all the precautions. He would simply have to adduce the factual evidence rather than prove a legal proposition. I believe that that is the difference between what is proposed here and previously. I believe that what I propose should satisfy the noble Lord as regards his Amendments Nos. 19, 22 and 23. I have some confidence about that, but I leave it to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendments Nos. 13 to 18:
Page 2, line 32, leave out "to prove that" and insert "if
Page 2, line 34, leave out from beginning to "such" and insert "A person does not commit"
Page 2, line 35, leave out "to prove that" and insert "if'
Page 2, line 38, leave out from beginning to "an" and insert "A person does not commit"
Page 2, line 39, leave out "to prove that" and insert "if"
Page 2, line 41, leave out from beginning to "an" and insert "A person does not commit"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 41, at end insert "printing,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not speak to the other amendments because I believe that they can be dealt with under this one. I refer to the debate on 16th November. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said,
"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".—[Official Report, 16/11/01; col. 828.]
In the following column, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said,
"If printers do not check the content of the material they undertake to print then they are making a serious mistake".
From what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has just said, my understanding is that we have moved away from that position and that we are now looking at a test of reasonableness. I cannot see that that would cause anyone any problem. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the Minister will confirm that when they respond to this amendment. If they do, then they will not see this matter again at Third Reading: if they do not, then they will. I beg to move.
The Earl of Errol: My Lords, I took an interest in this matter at Committee stage. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said about his set of amendments as regards the burden of proof and so forth. But I understood that he was still expecting that matters of fact still had to be "adduced", which I believe was the word he used. In fact, the printer had to show that he had put checks into place as a matter of fact. There was no longer a test of opinion there but still a requirement to have undertaken some checks. That concerned me, because in that case there is still an added burden on a printer.
I entirely agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said about the printing industry when speaking to the previous amendment. Those points should be taken on board. Trying to put extra layers into process control, as one might call it, could cause major problems other than a competitive disadvantage.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I also took part in the debate on amendments about this matter at Committee stage. I would like to know whether a
1676
printer who was asked to print a text in German, Spanish, Urdu or Hindi is required to employ a translator to check that no promotion of tobacco has crept into the text. I hope I am right in assuming that the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will obviate that but I would like to have confirmation from him.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be able to meet the main concerns which have been raised in the debate about printers. My own reading is that the responsibilities being placed on printers in this Bill go no deeper than the normal responsibilities placed on them. It is a fact that the responsibilities placed on printers in this Bill are treated in a number of other pieces of legislation. Therefore, it is entirely comparable with that other legislation.
There are two points to be made here. The first is that there is a distinction to be drawn between distributors and printers. Our understanding is that distributors are outside the production process of an advertisement or promotion. That is not to say that they are not responsible for ensuring that what they are distributing is legal, but they may not have detailed knowledge of what they are distributing and are not in a position to look at the contents of it with a view to changing it. It is important to draw that distinction.
So far as concerns printers, the substantive point is that anyone operating a business needs to ensure that he or she does so within the law. It is entirely up to printers themselves—as it is for others in the supply chain—to satisfy themselves as to what measures are necessary.
I accept the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that printers often receive copy late in the day and often work to tight deadlines. I accept that, unless operating a small business, printers are likely to be faced with printing a number of pages and will not necessarily be in a position to check the contents of each page word for word. That is accepted. As I understand it, there is no intention in the Bill to interfere in the normal business of printing. However, it is right to expect printers to ensure that they remain within the law. Alongside that, with the change in the defences proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord that we have now got the balance right.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, the Minister's point about distributors applies also to printers. In Committee, we discussed the difference between publishing and printing. The point is that a printer as well as a distributor may not know what is being printed. There is no requirement in the modern printing process, particularly with digital printing, for a printer ever to look at the copy. It can enter the system electronically at one end and come out at the other fully bound, sealed and packaged, with no human intervention at all. Given that the Minister's remarks about distributors can apply also to modern digital printing, and possibly to other printers as well,

1677
such provision would place an extra burden on printers. The previous amendments do not cover that situation; therefore, these amendments may be required.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thought that I had suggested that no extra burden was being placed on printers other than those placed on them in existing legislation and in the normal conduct of the law. I accept the noble Earl's point that there may be certain printing processes which are akin to distribution in the sense that printing is a fully automated process. But that is a matter for the printing business itself. Printers must ensure that the law is applied.
In terms of proportionality, those are the kinds of matters that training standards officers would need to take into account if they were considering a prosecution. However, as I have stated, the general thrust of the approach taken by trading standards officers on discovering problems and potential lawbreaking is almost always to draw the problem to the attention of the person or company concerned. The main aim is to ensure that changes take place rather than prosecutions. The issue mentioned by the noble Earl is surely one that would fall to trading standards officers to consider if it came to any potential prosecution.
Given the points I have made, and given the changes in the Bill in terms of the defences proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I believe that we have reached a position whereby printers are being dealt with in a balanced and proportionate way.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we have returned to the issue of the duties of printers and what it is reasonable for a printer to be expected to know about what he or she is in the process of printing and whether the terms of the Bill are unduly burdensome, particularly for printers.
I share the Minister's view that the Bill in its current form, particularly with the amendments that we have just debated in, is not unduly burdensome for printers. It ought not to be beyond the capabilities of printers and their organisations to be able to agree on a way forward which provides the necessary level of protection for those who are legitimately going about their business. Whether reasonable care was taken will be a factual matter; it is certainly possible to establish that.
It may, for example, be important for printers to issue a disclaimer on their printing contracts, with the client taking responsibility in writing for there being no illegal content in the material to he printed, including tobacco advertising. There may be other mechanisms that printers will wish to adopt to make sure that they comply with the terms of the Bill.
Taken together, the defences as amended represent ample protection for printers. I do not believe that it would be right to go any further. It is important and reasonable for a printer to be responsible for the
1678
content of what is printed. It may not be reasonable for a printer to know that there is a tobacco advertisement on page 75 of a magazine being printed. but it is reasonable for that printer to know whether the billboard-size poster that is being produced is a tobacco advertisement.
In that respect, the Bill is consistent with other laws. Under existing laws, a printer is liable both for the printing of a libel and for the infringement of copyright if he did not take reasonable care to avoid it. That is exactly the position in which printers will find themselves under the terms of the Bill. With regard to publications harmful to children under the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955, a person who prints, publishes, etc., any work to which the Act applies is guilty of an offence. Similarly, when the advertising of certain gambling lottery services was illegal, the relevant legislation stated that certain notices or advertisements relating to lotteries, inciting persons to bet, betting office or betting office facilities, etc., were illegal and anyone who printed or published them would be subject to penalties. The last example is particularly apposite as it relates to the issue of prohibited advertising—the very subject that we are discussing.
I believe that the case of printers in this legislation is in line with similar liabilities under similar legislation in the past. If anything, under the Bill printers will have greater protection than they have had under previous legislation.
I have taken account of the views expressed in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but believe that to go any further would be to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. Therefore, I very much hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for those replies. Yes, subject to checking in Hansard what has been said in the debate, I believe that we have arrived at a reasonable position—one which, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, says, is in line with many other obligations on printers.
One is particularly concerned about the Bill because it creates a criminal offence which cannot be passed on to the publisher or to insurers in the way in which financial liability can be passed on. That has been part of the cause of my concern. I think that we shall find ourselves happy with the position arrived at by the noble Lord. I am enormously grateful for the care and time that he has taken in ensuring that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 43, leave out "to prove that" and insert IF On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 28:
Page 3, line 2, leave out from "2(3)," to "an" and insert "a person does not commit"
Page 3, line 3, leave out "to prove" and insert "if" Page 3, line 4, leave out first "that"
Page 3, line 6, leave out "that,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 6, leave out "he was not able" and insert "it was not reasonably practicable for him"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this proposal at some length in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was kind enough to say that he looked favourably on the amendment but wished to see it in a better form. As usual, his skills and the skills of those who have aided him have produced a form of words better suited to the circumstances. I am again grateful to the noble Lord. I believe that this is entirely the right way to go. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in Committee, the Government indicated that they also were sympathetic to the thrust of the proposal—without which it would be unreasonable in practice to expect a telephone company, for example, which could shut down its network, to prevent the passage of such material. Therefore, without further ado, I signal the Government's support for the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, as I said in Committee, and as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, I very much support the thrust of the amendment.
I am also very glad that the amendment has the Government's support. I have very little to add to what the noble Lord and the Minister have said. It is sensible for companies operating networks over which electronic communications travel only to have to act reasonably to ensure that they are not distributing tobacco advertising; it is not reasonable to expect them to shut down the network for the sake of one advertisement. The essence of the amendment is to bring the Bill more into line with the e-commerce directive in that respect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendments Nos. 30 and 31:
Page 3, line 8, leave out "that"
Page 3, line 10, leave out from beginning to "he" in line 11 and insert "A person does not commit an offence under section 3(c) if"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"USE OF NAMES, LOGOS AND BUSINESS DETAILS

(1) A person shall not be treated as publishing a tobacco advertisement for the purposes of this Act solely by reason of the use of the items set out in subsection (2) below in

(a) letterheads, price lists, invoices and other business stationery;

1680

(b) items listed in paragraph (a) which are communicated electronically; or

(c) signs identifying business premises occupied by the person.

(2) The items mentioned in subsection (I) comprise

(a) the name or names by which the person is known including the names of companies or limited liability partnerships registered under the Companies Acts;

(b) any trading names used by the person;

(c) a logo or other graphic representation of those names; or

(d) an address or addresses at which the person carries on business."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee we had a wide-ranging debate about whether it was sensible or useful to include in the Bill a definition of the word advertisement. Although this is the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, it is very striking that none of its provisions states precisely what an advertisement is or should be taken to mean. Both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made it clear that in their view it was better to allow the word advertisement to bear its natural meaning in the language—in other words, we all know an advertisement when we see one—and each case should be treated on the basis of the relevant facts. Any attempt, in their submission, to delineate the term advertisement—as, for example, was done in the Medicines Act 1968—is bound to give rise to unhelpful loopholes in the law that tobacco companies will proceed to exploit for all they are worth. That is the Government's position as I understand it.
Although there are several arguments that I could deploy against that position, I have chosen not to mount a challenge today because, frankly, I know that it would not be productive. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is, I sense, not persuadable on the matter, nor indeed are the Government. However, there is still an important and unresolved issue. To what extent should the Bill lay open the possibility that the board of a tobacco company in pursuing its normal daily business activities should find itself at risk of prosecution for promoting a tobacco product? As the Bill stands, it criminalises anyone who in the course of a business publishes a tobacco advertisement and who at the same time cannot prove any of the defences listed in Clause 5.
We understand that the Government want the measure to be framed as a series of broadly drawn offences balanced by some specific defences. Although that structure has the merit of minimising the scope for legal loopholes, it also has a distinct demerit from the point of view of the tobacco companies—the absence of any kind of legal certainty. While many of us may well understand in most circumstances what constitutes an advertisement and what does not, that is not a terribly helpful guide for a board of directors tasked with carrying on a business day to day within the bounds of the law. Where is the dividing line between something that is not an advertisement and something that is?
There is a real sense in which a tobacco company promotes its tobacco products merely by using its name and logo in ordinary daily business correspondence and business communications. Every time a company puts its name about on its letterhead, especially if the name coincides with that of a brand such as Benson and Hedges, it is promoting itself and its products. I do not think that we can get away from that. If Benson and Hedges or Rothmans of Pall Mall occupy a set of business premises and put their company name on the outside for all to read, they are promoting themselves and their products. Furthermore, the Clause 5 defences in this context simply do not apply. A company could not claim that by putting its name on the outside of its offices it did not know that it was promoting a tobacco product; quite plainly it is doing just that. Victoria Wine puts its name on the front of its shops and in doing so promotes the sale of alcoholic drinks. If the managing director of Victoria Wine writes a letter on company paper, he is in a real if limited sense promoting the company and its products even if the text of the letter is of a purely routine nature.
In Committee, the Minister said that companies promoting their business by printing their name on a letterhead are not the mischief at which the Bill is aimed. I was very glad to hear that. However, the fact remains that the Bill criminalises anyone who, without a statutory defence, publishes a tobacco advertisement. What is a tobacco advertisement? Answer: it is anything whose purpose or effect is to promote a tobacco product. That most certainly includes letterheads and the use of logos in correspondence.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that we cannot create a blanket exemption for letterheads or logos because there is a factual question of 'whether there has been an advertisement. I put it to him that he is wrong about that. A tobacco company letterhead is always a tobacco advertisement; it is not a question of degree. That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 32. The noble Lord may deprecate the notion of blanket exemptions, but I put it to him that it is wholly unreasonable not to have such an exemption for those ordinary tools of the trade without which a tobacco company, or any other business, simply could not function. Those tools encompass the company's letterhead, including its logo, its name on invoices, its name on e-mails and faxes, and name signs displayed on its business premises.
In a Bill framed in such sweeping terms, it is unreasonable not to give businesses at least a small degree of legal certainty. It is not a heavy price for the noble Lord to pay in exchange for putting an otherwise all-embracing set of criminal offences on the statute book. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He spoke with great confidence. I should therefore like to introduce at least a word of uncertainty.
1682
The noble Earl said, for example, that the words Benson and Hedges at the top of one's writing paper is an advertisement or promotion. It would never have occurred to me—I speak as an idiot, of course—that that was an advertisement or promotion; 1 would simply have thought that the letter was from Benson and Hedges. I can see the difference. Perhaps should also give my own example. My House of Lords writing paper has "Lord Peston" written on the top, but it has never occurred to me that I am promoting or advertising myself. I thought that I was simply letting the letter's recipient know right from the beginning that the letter was from me, and that the best place for it, even before reading it, is probably in the wastepaper basket.
I am therefore very puzzled by the noble Earl's remarks that there can be no doubt at all that letterheads, price lists and the various other items he mentioned are very definitely promotions. Reflecting on it, if I were involved in a court case and someone said that he wanted to send people to prison because they had put Benson and Hedges on their writing paper, I would simply say, "You must be mad". It would never occur to me—I hate to use the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the natural meaning of words—that that was promotion.
Despite my lack of sympathy for the tobacco companies, I do not doubt that they are entitled to legal protection in the normal course of their business. However, I honestly cannot remotely see this provision as a problem. I should be interested to hear whether the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who has a legal training which I do not, considers that there is a legal problem. But, speaking as a layman, I cannot see any legal problem here at all.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not know when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, last looked at the Companion to the Standing Orders. If he has looked at if fairly recently, he will have discovered that the practice of overprinting House of Lords notepaper with one's own name is deprecated to say the very least. The Companion to the Standing Orders uses that phrase to mean what my children when they were very small used to understand as a "no, no".
Be that as it may, I support my noble friend Lord Howe because there is a confusion here. No matter what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, says, it is quite possible, if the tobacco company in its letterhead or logo has a product of the same name, for that to cause confusion, to say the very least, if not to be taken as a promotion. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend Lord Howe will stick to his guns.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have just heard the most interesting comment this morning in the noble Lord's reference to the content of the Companion to the Standing Orders on overprinting of names. I believe that I am not alone in the House in not being aware of that. I also believe that most noble Lords who are present have probably transgressed that rule.

1683
However, that is irrelevant to what I wanted to say on the main point. It seems to me—again we are back in this rather difficult territory of common sense and natural meanings—that there is some equivalence between what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, proposes, and what the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, proposes in relation to private hospitality events and the nature of the distribution of tobacco products by people who are clearly in that business but who are not distributing them for the purposes of advertising. Although I know that it is difficult to draw a legal comparison—although perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be sufficiently forensic to be able to do that—in our famous common sense and real terms, it seems to me that it is perfectly understandable that someone's writing paper is not a form of advertisement in exactly the same way as an hour or so ago we decided that it was clearly the case that people giving cigars or cigarettes in private hospitality arrangements—even if they are given by a tobacco company—does not constitute a form of advertisement.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in which case surely there can be no objection to this amendment.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I wish that I could say that the Government agreed with that. However, I genuinely have sympathy with the thrust of the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to ensure that companies which are carrying out such business do not inadvertently stray into illegality. I hope that my comments will give some comfort in that respect.
The amendment seeks to provide that certain forms of business communication can never be an advertisement for the purpose of the Bill. I accept that the noble Earl has attempted to draw the boundaries of the amendment tightly but I must tell him that the Government do not support it for the following reasons.
As I said in Committee, the word "advertisement" should be allowed to carry its natural meaning. The principle of the Bill is set out as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested—to set out a broad offence and then provide defences or exemptions as appropriate. By qualifying the meaning of the word "advertisement" we run the risk of opening loopholes by exclusion and thus creating gaps in the comprehensive ban on tobacco advertisement which we believe to be in the public interest.
However, once again I tell the House that it is not the Government's intention to interfere with normal commercial activity. The Bill will not remove a company's right to use its own legal name or trading name, for example, in company documents or websites in the ordinary course of business. A company name and logo on a letterhead is not the mischief at which the Bill is aimed, neither is a large sign outside a cigarette factory owned by British American Tobacco indicating who carries on business there.
1684
However, to allow the amendment would allow creative minds to develop logos and signs far beyond what is needed for business purposes and to use them to promote tobacco products. The effect of the amendment would be that trading names used by a business and logos representing those names could never comprise an advertisement. We believe that that is not sensible or reasonable. For example, to take one illustration, if a tobacco company markets a dozen brands it would, if the amendment were passed, be allowed to put the logos of all of those brands on its letterhead and write to the public at large informing them about the company if not about the tobacco products it sells. Similarly, the amendment would permit tobacco companies to incorporate brand logos in their signage on their premises and to make those signs, in effect, advertising billboards.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked what is or is not an advertisement. The comment of my noble friend Lady Jay about common sense is of comfort here. In most circumstances a company such as Gallaher or BAT will promote its own company and will be perfectly entitled to do so. It is when companies start to promote the product that they are at risk of prosecution. In Committee we discussed the nature of enforcement under the Bill and said that for the most part its provisions would be enforced by trading standards officers. When trading standards officers think that there has been a breach of the law, they draw that on the first occasion to the attention of the potential offender. They resort to court action only if he persists in his refusal to comply. I believe that that comment is of considerable comfort to the companies concerned in the matter. Finally, although no one wants to go to court, courts will reach a judgment on common sense.
In the light of what I have said, tobacco companies should not fear that their perfectly proper commercial activities will be at risk of prosecution in that respect.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, noble Lords may have wondered whether they had elicited a forensic reply from me but I think that the Minister has dealt with the matter in a forensic manner. Although I have agreed with the content of many speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, over the years, I am somewhat baffled by the content of his speech today. The Bill does not have the effect that he believes it will have. If it did have that effect, I would probably support him. As a former company secretary I advised companies on their letter headings and what they should contain. I advised them what criminal offences might be created if they got the matter wrong and so on. The Companies Act contains careful provisions as regards what letter headings should or should not contain and when exemptions apply with regard to revealing a company's directors, registered office and so on on the notepaper. People take a great deal of care with regard to their notepaper.
However, it is clear what mischief would arise if we did not have a general description of "advertisement" in the Bill and we had the exemption that we are discussing. For example, one could adopt a little coat

1685
of arms with the company name and underneath a little logo, "Smoke a Few", or "Carry on Smoking". Is that the logo that one has in mind for the company notepaper? I am afraid that that would be the effect of the proposed new clause. I return to what we discussed in Committee; that is, whether—I refer again to the phrase "natural meaning"—we are on safer ground in terms of the purposes of the Bill if we have a general definition of the word "advertisement" than relying on the natural meaning of the word. I believe that that ensures the minimum number of loopholes. I appreciate that some noble Lords fear that the Bill may have other consequences. However, I cannot see how the noble Earl's fears could be realised. I believe that the shoe would be entirely on the other foot if we permitted a blanket exemption of the kind that he proposes as it could permit all kinds of weird and wonderful logos to appear on tobacco companies' notepaper.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain how a logo incorporating the words, "Smoke a Few", could possibly be legitimised by my noble friend's amendment? Proposed new subsection (2)(c) states:
"a logo or other graphic representation of those names".
I cannot imagine a company calling itself "Smoke a Few". Can the noble Lord?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am sure that the heralds could devise a suitable shield—perhaps with a cigarette-in-chief and ghouls supported by smoking attendants—which could contain the company name. I am sure that they would have a great deal of fun producing it. I am afraid that I believe that the proposal could give rise to such mischief.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment, which I moved in all seriousness.
It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, express the view that letterheads do not as such constitute advertisements and that nobody would ever dream that they might. I am grateful to them for doing so. However, that view contrasts strikingly with the view expressed in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, when he said that letterheads could in certain circumstances constitute an advertisement, depending on the facts of the case. He also instanced an example just now in which that might be the case.
That suggests that the noble Lord believes that in practice a line can be drawn somewhere. I suggest that it should be drawn in the Bill. It may be a rough and ready line but it would provide legal certainty. Without that, we would be saying to tobacco companies that in certain undefined circumstances—we would not tell them what they were—they would lay themselves open to prosecution for using their name as a logo in ordinary business communications. That is not reasonable. If we do not create legal certainty at this very basic level in the Bill, we should
1686
be saying that it is fair to catch out the tobacco companies with the benefit of hindsight and in whatever way we want. I deplore that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I seek factual clarification from the noble Earl. I am trying very hard to follow his argument. Is he actually saying that Benson & Hedges is uncertain whether putting "Benson & Hedges" at the top of its writing paper constitutes a criminal offence? I am rather lost. Could companies that have a wealth of lawyers to advise them really he saying, "We are desperately uncertain, because of these laws, about what we can put on our writing paper"? I am willing to be convinced, but I cannot get my mind around the factual possibility.
Earl Howe: My Lords, if Benson & Hedges is not uncertain, it should be—by virtue of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in Committee. He said that there were circumstances in which the use of a company's name on its letterhead could constitute an advertisement, depending on how it was printed.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I gave further examples in which the use of a name in a particular way could also constitute an advertisement. That is precisely why the word "advertisement" is used with its natural meaning in the Bill. It makes common sense to explain what those circumstances are. I gave the example of a company secretary in those circumstances, who would have to look at a piece of stationery. If she could not apply the relevant test, she would not be much of a company secretary.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord appears to suggest that this is coach-and-horses territory. I do not accept that that is the case, but I do accept that tobacco companies are ingenious at finding a way through legislation. They might be ingenious at finding a type of letterhead that looked more promotional than others. But so what? In the context of the Bill that is de minitnis in the scheme of things. Is he really saying that the Bill's definitions have to be so broad and sweeping that they cover every possible eventuality? Would that include the design of a name sign outside a set of offices or the style in which a company name appears on an invoice? I suggest to him that it is possible to lose sight of what is proportionate.
We have had an interesting debate and the Minister has usefully clarified the Bill. I am grateful to him for the trouble that he took in doing so and to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for having clarified his line of thinking. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Specialist tobacconists]:
1.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 14, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 15 and insert "A person does not commit an offence under section 2 if".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 3, line 23, leave out from "things)" to end of line 25 and insert "on which premises more than 150 brands or brand variants of tobacco products are stocked and available for sale".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when my earlier and fairly similar amendment, which was based on the experience in the Netherlands, was discussed in Committee on 7th December, the Minister said that he felt a trip to the Netherlands coming on. I do not know whether he ever found the time for such a trip or whether he managed to undertake any research into Dutch advertising legislation as it relates to specialist tobacconists.
This amendment gives the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, an opportunity to reveal whether further consideration has been given to my contention that sales turnover is not the best yardstick for qualification as a specialist tobacconist. A visible means of establishing that a retailer is a specialist tobacconist is, I submit, preferable from all standpoints. That would make enforcement much simpler and easier; it would avoid crawling laboriously through trading accounts and I resist the temptation to make too many topical quips about Enron and the creative accounting practices of certain large American corporations and, probably, a number of British and continental companies as well—it would avoid the involvement of, or reliance on, the work of accountants and auditors.
In seeking to meet the reservations expressed in Committee, I increased the number of brands and their variants that must be on offer from 100 to 150. I did so in order to raise the threshold beyond the number that some of the larger tobacco retailers who are not specialist tobacconists might stock. It is certainly not my intention to accommodate anyone other than genuine specialist tobacconists.
I understand that my amendment in Committee provoked an hysterical reaction from ASH. Of course, hysterical reactions are that organisation's stock in trade. ASH apparently claims that the proposal involves the risk that retailers would add to the product range that they stock simply to qualify as a specialist tobacconist. Frankly, that would be ridiculous, given the very minor concession that Clause 6 provides. It simply would not be worth the expense. I also suggest that retailers who are capable of that sort of dishonesty are just as capable of adjusting their trading accounts to qualify under the turnover yardstick that is currently in the Bill.
My objective is the simplicity that is appropriate to such a minor concession as Clause 6 provides—simplicity in application and simplicity in enforcement. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord returns to a matter that he raised in Committee. I am afraid that while I have been allowed out once to Brussels, I have not been able to find myself a departmental-sponsored trip to the Netherlands, although we have inquired. I shall inform noble Lords of the position that we believe arises in that country.
1688
I also acknowledge that the noble Lord has raised the hurdle for qualifying as a specialist tobacconist from 100 to 150 brands or brand variants.
The intention under the Bill as currently drafted is that a person must derive half of his sales on the premises from pipe tobacco, snuff, cigars and smoking accessories in order to be classed as a specialist tobacconist. That is reasonable because if he derives a substantial part of his income from those products, he is allowed to advertise specialist products in the shop or affixed to the outside of the premises. I believe that the special consideration being given to specialist tobacconists indicates that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has taken a proportionate and balanced approach and that he wishes to safeguard the position of selected specialist tobacconists.
I believe that the test suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is rather more arbitrary than that set by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I give two examples, The first is that some businesses may stock more than 150 brands but find that sales of each brand are low and that the bulk of their income comes from non-tobacco items. In that case, they will not be substantially dependent on tobacco sales and will not particularly need the right to advertise in-store.
The second relates to the point that ASH raised and to which the noble Lord. Lord Monson, took exception. But if the test is having 150 brands in the store, I believe that that could drive a coach and horses through the legislation. It would be very easy for there to be a rapid expansion in the number of shops classified as specialist tobacconists. It would be relatively easy to produce 150 brands for sale.
We need to return to what the Bill seeks to do—that is, to ban tobacco advertising. Clause 6 allows limited concessions for specialist shops in order to take into account the needs of small businesses and not to place undue burdens on them. The Bill does that on the basis of sales. If we move away from sales to a test based on the number of brands which a shop carries, then, as I said, we shall create a loophole whereby potentially anyone can call themselves a tobacconist and claim to avail themselves of the provisions of Clause 6.
I know that the noble Lord suggested that a test based on sales would be difficult to monitor. I accept that tobacconists will have to keep records to show that their sales of cigars, pipe tobacco, snuff and smoking accessories reach the required level. However, I do not believe that that is an unreasonably onerous burden for them. As a normal part of business, shops keep records of sales. If they want to take advantage of provisions allowing some in-shop advertising by genuine specialist tobacconists, then such businesses will put in place arrangements to show that they meet the test.
So far as concerns the Netherlands, it is my understanding that legislation containing such a provision is before the Dutch parliament at present. It has not yet been tested in practice and, therefore, my case rests on our belief that the Bill as it stands provides a reasonable test which is not an unreasonable burden on the specialist tobacconist

1689
shops. It does not provide the type of loophole which I fear the noble Lord's amendment would produce in the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for tabling his amendment. It takes account of some of the points made in response in Committee. However, like the Minister, I am afraid that I do not believe that changing the definition of "specialist tobacconists" at this stage will add very much to the Bill. I consider that it risks opening substantial loopholes which we can be sure will be exploited by the tobacco industry.
It bears repeating that the need for that definition is in order to allow a considerable concession to its beneficiaries. As such, therefore, I am keen to ensure that the number of those beneficiaries is kept to a minimum. I make no apology for that. In fact, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, when he said in Committee that he believed we would know a specialist tobacconist when we saw one. I believe that all Members of this House will agree that it is important to ensure that the definition catches such establishments and does not allow other sellers of cigarettes, cigars and even snuff to latch on to its coattails in order to continue to advertise.
During the debate in Committee—the Minister referred to this we heard much about the experience of the Netherlands. Like the Minister, I contacted colleagues in the Netherlands who informed me that, far from being on the ground and working in practice, the Dutch legislation is at a similar stage to this Bill. Therefore, we have no idea whether or not this legislation will work in practice. It is possible that if the Bill reaches the statute book and is put into practice, the Dutch Government will look at the terms of our Bill. Who knows?
In any event, I do not believe that we should necessarily copy slavishly the Dutch or, indeed, any other legislation. I consider that to change the definition to a headcount of brands—be it 100, 150 or even 500—risks leaving a loophole which can be exploited in order to get round restrictions on pointof-sale advertising.
I believe that noble Lords will agree that by no definition should W H Smith be considered a specialist tobacconist. However, its branch in Victoria station sells 94 brands or brand variants of tobacco products. I know that because I arranged for them to be counted this morning. It would not be difficult or costly for W H Smith to stock one or two packets of another 56 brands. Under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that would make W H Smith a specialist tobacconist.
I expect that, were the amendment to be accepted, a bewildering array of, for example, Marlboro brand variants would spring up overnight, making it even easier for shops to become specialists. However, a definition set out as a percentage of turnover, which, as the Minister explained, is easily collectable—indeed, all shops should know what their turnover is on each product line that they sell—would ensure that
1690
a shop such as W H Smith would not fall into the specialist category, and it would not matter how many different brands of Marlboro became available.
In addition, it is considerably more reasonable to ask the hard-pressed trading standards officer who is policing this provision to cast an eye over the books of a specialist tobacconist in order to ascertain what proportion of its turnover comes from what type of product than it is to pore over a list of all brands stocked by all the tobacconists in the area.
I believe that the 50 per cent test in the Bill strikes roughly the right balance and that we should keep this section of the Bill as it is. Lest we forget, this clause gives a special concession to a particular type of shop—around 380 in number which is not given to the tens of thousands of other shops which also sell tobacco products. I believe that it is right to err on the side of limiting the concession to as few shops as necessary. The current drafting strikes more or less the right balance, allowing specialist shops with a legitimate concern to continue to advertise their products in a controlled way, while preventing others from exploiting a potential loophole. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment should be included in the Bill.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sorry that he was not able to get a sponsored trip to the Netherlands, which in recent years has been a rather more cheerful country than Belgium. However, I am grateful to him for his research as, indeed, I am to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his information on what is happening in Holland. It puts us in the picture. I must confess that I did not know that that country's legislation was not yet up and running.
There has been one definite benefit from moving this amendment. I am delighted to hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches an assertion that we should riot slavishly automatically follow European legislation. That must be a first from those Benches.
I suspect that this matter will be revisited in the Commons, if and when the Bill reaches another place, by which time the Dutch legislation may he in place and working. Then, that House, as shall we, will have the chance to study how it is working out. On that assumption, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 8 [Displays]:
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Prohibition of free distributions]:
Lord Palmer Lord Palmer: moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 4, line 17, at end insert—
"() For the purposes of subsection (1), a coupon shall not he deemed to have the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product if it only provides for the product with which it is packed or sent to be sold at a discount on a single subsequent purchase of that product.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have a degree of hope in moving this amendment. I wish for a moment to quote from the Explanatory Notes to the original

1691
Bill, published when the Bill was first introduced by the Government in the last Parliament. I believe that this is an important point:
"Clause 9 bans any free distribution whose purpose or effect is to promote a tobacco product … The effect of the clause will be a ban on the giving away of branded products, such as cigarette lighters, so as to reduce the amount of tobacco branding on display to the public as much as possible. The clause also bans the use of coupons, such as the schemes whereby coupons inserted into cigarette packs are collected by customers and can later be redeemed for tobacco or other goods".
It is arguable that the ban that the clause contains on coupons is not justifiable on the grounds that it is an infringement of human rights and that it is disproportionate to the objective and likely outcome of the Bill. It is not, however, the purpose of my amendment to permit the giving away of products for the purposes of market research or to make such a challenge.
When the manufacturers wish to make price offerings discounted from the regular price, they currently have three principal means available to them: revised terms to wholesalers and/or retailers which enable those wholesalers and retailers to make discounted price offerings to smokers; on-pack discount price marking and pricing flashes, such as "lop off"; and in-pack price offerings.
There can be no guarantee for the brand owner that revised price terms to the trade will automatically filter through to the consumer. And I know that from bitter experience from when I was a travelling salesman, albeit not involved in selling tobacco products.
On or in-pack special price offerings have more certainty for both suppliers and consumers. There are, however, significant advantages to all concerned—suppliers, customers and indeed the Government in suppliers having the ability to make price offerings by way of in-pack coupons. This amendment would permit that, provided that the in-pack coupons only offered a price discount on a single subsequent purchase of the product. By means of such a coupon, the supplier can have certainty that the price offer actually reaches the customer that it is intended to.
There is no hidden motive in this amendment. Indeed, I believe that the amendment should have the support of the proposer of this Bill and the Government. I suggest that they should be more comfortable with in-pack price offerings rather than those which may be made prominently on the outside of packs or by other means. I beg to move.
2 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, Clause 9 prohibits, with certain clearly defined exceptions, the distribution of free gifts and coupons designed to promote tobacco products. These forms of marketing are an important part of tobacco companies' efforts to keep people committed to and hooked on smoking products. If direct advertising were to be banned and if this form of marketing were allowed, tobacco companies would undoubtedly divert even more effort into free gifts and coupon schemes for the reasons to which we have referred earlier.
1692
In particular, that form of marketing can be targeted at lower income smokers. A document provided in 1999 to the Health Select Committee in another place concerning the Kensitas Club Gift Scheme read:
"Who are we talking to: Glasgow's smokers—they smoke because they enjoy it. They also love the gift scheme, with over 50% of the club franchise unemployed this probably explains its popularity".
I grant that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is not to widen the scope of the exemptions to enable tobacco companies to continue to promote their products, but the Government believe that that would be its effect. Therefore, we are strongly unsympathetic to it.
On the coupon amendment, Clause 9(5) defines a coupon as,
"a document or other thing which (whether by itself or not) can be redeemed for a product or service or for cash or any other benefit".
This amendment seeks to add a proviso to Clause 9(1) that a coupon is not a coupon if it can only be used to obtain a discount on a subsequent purchase of the same product. We believe that if the amendment were accepted it would drive a significant hole through the proposed ban on coupons that promote tobacco products and would provide a powerful incentive to keep smokers hooked.
The purpose of a coupon is to provide an incentive for a person to make a further purchase of the product. This is the same whether coupons are accumulated in order to qualify for a free gift or whether a single coupon entitles the holder to a discount on his or her next purchase. In that sense there is no distinction between the two types of coupon schemes.
We know from the survey undertaken in 2000 that nearly 70 per cent of smokers want to give up. Coupon schemes undermine their resolution. They are not just a way of promoting brand loyalty. If the Government were to accept this amendment, the possibility of a discount on their next packet of cigarettes may become much more commonplace with the effect that that would weaken the resolve of those smokers who wish to give up.
The Government do not believe that the market research amendment is necessary. The Government have no plans to stop research into tobacco product development. There is nothing in the Bill to stop market researchers from contacting smokers and asking questions with a view to helping tobacco companies to develop their products and compensating them for their time, provided that this compensation does not take the form of tobacco products, coupons or anything that is intended to or has the effect of promoting a tobacco product.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for putting forward his amendment. I understand that there is no hidden motive, but that is not sufficient to elicit support for it. I do not believe that the amendment should be accepted. The free or discounted distribution of

1693
cigarettes or other tobacco products is a way in which tobacco companies market their products. We should treat that form of promotion in exactly the same way as any other type of tobacco advertising or promotion. I see no compelling reason to make an exception for this kind of promotion rather than any other.
Noble Lords may well argue that as a form of promotion it is probably of interest only to existing smokers and, therefore, it should be exempted. However, in response I argue that even if one accepts that that is true, this legislation is as much about helping current smokers to quit as it is about preventing young people from taking up smoking in the first place.
Tobacco companies also use coupon schemes, such as the ones that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, wishes to exempt, in order to try to keep smokers hooked who otherwise may be about to give up or who are at least trying to give up. If such promotions are solely about brand share, we would expect to see them spread equally around the year. Instead, we see them concentrated, as with all tobacco advertising promotions, into the time of year when smokers are most likely to consider quitting: New Year, the beginning of Lent, National No Smoking Day and so on.
There is nothing unique about this kind of promotion that justifies an exception being made in the legislation. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Perhaps, with the Minister, I can give greater comfort to the noble Lord in terms of Amendment No. 39. This legislation is not about banning the manufacture and distribution of tobacco products, or about, banning market research into potential new products in the future. That is a legitimate part of their business and will remain so. This Bill is about banning the advertising and promotion, for the good of public health, a product which kills an enormous number of people.
There are two different types of free distribution being debated. One which will be covered by the legislation is free distribution by tobacco companies in order to promote their products. For example, one thinks of the Marlboro cowgirls—young women who distribute free Marlboro to people in bars and night clubs. That has both the intention and effect of promoting cigarettes and will be banned. However, the other is a completely different proposition. In that case the point of the distribution is to find out more about proposed new products, not to promote them. It has neither the intention nor the effect of promoting tobacco products and as such will not be covered by this legislation. In essence, this amendment describes what will happen following the passage of the Bill even without the adoption of the amendment.
I am not keen on adding further to this legislation when its purpose and effect are entirely clear. I believe that we do not need Amendment No. 37 in order to make it absolutely clear that that type of market
1694
research is entirely legitimate and can continue in the future. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I am disappointed to have my hopes dashed. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Filkin and Lord Clement-Jones, for their comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 38 I advise your Lordships that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 39 or 40 because of pre-emption.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 20, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) No offence is committed under subsection (I) if—

(a) the business referred to in subsection (1) is part of the tobacco trade,

(b) the product or coupon is given away for the purposes of that trade,

(c) each person to whom it is given—

(i) is engaged in, or employed by, a business which is also part of the tobacco trade, and

(ii) falls within subsection (3A), and

(d) the product or coupon is given to each such person in his capacity as such a person.

(3A) A person falls within this subsection if—

(a) he is responsible for making decisions on behalf of the business referred to in subsection (3)(c)(i) about the purchase of tobacco products which are to be sold in the course of that business,

(b) he occupies a position in the management structure of the business in question which is equivalent in seniority to, or of greater seniority than, that of any such person. or

(c) he is the person who, or is a member of the board of directors or other body of persons (however described) which, is responsible for the conduct of the business in question."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendments Nos. 41 to 45:
Page 4, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 and insert "A person does not commit an offence under this section—"
Page 4, line 25, leave out "if" and insert "where"
Page 4, line 26, leave out "that" and insert "if"
Page 4, line 28, leave out "if" and insert "where"
Page 4, line 29, leave out "that" and insert "if.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 41 to 45 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10 [Prohibition of sponsorship]:
Lord Luke Lord Luke: moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 5, line 8, at end insert—
"() No offence is committed under this section in relation to a tobacco sponsorship agreement if the purpose or effect of anything done under the agreement is to promote a tobacco product to persons engaged in the tobacco trade (even if they are also engaged in another trade)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, very briefly, my noble friend Lord Liverpool and I both believe that the intent behind Amendment No. 46 was covered in the response given by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to Amendment No. 40. I simply ask for reassurance on that matter. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps we should listen to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. My understanding is that the kind of situation described in the private dinner party where cigars are handed out was covered in our debate on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, on Amendment No. 40.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am happy to repeat, and no doubt it will appear in Hansard tomorrow, that, as I said in answer to Amendment No. 40, the kind of private event at which cigars are handed out is not covered and is not intended to be covered by the Bill.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 5, line 9, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 and insert "A person does not commit an offence under this section—"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 52:
Page 5, line 11, leave out "if" and insert "where"
Page 5, line 13, leave out first "that" and insert "if"
Page 5, line 15, leave out "if" and insert "where"
Page 5, line 17, leave out first "that" and insert "if
Page 5, line 18, leave out from beginning to "he" in line 19 and insert "A person does not commit an offence under this section if"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 48 to 52 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to. Clause 11 [Brandsharing]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 5, line 35, leave out ", or whose effect is to do so"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I tabled Amendment No. 53 as a means of raising with the Minister my concerns over a matter which, strictly speaking, is not directly related to the text of the Bill. However, it is highly relevant to the substance and purpose of this clause.
Noble Lords may remember that when we debated the issue of brand sharing in Committee. I raised the case of Alfred Dunhill Limited. Alfred Dunhill is a luxury goods company and has traded as such for more than 100 years. It does not manufacture cigarettes nor indeed any tobacco product. It does, however, share a brand name with a cigarette manufacturer.
Alfred Dunhill Limited is deeply concerned about the text of the draft EU directive on tobacco advertising. The current wording simply requires member states to prohibit advertising intended to promote smoking. One definition under consideration is the following:
"Advertising means any form of commercial communication with the aim of promoting a tobacco product".
Alfred Dunhill would have no problem with that, while tobacco companies that have diversified under the same brand name would presumably be caught by it. However, if a national legislature were to add the words, "or effect" after the word "aim", so that it read,
"with the aim or effect of promoting a tobacco product",
as indeed we see in Clauses 1 and 11 of this Bill, Alfred Dunhill would find itself in great difficulty simply by virtue of the fact that "Dunhill" is a well-known cigarette. Unless a specific derogation is stipulated, or at least permitted, in the directive to cover this kind of case, the problems caused to companies such as Alfred Dunhill will be severe. A derogation of this nature appeared in the tobacco advertising directive 98/43/EC which was subsequently annulled.
A directive is nominally intended to facilitate the working of the internal market. It will not do so in the case of Alfred Dunhill if it does not cover shared brands. It is conceivable that Alfred Dunhill might find itself in the anomalous position of being free legally to promote its products in the UK but not in, say, Belgium or France. That is because the exceptions to the regulations which the Secretary of State may one day adopt under Clause 11 could conflict with the laws made in due course by other member states when they come to implement the directive.
While I understand that the Commission does not want the directive to be complicated by the brand-sharing issue, it is absolutely inevitable. But if it is not covered in some appropriate way, the result will be an endless round of litigation. I cannot believe that the Government contemplate that prospect with equanimity.
I should be glad to hear from the Minister what approach the Government are adopting to the issue of bone fide brand-sharing in their discussions with the Commission. It would be very unfortunate if Alfred Dunhill found itself having to lobby up to 14 more parliaments to amend their secondary legislation so that it could continue to trade. It would be even more unfortunate if different legal barriers were to be erected by different member states in respect of products that have absolutely no tobacco content whatever. That would not only be unfair but damaging to British economic interests.
I hope that the Minister can issue some reassurance to me that the Government have these matters very much in mind in their discussions with the Commission and that they will be pressing the Commission to come forward with a text that includes an appropriate form of brand-sharing provision. I beg to move.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Earl. Lord Howe, has raised this matter. I look forward very much to hearing whether the Minister believes that the problem is solvable. I am as scathing as anyone about the tobacco industry, but I accept that in this case Dunhill appears to be an innocent party. It would certainly be wrong that just because there are Dunhill cigarettes—I believe that there are—Alfred Dunhill should not be able to promote its main products both here and abroad. So I am very sympathetic to what the noble Earl is saying.
What has interested me ever since the problem emerged is whether one can protect a firm like that while not producing—to use today's cliché a "coach and horses" state of affairs here. What troubles me is whether the actual producers, or tobacco firms, could produce institutional arrangements whereby they actually claimed legally that their tobacco businesses were being made legally separate. Therefore, they could still engage in activities on other products, and so on.
In other words, I am convinced that the noble Earl is right that we must find a solution to this problem in terms of the Bill, not only abroad but here. What troubles me a little is that I cannot quite see how to do it. It may well be that the Minister has solved the problem and will tell us what the solution is.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the Minister speaks, perhaps 1 may very briefly support my noble friend Lord Howe, not only for the reasons that he has given, but because they do actually form a type of security for the Bill. They would tend to avoid a mass of litigation over its provisions. I ask noble Lords on the Government Front Bench to take advice on the matter before rejecting the amendment out of hand.
I have listened, as I always do, to what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said. At one stage he seemed to be rather in favour of what my noble friend's amendment seeks to do. But at another stage he did not seem to be quite so much in favour. As the noble Lord never understands what I am saying, may I, in amity, say that on this occasion I could not understand what he was saying?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, my response to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is first to explain why we think that there are risks in general and then to focus on the specific, sensitive area that he mentioned. The amendment would limit the powers under the Bill to regulate brand sharing to where the intention of the brand sharing is to promote a tobacco product and not where the effect is to do so. The problem with that is
1698
that a tobacco company could say that it was not its intention to promote a tobacco product although that was the effect.
We discussed brand sharing in Committee and my noble friend Lord Hunt has written to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, on the subject and placed a copy of the letter in the Library. We remain of the view that there is a need to ensure that mischievous companies do not use that way of working to get round the Bill. I sense that in general the House recognises that that is a danger. For that reason, the Bill is intended to introduce a comprehensive ban on the advertisement and promotion of tobacco products. We have identified from international experience that for that to work, we need to take action to control brand sharing. I seem to recollect discussions of Malaysian restaurants and all sorts of other things that appeared implausible but occurred.
Documents released into the public domain show that many years ago the tobacco industry developed a strategy to use its brands on other products when it became apparent that direct advertising could be curtailed. We also mentioned during Committee that Strathclyde University published research in the British Medical Journal in March 2001 that concluded:
"when other variables that are known to be associated with smoking are controlled for, awareness of coupon schemes and brandstretching were both associated with the greater possibility of being a current smoker".
So there is some indication that brand stretching works, as one would expect.
The clause as drafted provides the Government with a regulation-making power. We intend to consult on any regulations on brand sharing as we recognise that there are many considerations and interests to he taken into account. Any regulation would or course ensure that genuine business expansion was not hampered. If an existing tobacco company wanted to set up new lines in another trade, as long as it used separate names and branding for the new products, that would be perfectly acceptable, as it would clearly not be intended to promote, or have the effect of promoting, a tobacco product.
However, we need to maintain the clause as drafted to ensure that business that is not genuine diversification and has the intent or effect of promoting a tobacco product is banned. It is right to retain the power to control the use of products where such use could be instrumental in encouraging young people to start smoking, even if that is not the intention. That is consistent with the line taken throughout the Bill. I should stress that it will be for the prosecution in any proceedings to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the effect of the brand-shared goods is to promote the tobacco product. The regulations may also contain defences.
I turn to the specifics of the case raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We spoke about Dunhill at some length in Committee, and in this instance I shall speak to the Bill rather than to the e-commerce directive, for reasons that your Lordships will understand. The Government have some influence over the Bill. hut less influence over the e-commerce directive.

1699
It would not be appropriate to include a specific derogation in the Bill for the reasons that I have just outlined, but there are clearly powers under regulation. The Dunhill situation is unusual. In Committee, I speculated on what tests might be in regulations that could differentiate between the Alfred Dunhill situation and that of Camel Active, which I do not think that most Members of the House want to be liberalised in the circumstances.
For reasons that the House will understand, I cannot pre-empt any decision on the content of regulations that the Secretary of State may make in respect of brand sharing, as we would want to have full and genuine consultation on them. But we are certain that it would be possible for any such regulations to treat products such as those of Alfred Dunhill in a different way from a range of goods deliberately developed to promote a tobacco product. I hope that, with those words on the record, the noble Earl will have received substantial comfort.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I understand the spirit in which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has moved the amendment and the underlying commercial concerns that firms such as Alfred Dunhill have and have expressed to him. However, for the reasons that the Minister set out, I am not sure that we should—or could—resolve the issue today in the primary legislation.
It is precisely because the clause raises issues such as that raised by the noble Earl that issues relating to brand stretching are best left to regulations. In that case, there should be full consultation about which brands should be included and which excluded. My view, for what it is worth, is that it would be rather perverse if Alfred Dunhill were to be caught by the regulations. It is a long-standing entity, legally separate from BAT, which produces Dunhill cigarettes. Similarly, Cartier produces cigarettes, but they represent such a tiny proportion of the company's turnover compared with jewellery that it would be rather strange if the regulations caught them. Those are just two examples, and consultation on regulations should cover such issues.
In Committee, we discussed the case of Sainsbury's: if it produces an own-brand cigarette, should it be allowed to market it under the Sainsbury name? Would regulations on brand stretching prevent it from advertising their other products? It would not, in a sane world. However, regulations ought to catch products such as Camel boots and Marlboro clothing, which are attempts to get round existing restrictions on advertising for the reasons that we discussed in Committee.
To accept the amendment would—to use the cliché of the day, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said—drive a coach and horses through the clause. We must have regulations that work but do not disadvantage commercial players that are not in the business of promoting cigarette brands. I hope that the noble Earl will accept that there is a genuine desire to make sure
1700
that the regulations cover the point. They will be by affirmative resolution, so we will have the opportunity to have a full debate about them.
The European directive, as I understand it, explicitly rules out catching non-tobacco products, whether they are made by tobacco companies or not. Member states are at liberty to go further, if they wish, provided that what they do is proportionate under the ECH R. I agree with the principles, but the directive ought to cover brand-stretch goods. At present, however, that is not likely to happen. It is unlikely that a prohibition on Dunhill advertising would be proportionate, given the legal separation of Alfred Dunhill and the producers of the cigarettes. That is the current state of knowledge, and I am sure that the regulations will be drawn up in the light of any further information that we have about the directive.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. The House will realise that I sought to make a narrow point. As I admitted, it was not strictly relevant to the text of the Bill.
I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out the literal effect of the amendment, and I realise that the clause must be left as drafted. I was using the amendment as a means of probing the Government; nothing more than that. It provided an opportunity for the Minister to offer a measure of comfort to Alfred Dunhill and other companies in its position. I sought to ensure that the Government were aware of the need, at least, to place a permissive power in the text of the EU directive. I make no other point besides that one.
Of course I recognise that, in the context of the UK per se, we are due to see regulations brought forward at some stage which will be debated in Parliament. I have taken note of the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that they will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am entirely happy with that. The Government appear to be reasonably confident that they are capable of framing regulations in such a way that companies such as Alfred Dunhill will be left in the clear. The company is itself reasonably confident of that on the basis of assurances that it has received from the Department of Health.
I have no problem with that. My concern is simply the position in which Alfred Dunhill will find itself in the EU context if the directive is not framed appropriately; that is, so that it encourages other member states to build in an exemption for innocent parties—if I may put it in those terms. Here I do not refer to companies such as Camel Active or the other examples of brand sharing that we discussed in Committee. It is those companies that have nothing whatever to do with tobacco that could be caught if the regulations are not framed appropriately in other member states as well as in this country.
I hope that, on the strength of what I have said, the Government will consider the matter further. I ask them simply to take on board the points I have made

1701
and, I hope, use them to good effect when they come to negotiate further in Brussels. With that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Powers of entry, etc]:
2.30 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 7, line 12, leave out "considers it" and insert "has reasonable grounds for believing that it is"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, a number of amendments were tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, which sought to introduce a concept of reasonableness into the powers conferred by Clause 14. The three amendments in this grouping return us to that theme and rest on one simple and, I hope, inherently reasonable aim; that is, to ensure that those powers which have the most potential for being intrusive, disruptive or damaging to a business are exercised on the basis of there being reasonable grounds to do so.
As the clause stands, an enforcement officer has only to be of the opinion that it is necessary for him to exercise the powers before those powers can be exercised. That is a test that is both subjective and, I suggest, weak. With powers to inspect books and records, take copies, take possession of such records and hang on to them, I think that it would be appropriate for there to be a slightly more objective test stated explicitly in the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, stated in Committee, the gravity of the subject matter in this Bill is of a lesser order than that of, for example, the Consumer Protection Act. Yet the Bill contains enforcement powers that are in every way comparable in terms of their severity and scope. The shift that I propose in this clause is not by any means major, but it would directly replicate the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act in this respect.
On 20th February the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, wrote to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale setting out the reasons why he felt that the Bill should not follow this precedent. While it was a helpful letter, I confess to remaining at least partially unconvinced by the Minister's arguments. I am sure that it would assist the House and it would certainly assist me if the Minister were to take the opportunity to set out some of those arguments today. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I have not taken part in previous debates on the Bill and I hope that I will not bore the House with one or two legal points.
I should like to explain why I do not consider this amendment—or indeed some of the others we shall be considering shortly—to be necessary. In a nutshell, Clause 14 creates powers of entry, search and seizure provided that the relevant enforcement authority considers the word "considers" is used throughout — it necessary.
1702
It is quite clear as a matter of English administrative law that when a public authority exercises powers of this character, it must be exercised lawfully—that is, for a proper purpose—rationally and fairly. Those are the principles of English administrative law. Those principles are now buttressed by the Human Rights Act 1998, Section 6 of which imposes a duty on the enforcement authority to act in a way compatible with the right to respect for private life and correspondence at home guaranteed by Article 8 of the convention, and also the right to property guaranteed by Article 1 of the first protocol.
Effective remedies are given under the Human Rights Act by way of proceedings under Section 7 for breach, with remedies under Section 8. Therefore, as lawyers would say, with respect, the amendment is surplus or otiose.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Howe referred to the letter that I received from the Minister on this subject, I should say that, compared to the other letter to which I referred several hours ago, it was sent remarkably promptly.
As my noble friend said, the letter was about the equivalence of powers in the Consumer Protection Act. The Minister made the point that the powers in Clause 14(1) and (2) of the Bill are all subject to the proviso that they can be used only for the purpose of the proper exercise of an enforcement officerx's functions. I understand that. However, 1 do not understand Clause 14(2) and (5), which confer powers on an enforcement officer to be exercised when he considers it necessary. The CPA equivalents are contained in Sections 28(1) and 30(3) of that Act, but elsewhere in the Act there is a requirement for the officer to act reasonably. I cannot see, therefore, why there should not be an equivalent provision in the Bill.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the amendments seek to put on the face of the Bill an express requirement on enforcement officers to act reasonably when they are exercising their powers to carry out inspections, to take possession, to retain items and to require information. In short, the Government's position, which has been better stated than I can by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is that there is already adequate protection in law to prevent against the mischief about which the noble Lord is concerned.
We have considered the point raised but the Government still consider that the amendments are not necessary for the following reasons. First, there is no reason why the drafting of legislation should necessarily mirror an Act passed some 15 years previously. Secondly, in practice there will be no significant difference between the powers conferred on enforcement officers by the Bill in respect of tobacco advertisements and those which they already have under the Consumer Protection Act. The usual approach of the courts in such a case is to inquire whether a reasonable person could have come to the decision in question without misdirecting himself on the law or the facts in a material respect. Meanwhile, where a provision requires reasonable grounds for

1703
believing, the courts will consider not only whether there are reasonable grounds for that belief but whether the person in question actually believed them.
I recognise that noble Lords are concerned to ensure that enforcement is carried out responsibly and that trading standards officers do not play fast and loose with the law. That point was discussed in Committee. However, there is no need for these amendments because the duty to act reasonably already applies very clearly. Enforcement officers can already be held to account for the exercise of their duties, and indeed any trading standards officer who misconducts himself in the execution of his duties is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to £5,000 under the Weights and Measures Act 1985. What is of fundamental significance is the fact that no prosecution could succeed if enforcement officers were seen to have acted unreasonably.
For these reasons, the Government believe it is unnecessary to pad out the Bill with references of this kind. Moreover, the powers in Clause 14(1)(b), (d) and (e), which the noble Lord seeks to amend, are all dependent on Clause 14(1)(a), which provides that they can only be used for the proper exercise of functions under this Bill. If an enforcement officer attempted to carry out an inspection which was not for the purpose of the proper exercise of his functions he would in any case be acting in excess of his powers and any subsequent prosecution based on information obtained as a result of his inspection would be liable to fail.
We recognised in Committee that trading standards officers are a competent and professional group of people. Of course there may be exceptions, but on the whole they have a wealth of experience in working in the community and tend to approach the exercise of their responsibilities in a prudent and proportionate manner. As we have said, their approach is aimed more at education than prosecution, which is viewed as a last resort. Therefore I do not believe that the dangers which have been pointed to will occur in the Bill as it stands.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I do not propose to add very much to what the Minister has said. Indeed, having had the benefit of the very succinct statement of my noble friend Lord Lester about the position, far be it from me to add to that. I shall obviously have to hire him again in the future—I cannot afford him: quite right!
The Minister has set out very clearly that decisions, both in terms of civil and criminal law, would be open to challenge and fine if a trading standards officer did not act reasonably or did not have reasonable grounds.
I agree with the Minister that it is not necessary to include references of this kind in the Bill, and that to do so would be inconsistent since this amendment would apply only to some references and not to others. How would that be applied consistently? I urge your Lordships not to support this amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Clement-Jones, for their helpful explanations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Obstruction, etc. of officers]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 59.
Page 9, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 and insert "A person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) if—"
Page 9, line 3, leave out "that"
Page 9, line 4, leave out first "that"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
2.45 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 60:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
"APPEALS AGAINST DETENTION OF GOODS

(1) Any person having an interest in any goods which are for the time being detained under any provisions of this Act by an enforcement authority, or by a duly authorised officer of such an authority, may apply for an order requiring the goods to be released to him or another person.

(2) An application under this section may be made

(a) to any magistrates' court in which proceedings have been brought in England and Wales or Northern Ireland; or

(b) in Scotland, by summary application to the sheriff.

(3) On application under this section to a magistrates' court or to the sheriff, an order requiring goods to be released shall be made only if the court or sheriff is satisfied

(a) that the proceedings under this Act have not been brought; and

(b) where no such proceedings have been brought, that more than six months have elapsed since the goods were seized.

(4) Any person aggrieved by an order made under this section by a magistrates' court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or by a decision of such a court not to make such an order, may appeal against that order or decision—

(a) in England and Wales, to the Crown Court; or

(b) in Northern Ireland, to the county court;

and an order so made may contain such provision as appears to the court to be appropriate for delaying the coming into force of the order pending the making and determination of any appeal (including any application under section 111 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) or Article 146 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (statement of case)."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Noakes drew attention in Committee to the absence from this Bill of any statutory protection for a person who finds himself on the receiving end of an enforcement action under the powers granted to authorised officers under Clause 14. I should like to pursue that issue today by moving Amendment No. 60 and in doing so to speak also to Amendment No. 61.
Under Clause 14 an authorised officer is given the authority without notice and without further reference to anyone to enter business premises, to inspect those

1705
premises, to demand production of books, records and products, to inspect them and take possession and to retain them for as long as he likes, and to require anyone to give him any information that he asks for in pursuance of his functions under the Bill.
That is an extremely comprehensive and authoritarian set of powers by any standards, and I have not read out all of them. It is comparable in extent and scope to the powers under other legislation of the Commission for Health Improvement or even Customs and Excise. Whereas both those bodies have the duty to investigate matters of potentially grave import for healthcare, the public purse or whatever the case may be, it is difficult to see how, in the generality of cases, issues of similar gravity arise under this Bill. I do not say that it is necessarily inappropriate to have such powers in Clause 14. But what is striking is that there is no remedy available on the face of the Bill to the person whose books or goods have been seized and taken away.
Despite the reply of the Minister in Committee when he indicated that in practice there was really nothing to worry about here, it is disquieting to me that, as the Bill stands, there is nothing that one can easily and immediately do if, for example, an enforcement officer takes away goods and then takes no further action for weeks or months. Even if the items are eventually returned. there is nothing the owner can do if his business has been grossly disrupted by the loss of them and if all along he was completely guiltless of any offence. In the first case, there is neither a way of getting the goods back short of civil action nor, in the second, a remedy for innocent parties to be compensated for the wrongful actions of the authorities. Both such remedies are available under the Consumer Protection Act. The amendments I have tabled are modelled closely on Sections 33 and 34 of that Act.
In Committee, the Minister expressed the view that there was no need for such amendments in a Bill of this kind. The first reason he gave was the gravity of the subject matter in the Consumer Protection Act where the powers are necessarily far reaching and, by implication therefore, appropriate remedies need to be built in. The second reason he gave was that under this Bill anything taken away was likely to be of small value. Thirdly, he said that he expected that common sense would prevail. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I suggest that he missed the point here. To say that because tobacco promotion is not as serious as, say, some of the offences listed in the Consumer Protection Act and that, therefore, equivalent protection is not needed for those on the receiving end of the enforcement powers is, I suggest, a non sequitur. In general, the subject matter of this Bill may indeed be less serious than that of the Consumer Protection Act. Nevertheless, wide-ranging and authoritarian powers are built into it. What matters is not the seriousness of the alleged offence but the potential harm that could be done to those against whom the Bill's powers will be used.
The noble Lord says that the degree of harm in such instances is likely to be small. I disagree. Any business which has its documents or records seized will necessarily be disrupted. Any business whose goods are taken away will suffer financially. It is all very well to trust to common sense in imagining the use of the enforcement powers. But, as drafted, the powers in Clause 14 are unfettered, taking into account the helpful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on the previous group of amendments. They can be used against a wide range of businesses—printers, distributors advertisers, newsagents, specialist tobacconists and so on. We have heard that any items seized may be retained by the enforcement authority only for as long as is reasonably necessary. But we know how the system works. The Bill invites an "act first, ask questions later" approach. In that sense, it gives carte blanche. It will always be possible for an authority to present its own view of what it considers to be necessary in a given set of circumstances.
Such a Bill should protect the small man. It should provide simple, inexpensive remedies. It should provide a deterrent to any wanton misuse of the enforcement powers. That is the purpose of my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support this amendment. If the provisions cannot be assimilated on the face of the Bill, I can understand that there is a case for not doing so and to avoid encumbering the Bill with a mass of detail. However, it is essential that some form of undertaking should be given by the Government to introduce the spirit of these provisions by regulation. My hope and respectful request is that this matter should not be disposed of today, but that time should be given for the Government to consider whether their substance should be incorporated in regulations.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the object of this and the next amendment, which is to provide effective remedies against the arbitrary exercise of the powers to be conferred by the Bill in relation to the seizure and detention of property. I also believe that, where possible, statute law itself should explain the powers, their limits and the remedies to be provided and that one should not always have recourse—as I am about to do—to the Human Rights Act 1998 to come to the rescue of legislation. That is not wholly satisfactory for the citizen who cannot tell from a reading of the Bill exactly what the powers are and their limits.
I declare an interest. I recently professionally represented the hauliers, drivers and lorry companies who were subject to detaining and fining powers for bringing clandestine entrants into the United Kingdom. The case was decided a week or so ago by the Court of Appeal using the Human Rights Act. It decided that some of the relevant provisions were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular the right to a fair hearing in Article 6 and the right to the enjoyment of one's property without arbitrary interference under

1707
Article 1 of the First Protocol. In effect, the court found that it could not read in the necessary safeguards and therefore granted what is known as a declaration of incompatibility.
But in this case it does not seem to me that the Human Rights Act would lead to that result, that is to say, in the kind of situation to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred. It would not be a question of the words of Clause 14 being capable of being read only in a particular way. I believe that the court would use the Human Rights Act to read in the necessary safeguards. Let us take the example of seizing property and for no good reason detaining and damaging the business of an undertaking in a serious way. That would be a classic example of proceedings for breach of the duty in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act in the way in which these powers were exercised. There is the remedy of compensation as a last resort under that Act.
I was not present at the meeting of the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights that considered the Bill, but I have read its report. We did not find it necessary to refer to this as a significant issue to draw to the attention of both Houses.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to respond to the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, all speaking in the same area. Perhaps I may set out why I believe the dangers are not as great as has been suggested. I am certain that the noble Earl recognises that in the legislation there need to be powers of entry and seizure; otherwise prosecutions will be impossible. I am certain that the noble Earl was not seeking to argue against that.
But there is a distinction between goods and documents which is relevant to our discussion. In short, the Food Safety Act, about which we spoke in Committee, effectively gives an aggrieved person a right of redress if their goods are seized because they could be of considerable financial value. In fact, it is our interpretation that the Consumer Protection Act does not give a similar power of redress in relation to the seizure of documents—as I shall seek to illustrate—which is what we are talking about in this respect. We are basically talking about the seizure of evidence that could demonstrate that an organisation or a company had sought to promote tobacco.
Finally, perhaps I may refer to remedies and to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The first new clause would give any person whose goods are detained by an enforcement officer under Clause 14(1)(c) the right to apply to a court to have them returned. It repeats the wording of Section 33 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Clause 14(1)(c) gives an enforcement officer the power to take possession of any book, document, data, record or product and retain it as long as he considers it necessary for the purpose.
1708
The second new clause would give a right to compensation to anyone whose goods are detained in connection with the provisions of the Bill where there is no culpable behaviour on his part. It follows closely the wording of the Consumer Protection Act.
Clause 14 follows closely the equivalent provisions in the draft regulations which were made in connection with European Directive 98/43/EC. We consulted widely on the regulations and received no representations to the effect that a provision for appeal similar to these new clauses might be necessary.
The Bill deals with advertising, and the type of items which might be seized would be a sample poster or magazine to produce as evidence to demonstrate that tobacco advertising was published in it. They would have little intrinsic value. By contrast, the Consumer Protection Act confers powers to take away large quantities of goods on the grounds that they are unsafe, such as toys with loose eyes, or furniture which breaches fire safety standards, which might carry a significant financial value.
Sections 33 and 34 of the Consumer Protection Act do not deal with items such as computer hard disks which form part of the evidence only. They are intended to deal with consignments of dangerous toys or inflammable furniture which are alleged to be in breach of safety regulations, but not the records detained for use as evidence. The CPA makes a clear distinction between the use of the words "goods" and "records", the latter including records in non-documentary form. Section 34 of that Act provides that the enforcement authority may be liable to pay compensation for loss or damage caused by reason of the exercise of the power to seize or detain goods,
"if there has been no contravention in relation to the goods of any safety provision or of any provision made by or under Part III of the Act".
It is clear that it is only the goods to which the offence relates which are meant.
Nothing in the Bill prevents a person who requires the return of some detained item or who has suffered loss or damage as a result of the seizure seeking its return or seeking damages in civil proceedings. Indeed, we talked in Committee about what one would expect to be the straightforward response, and an aggrieved person would make representations that the documents were necessary for the pursuit of his or her business. One would expect in such a situation—for example, if the documents contained a computer disk containing financial accounts and the person did not have a back-up copy—that the authority would provide a copy. Indeed, it would be unreasonable for it not to do so in such circumstances.
Reference was made to remedies. There clearly would be remedies under judicial review. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated that an action might infringe the human rights legislation. Clearly, in extreme circumstances, if a local authority—and that is what we are talking about—did not respond reasonably, there could be a civil action for damages against the local authority or the Department of Health, which is the other potential prosecuting and investigating body.

1709
For those reasons, we are not talking about the loss of substantial goods. It is possible that the taking away of documentation could interfere with the functioning of the business. That is a long shot; nevertheless, it would be unreasonable not to provide a copy to allow the continuing operation of the business while allowing the prosecution to go forward.
For those reasons, we do not believe that the amendments are necessary. We believe that there is already adequate protection as regards the mischief against which they seek to protect.
3 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure whether I ought to be asking this question before the Minister sits down or whether I can do it in the normal course of debate. Thanks to my noble friend Lord Geddes, I am now somewhat confused. Be that as it may, we seem to have arrived at a position in which, rather than the words of the Bill itself, we shall have to rely on another piece of legislation—namely the Human Rights Act 1998. That cannot be very satisfactory. can it?
Lord Filkiin: My Lords, I think that the human rights legislation gives very broad comfort in very many circumstances and that the House has already seen its benefit. I realise that I did not respond to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that regulation or guidance might put beyond doubt some of the issues that I have described. Although I cannot make a guarantee or commitment on the suggestion, we shall certainly consider it.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate on whether to import two sections from the Consumer Protection Act, and I do not propose to add a great deal to what has been said, particularly by the Minister and by my noble friend Lord Lester. We have a number of responses to the proposal to incorporate the two sections. The first is that the Bill will operate in the context of the Human Rights Act and the protection that it offers to those who believe that they have not been treated properly. Secondly, the Minister was particularly cogent on the differences between the items that will be seized by this legislation and those which are the subject of the Consumer Protection Act. As he said, documentation and disks are not covered by the Bill in the same way they are covered by the CPA.
Thirdly, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that the issue was not so much about the seriousness of the offence or the subject matter, but all about the potential harm. He almost made the argument against his own amendments. I also believe that—in relation to the protection offered by the CPA and the provisions of that legislation—disks and documents are treated differently in this legislation. Therefore, the potential harm is reduced.
I welcome the Minister's undertaking to consider the regulation issue, which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, raised. Although I realise that the Minister could not make a commitment, he has
1710
undertaken to consider the issue as and when the Bill moves on to be considered in another place. I can understand why the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has raised these issues, but I do not believe that they are necessary in practice or that they would add greatly to the Bill.
Earl Howe: My Lords, once again, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. This has been a useful short debate. The reason why I suggested that what counts here is the disruption and harm that could ensue from the use of the Bill's powers rather than any other consideration, is precisely that to which various noble Lords have alluded. The loss of a set of books and records—the loss of a hard disk, let us say—can be extremely disruptive and harmful to a business. The issue is therefore not wholly to do with the intrinsic value of the items that may be seized.
I think particularly, however, of brand-shared goods. What if an enforcement officer were to come in and seize goods that he considered to be tobacco advertisements but in fact were no such thing? What would happen if an enforcement officer raided the premises of Alfred Dunhill Limited and took away luxury goods in the belief that they were advertising Dunhill cigarettes?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the distinction is that the trading standards officer might need one or two of the items for an investigation or a prosecution. The trading standards officer would not be able to seize a whole warehouse of goods under this Bill, as he would under the Food Safety Act 1990 if he believed that the goods were injurious; for example, contaminated corned beef. There is a distinction in the nature of confiscation under the two measures.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that is a helpful clarification and I am grateful to the Minister. The amendments that I tabled were, as I said, designed to protect the "small" man, which this House has a particular duty to try to do. They propose straightforward and inexpensive remedies. To rely on the provisions of the Human Rights Act, much as I take on board everything the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said—I bow always to his superior knowledge on these matters—does not seem to me to provide an equivalent degree of convenience, at least, to the person who feels himself or herself aggrieved. However, the debate has taken us forward. As I say, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
"REVIEW OF THIS ACT

(1) The provisions of this Act shall remain in force for six years and shall then expire unless continued in force by an order made under subsection (2).

(2) If, prior to the expiration of six years from the date of commencement of this Act or the coming into force of any order made under this subsection, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the operation of this Act has led to a reduction in the prevalence

1711
of smoking in the United Kingdom population, with particular reference to the uptake of smoking by persons under the age of 16, he may by order made by statutory instrument provide—

(a) that all or any of those provisions of the Act which are for the time being in force shall continue in force for a period not exceeding ten years from the coming into operation of the order, and

(b) that any of those provisions of the Act which are not for the time being in force shall come into force again and remain in force for a period not exceeding three years from the coming into operation of the order.

(3) No order shall be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment brings us back to the interesting but ultimately inconclusive debate we had in Committee on the merits of introducing a sunset clause in the Bill. Sunset clauses are by no means appropriate in every Bill, but in the right circumstances I am an unashamed fan of them. I take that position because I believe that much of the legislation that we place on the statute book needs to prove its worth. If it fails to do so, it has no business remaining on the statute book.
The Bill we are considering is justified by its promoter as a necessary measure in the fight to reduce smoking prevalence, especially among the young. I am the first to agree that that is a worthy and noble aim. We are not at odds over that. No one here wants to see young people, or people of any age come to that, take up smoking when we know the terrible consequences in terms of ill health that that can lead to. But the unanswered question remains: will this Bill have the desired effect? It is impossible to know until we have had experience of it in practice.
We need not, and should not, revisit Second Reading arguments at the end of Report stage, but if I were to summarise the doubts that I have about the likely effectiveness of the Bill, assuming it is enacted, they would be twofold. The first doubt is that the evidence that cigarette advertising increases tobacco consumption and induces non-smokers to take up smoking is at best mixed. There is evidence that it does and evidence that it does not.
The second doubt is that regardless of whether cigarette advertising does or does not have that effect a ban on such advertising may lead to perverse and unintended consequences that are far more damaging. As I said at Second Reading, I firmly believe that to be true. If you deny the tobacco companies the opportunity to compete by means of brand advertising, it follows inexorably that they will choose to compete in the only other way open to them—on price. The ready availability of cheap cigarettes is a much more powerful influence on smoking take-up and smoking prevalence than advertising.
So why am I proposing a sunset clause? Let us suppose that a ban on advertising does not achieve what its proponents hope. If during the years after this Bill comes into force the prevalence of smoking actually goes up, perhaps because of aggressive price cutting by the manufacturers, in those circumstances
1712
I would argue that there is a compelling social reason—an empirical reason—why this Bill should cease to have effect.
Let us suppose that the ban had no discernible effect one way or the other on the prevalence of smoking. Why would a sunset clause matter in those circumstances? It would matter because, much as several noble Lords may wish to forget it, the price of enacting the Bill is an erosion of commercial freedoms. In this country, we do not go in for curtailing the freedom of individuals or businesses unless we can advance compelling social reasons for doing so. When we debated this issue in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, demonstrated that she had overlooked that point when she said that to follow through the logic of the proposal we should cease to provide nicotine patches on the NHS after a certain period and put a time limit on health education programmes in schools. The difference between those elements of an anti-smoking campaign and a statutory ban on tobacco advertising is that the latter involves an infringement of civil and commercial liberties and the former do not. Parliament may well wish to give the Bill's proponents the benefit of any doubt that may currently exist by passing it into law in the first instance, but the onus is then on the Government to demonstrate, after an appropriate period, that Parliament's faith was well founded.
Such considerations, and others, underlay many of the conclusions that were reached by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The committee bore in mind a number of key principles, one of which was the proportionality of the Bill's provisions, measured against its supposed effects. The issue of proportionality is especially relevant in the context of the Bill's brand sharing provisions and of Clause 10, which is about sponsorship. In more than one part of its report, the committee questioned whether enough evidence had been presented to Parliament to enable the public interest case to be demonstrated beyond peradventure. It opined that only by having access to such evidence would it be possible for each House of Parliament to assess the issue of justification under paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 10 of the ECHR—that article deals with freedom of expression.
We have heard much from the Minister about the nature of the available evidence, which, as I said, is not by any means one sided. If that evidence needs buttressing, it is incumbent on the Government over the next few years to assemble the relevant data and to make a judgment about whether or not the Act has worked. My amendment states that if the Secretary of State cannot satisfy himself that the Act has resulted in a reduction in the prevalence of smoking, it should cease to have effect. Anything short of that and we come up against human rights considerations.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, knows that I proposed the amendment on as serious and principled a basis as he is presenting the Bill. I hope that he will treat the amendment with commensurate respect. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, the amendment refers in particular to the uptake of smoking among people under the age of 16. I refer to an excellent systematic review by Sowden and Arblaster on mass media interventions to prevent smoking among young people. It outlines many of the methodological difficulties in obtaining data from that population.
Data collections in the under-16s are notoriously difficult. It is estimated that 23 per cent of children under the age of 11 have experimented with smoking. In six years' time—the time limit in the amendment—most of those children will still be under 16. People in that age group may make a declaration of activity. but it is difficult to ascertain true activity, particularly illicit activity, in areas such as substance abuse, petty or major crime and sexual activity. It is known that such data are incredibly difficult to obtain.
The other compounding variable in this matter is the ability of youngsters to purchase cigarettes illegally; that is, the current regulations are being breached at the point of sale. Again, there is good documented evidence from the research database that youngsters are able to purchase cigarettes even though they are under age.
The impact on the nation's health will probably not be directly proportional to the prevalence of smoking in the population. For example, if consumption of tobacco can be decreased among high-risk groups, such as pregnant women and those with diabetes and, in particular, diabetic pregnant women, there will be a very large impact on the future health of the nation because the number of small to-date babies will decrease as will the risk of those babies subsequently becoming diabetic when they reach adolescence. But, if one looks at the prevalence overall, one will not see that shift in the figures.
The amendment seems designed to cut off the Bill at the knees and to put short-term pressure on the medical profession, which for years has campaigned for such a Bill in the interests of the health of the nation. It will force a rapid expenditure in collecting baseline data so that the Government can argue in six years' time for the Bill to continue.
The intention of the Bill is to improve the health of the population. It seems to me that the intention of the amendment is to allow the tobacco companies to promote their product again in six to 10 years' time. The Bill does not make the consumption of tobacco per se illegal. The tobacco companies, which do not want the Bill, will now save vast amounts of money in advertising. Therefore, when they cannot advertise, they will be able to redress the exploitation that has taken place through low wages in poorer countries in the global economy. Tobacco-producing countries, where the workers are known to be underpaid, could have decent working conditions and higher rates of pay. That would redress some of the broader issues across the whole world poverty differential.
It would seem to be eminently preferable to use the money made available in that way either to cut the price of tobacco in this country, which would act as
1714
another way of promoting tobacco, or to bank the money in order to start advertising again with a vengeance in six to 10 years' time. Therefore, if the Bill is designed to help the health of the nation, I fail to understand why the amendment is being suggested.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, because the Bill, if enacted, will impose real restrictions on freedom of commercial speech, as the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights indicated in its eighth report, there will inevitably be questions as to the compatibility of the Act with European Community law and European convention law. In that report, the Joint Select Committee explained how the basic principles of proportionality and legal certainty came to be applied to this type of problem. It spelt out with clarity—I was not party to it so I can say this with even more enthusiasm—exactly what the issues and factors were.
The committee came to the conclusion that the objectives of the Bill were legitimate, that the question of the legal certainty of the Bill depended, among other things, on complicated questions of European Community law, and that, so far as concerned proportionality, it was important for both Houses to be satisfied on the basis of evidence that the means employed in the Bill were reasonably necessary to achieve the important legislative objectives of the Bill. As I understand it, a great deal of evidence has been produced which leads to the question: whose job is it under our constitutional system of government to assess that evidence?
I believe that this is an example of the beneficial effects of the Human Rights Act and the European Communities Act. The reality is that all three branches of government are involved in this exercise: the executive branch, which produces the evidence and, through its Ministers, seeks to justify the measure; the legislative branch—ourselves—whose job it is to act as a kind of political court to weigh the evidence and to decide whether the objectives are sufficiently important and whether the means employed are reasonably necessary; and the judicial branch.
We have plenty of safeguards in regard to the judicial branch, as British courts can apply the Human Rights Act and the European Communities Act. So where European Community law is supreme, our courts must give effect to it and must set aside this Act if, in truth, it were in breach of Community law. If it were in breach of convention law, our courts would have to make a declaration of incompatibility. If necessary, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights could be involved in that. There is a sharing of responsibility across the three branches.
With respect to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the question raised by this amendment is whether it makes sense to impose an arbitrary period of life to the Bill, after which it would automatically die, as the sun goes down at the end of the day. I suggest that that is not sensible. If the fears raised by the opponents of the Bill about its compatibility with human rights or anything

1715
else were well founded, as I have tried to summarise, there would be ample opportunity for effective remedies, both in our courts and in the two European courts as guardians of the rule of law.
I do not know whether challenges would be made. I suspect that, given the commercial interests at stake, they will be made. I expect that members of my profession will find themselves enriched in the process. I am afraid that that is the effect of having lawyers in legal proceedings. All those safeguards are there and for the life of me I cannot see why a political fetter needs to be placed on the life of the Bill. If it became law, and if the opponents of the legislation were right, in a legal challenge either British courts or one of the two European courts would be able to provide effective remedies.
Therefore, I respectfully suggest that this House carries out its job in evaluating whether the objectives of the legislation are legitimate and whether the means employed are proportionate. If the answer is yes—I hope that that answer is given by this House and by the other place—then there is the matter of legality, which is not one for this House, but a matter for British and European courts. For those reasons I hope that the amendment will not be acceptable to the House.
Lord Monson: My Lords, even if this Bill does not contravene European law in any way, does the noble Lord agree that it may still be contrary to our British traditions of freedom? I believe that that was the point that the noble Earl was trying to make.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I believe that the European Convention on Human Rights, drafted by British legal draftsmen, reflects traditional British, civil and political rights, including the right to the freedom of speech, going back at least to the 17th century. I have never regarded the European convention as some kind of alien construct, emanating from the French or the American Revolutions. It is as British as Magna Carta, and the values expressed, including the principle of proportionality—do not take a sledgehammer to crack a nut are impeccably British values.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as the noble Lord was kind enough to refer to part of the argument I made in a similar discussion in Committee, I shall be grateful if I may be allowed to make the second part of the argument, to which he did not refer, but which is worth repeating, however briefly.
The Government and health educators have always made the point that tobacco advertising alone cannot be a suitable weapon to deal with the prevalence of smoking. Indeed, to successfully contain smoking prevalence, a wide range of measures and activities must be undertaken across the board. That is one of the arguments I was making in Committee.
There is one point which the noble Earl did not make. In many countries where a tobacco advertising ban has been introduced, one can assume that a sufficiently significant fall in tobacco consumption is
1716
related to the ban. But it has also been my consistent view that in the course of introducing a wide range of anti-smoking measures—as this Government have done and, indeed, has happened over the past few years—such as nicotine patches on the health service and health education in schools, it would be difficult to separate out the precise contribution that a ban on tobacco advertising has made.
That does not undermine the significance of introducing a tobacco advertising ban. But it makes it more difficult, even with all the successful monitoring methods which I am sure will be introduced, to see what impact the Government's measures and, for instance, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, if it is successful, will have on the reduction of smoking. It would not be sensible to try to isolate it and monitor it in precisely the way the noble Earl's amendment suggests, particularly over a limited timescale. I suspect this will be another area where the friends of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in the legal profession will simply enrich themselves even further.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I start from a position very similar to that of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. If we were not debating this Bill today but were debating constitutional matters, and it was suggested that all Bills should have a sunset clause, and that the final clause should always be a review of the Act to see whether the Bill achieves the good it sets out to achieve, or removes the harm it sets out to remove, I would put my hand up and say that it was a good thing for all legislation. It would also have the enormous benefit that most Home Office Bills would disappear very rapidly.
But the question we must address today is why, of all the Bills that come before your Lordships' House, do we single out for special research a Bill to do with the banning of tobacco advertising and promotion? I can think of no non-cynical reason why that is put forward.
I shall follow the noble Earl's dictum of not making a Second Reading speech, although I am afraid my two noble friends made Second Reading speeches, albeit totally related to the points raised by the noble Earl, in pointing out how difficult it is to make these assertions.
I hope that the noble Earl does not divide the House on this matter, although if it was a general provision to be applied to all legislation, I would be hoping for a Division and the noble Earl would have me voting with him.
I come to the point on commercial freedom. We seem to have become involved with human rights. I ask noble Lords to address themselves to the pharmaceutical companies, which are in the business of producing drugs of immense benefit to mankind, as opposed to the cigarette manufacturers. They are subject to the strictest controls, especially in the fields involving chemistry, biochemistry and their effects on human beings—the so-called "side effects" problems. Even with drugs possessing enormous potential for

1717
good, there have only to be one or two experiments turning up the definite chance of side effects and the drugs are not given a licence. Commercial freedom is interfered with.
I compare that with the position of the tobacco companies producing a product that kills. For anyone to stand up in this Chamber and use the expressions, "human rights" and "commercial freedom". is absolutely preposterous. To hear noble Lords who claim to be concerned with human rights defending these companies on that basis is something that I am sorry that I have to sit here and listen to. We are dealing with companies producing a product that kills. I suggest that noble Lords compare what they do with the pharmaceutical companies and how they are regulated; there would then be something much more powerful than this Bill before your Lordships today.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, yes, I suppose that I claim to be a Conservative. But I am not very happy about sunset clauses. I never have been. I am not happy about having one in this Bill because, inevitably, there will be one or two massive test cases on the evidence as to whether the convictions in the criminal courts stand up. Then the assessment will be made by the courts. It is no use any noble Lord being confident in his opinion that this is right or that is wrong. That is totally beside the point. There will be a series of test cases, one of which will inevitably go to your Lordships' Appellate Committee, in which the whole of the evidence will be sorted out and a decision will be made as to whether the provisions of the Bill are right or wrong. That encapsulates the dispute between the Government—I am using the Government because after all they support the Bill—who give a certificate of ECHR compliance and those who say, "No". That dispute cannot be resolved by the assertion—confident or not—of any noble Lord in this House or anywhere else. It must he resolved by the courts. In view of that, what on earth is the logic of having a sunset clause? In the mean time, the whole thing would have been resolved by the courts. Therefore, I suppose, yes. I do not know whether it is a Conservative point of view, but it is my own.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I understand the principled position that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, takes. But from what I have heard during the debate, I am concerned about the possibility of perpetuating inequalities in health. I hope that the noble Earl will bear that in mind when he makes a decision on whether or not to seek to divide the House. Of children in care, 75 per cent have no educational qualifications whatever. Only 4 per cent achieve five GCSEs grades A to C, whereas 50 per cent of the general population achieve those grades. Therefore, I argue that this group is particularly vulnerable to advertising. I hope that the noble Earl will bear that in mind when he makes his decision.
Lord Skelrnersdale: My Lords, as noble Lords will appreciate from my activities today, I normally tend to
1718
lead with my chin. On this occasion I have waited to hear what was said. I noted that two things were not said. First, that since 1997 tobacco consumption has gone up by some 3 per cent. That is, I believe, a direct result of the Government's laxity in containing tobacco smuggling, which has increased by roughly the same amount. The two are equal.
It is noticeable that the proponents of the Bill believe that, with its massive and unprecedented nature, tobacco consumption is likely to be reduced by around 2.5 per cent in the long term. Therefore, overall, I cannot understand why they are so vehement—so dogmatic, if you like—about the good that this particular Bill will do. Of course it will do some good; it will certainly prevent some people taking up smoking. Whether it will stop people continuing to smoke is much more doubtful.
Earlier, I described myself as in general a fact of sunset clauses. I noted in Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, talked about specific uses for sunset clauses and cited such acts as the Terrorism Act 2000, the Armed Forces Act 1996, the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. With the greatest respect, that is a selective list. It is perfectly obvious why those temporary provisions Acts—as they all are to a greater or lesser extent—should need continuation clauses and to be reviewed regularly by Parliament.
Secondly, the Minister failed to mention the Electronic Communications Act 2000, which does not fall into that category. It is worth noting that that sunset clause was promoted not by a Back Bencher in either House of Parliament but by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, may know that full well because I know that he spoke at the seminar at which the Secretary of State promoted the provision. I hope that neither the Minister nor the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will rest on their previous argument that sunset clauses are necessarily for particular types of legislation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well, my Lords, we seem to have come to the crux of the argument in this debate. Although the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested that when we discussed the matter in Committee and on Second Reading, we came to an inconclusive conclusion, I believe that the evidence is clear that the impact of the Bill will be to reduce tobacco consumption in this country. As such, it is to be welcomed and supported. A convincing case has not been made for a sunset clause to be used in the Bill.
Two years ago, in its report, Nicotine Addiction in Britain the Royal College of Physicians stated that smoking causes one in every five deaths in Britain and the loss of more than 550,000 years of life before the age of 75 and that it is the single most important health problem in Britain. Martin Broughton, the chief executive of BAT, said in The Times this morning that he understands that smoking carries health risks. That in itself justifies taking strong action to try to reduce the prevalence of smoking.

1719
At Second Reading, I set out why the bulk of the evidence suggests that the Bill is likely to bring about a modest but real reduction in smoking levels. I mentioned the Smee report, commissioned and published, to their credit, by the previous government, which concluded that countries with an advertising ban experienced a subsequent fall in smoking on a scale that could not reasonably be attributed to other factors.
As long ago as 1989, the US Surgeon-General concluded that,
"the collective empirical, experiential and logical evidence makes it more likely than not that advertising and promotional activities do stimulate cigarette consumption".
Two years later, research found that a 10 per cent increase in advertising expenditure would lead to a 0.6 per cent increase in consumption.
More recently, the World Bank, in its report, Curbing the Epidemic, found:
"A recent study of 22 high-income countries based on data from 1970 to 1992 concluded that comprehensive bans on cigarette advertising and promotion can reduce smoking".
It predicted that a European Union-wide ban on tobacco advertising would reduce tobacco consumption by about 7 per cent. The evidence that the Bill will have a positive impact in reducing tobacco smoking is compelling.
I listened with great care to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, when he suggested in the first place that, if we decided to prevent tobacco companies from competing with one another by means of advertising, we will force them to compete in the only other way open to them—price. The noble Earl expressed concern that, if the average price of tobacco fell, consumption would rise. I can reassure the House that the Government recognise that that is one of the ways in which tobacco companies may strive to knock down the price of their cigarettes to fend off their competitors. Any widespread fall in prices could be met by action by the Government to review the structure and rates of excise duties on tobacco products. I assure the House that we will keep that matter under close review.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, raised the other familiar issue—smuggling. Of course, the Government are concerned about the impact of the smuggling of tobacco goods. We have introduced a strategy to take away the profits of tobacco smuggling by hitting all aspects of the problem: first, by seizing massive volumes of cigarettes at the ports before they can come onto the streets and, then, by tasking local customs fraud teams, supplemented by a national mobile task force, to blitz potential hot spots repeatedly. In the Pre-Budget Report of November 2001, the Government published the first-year results from the tobacco strategy, showing that customs had met their key target of holding the illicit share of the UK market to 21 per cent, with 2.8 billion cigaret”tes seized in 2000–01.
1720
One can, of course, never be complacent, but it is worth recording that customs have also achieved a 76 per cent reduction in the amount of revenue lost due to the cross-Channel smuggling of tobacco and alcohol, against a target of 10 per cent for 2001.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that there is now the strongest evidence that the tobacco companies themselves are at the heart of many worldwide smuggling scams? Did he see the report in The Times yesterday, in which two major American companies were accused of breaking US embargoes on trade with Iraq, by smuggling billions of cigarettes into that country?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend will not draw me into making specific allegations in the House, but, no doubt, noble Lords will take account of the views that he expressed. My other point about smuggling is that there are countries in Europe with lower price and tax structures for tobacco products than this country in which smuggling is just as much a problem as it is here.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, put his finger on it when he talked about proportionality. The Joint Committee on Human Rights produced a most interesting report. My honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, Yvette Cooper, has now responded to the committee and laid out in a letter and a report the reasons why the Government believe that the evidence is persuasive and why it was entirely right that, when the Government Bill was published, a Minister was able to say that he believed that the terms of the Bill were consistent with European legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, also pointed out that the combination of the responsibility of the executive to provide the evidence, the legislature to weigh the evidence and the judiciary to ensure that judicial process is observed provides the kind of safeguards that are necessary in such a Bill. The noble Lord was persuasive about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, thought that I had been somewhat selective in my reference to legislation produced using examples of sunset clauses. Sunset clauses, of their very nature, will be used only in special circumstances. I do not believe that the circumstances of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill warrant that use. The Bill as a whole is balanced and proportionate and contains sufficient safeguards which have been added to as a result of the 30 amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Those amendments have been accepted.
On that basis, the Government recommend that the House does not support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in proposing a sunset provision.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that by all accounts there are more people in this country under the age of 40 who have smoked cannabis on more than one or two occasions

1721
than there are people under the age of 40 who have smoked cigarettes? That is the case even though cannabis has never been advertised or promoted. How can the Minister be so certain of the link between advertising and tobacco consumption?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the reports to which I referred in my introductory remarks have made it abundantly clear that there is a link. The Surgeon-General of the United States, Mr Clive Smee, tasked by the previous government to look into these matters, and various other reports have produced quite persuasive evidence that the implementation of this Bill will have a wholly positive impact on reducing tobacco consumption.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I believe that the Minister was entirely right to highlight the point made by my noble friend Lord Lester. The key questions for this Bill are whether its aims are legitimate and whether the means are proportionate. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, had it right. He did a remarkable demolition job on the proposition for a sunset clause. I have no doubt that the Bill will be tested in court by the manufacturers in due course.
I am firmly of the belief that the provisions of the Bill are proportionate. All the way through our debates in Committee and the Report stage today, we have been describing how the Bill is proportionate. That has marked the foundation of our debates. I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on the position of the pharmaceutical industry in which he pointed out that it produces beneficial products that are subject to far tighter controls over advertising, was a case in point. It illustrates strongly that this Bill is indeed proportionate.
I shall not adduce the evidence again, but a great deal of evidence has been provided at each stage of the Bill and as we have discussed the various elements of the provisions. It was referred to at some length at Second Reading. It was referred to when the Government brought forward their Bill, when I brought the Bill forward in this House and, of course, in the other place with regard to the original Bill. That evidence was also provided to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Noble Lords in this House are only too expert in understanding the sources of the evidence. I am quite convinced that the evidence base is sufficiently robust for Parliament to legislate on this subject and for the Bill to be considered proportionate. The Smee report has been mentioned, along with the World Bank report, the review Curbing the Epidemic by Saffer and Chaloupka and so forth. In contrast, the only evidence brought forward by noble Lords who oppose the Bill have adduced is the KPMG report. No doubt noble Lords will be aware that the more that report is unpicked—not only its provenance, but its choice of countries and the way in which the evidence was presented— the more it is demonstrated that it was a deeply flawed piece of work and certainly should not be used to cast doubt on any of the evidence referred to today by the Minister.
1722
Of course some noble Lords have made the case that advertising is a less important determinant of smoking than many other factors such as price, availability, social cachet and so forth. However, it may well be a strong component which, when combined with those other elements, has an effect. Indeed, it is the other side of the argument. It is perfectly possible to regard a ban on advertising as part of a total package, a point rnade by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. That is a further reason why a sunset clause would be inappropriate because the Bill forms part of a package and a strategy. No one has ever pretended that the Bill provides the only way to cut back on smoking or to prevent people from starting the habit.
Of course the short-term pressures are considerable in terms of pricing. If we had a sunset clause, there would be a great temptation for the manufacturers to drive down prices, which would perhaps lead to an increase in smoking.
A point was made about tobacco smuggling. Of course I would advocate that tobacco smuggling should be dealt with. It is a part of this package. It may be dealt with by a different government department, but I am sure that the Government will be vigorous in tackling the smuggling problem.
I cannot answer the question about the Electronic Communications Act. I am very touched by the faith of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in my ability to answer his question as to why there should be a sunset clause in that Act, but I still believe that sunset clauses are used only on matters of overriding public importance. The Acts mentioned by the noble Lord speak volumes in that respect, and we need to make that important point in this context.
I do not wish to prolong the matter any further. We have had a very good debate, in the course of which the arguments have been overwhelmingly in favour of those who do not see the merits of a sunset clause.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it has been a useful and helpful debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have commented so thoughtfully on my amendment. The amendment reflects, in essence, what the Joint Committee said—that is, that if the Bill is to merit its place on the statute book there must be credible and compelling evidence that the presupposition underlying it is well founded.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said that it was probably impossible to separate out the contribution that a ban on tobacco advertising would make on smoking prevalence in the context of all the other antismoking measures that the Government are taking, but anything less than compelling evidence makes the Bill an act of faith.
The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that the evidence already exists. That is very good—the Bill will become law. I am certainly not stopping it, but I am inherently unhappy with an argument that we should sweep up a ban on tobacco advertising into the array of the Government's antismoking measures—and do so on a permanent basis—without assessing the effects of such a ban over the long term.

1723
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his wise remarks. In particular, I am grateful to him for posing the question of why one should have a sunset clause in this Bill of all Bills. That is a perfectly sensible question. I notice that the noble Lord did not object to the Government's own sunset clause in the Ofcom Bill. But, be that as it may, he drew a comparison with the pharmaceutical industry, which I tried to follow. The whole point about the pharmaceutical industry is that we are dealing there with evidence-based medicine. There is definitely a body of evidence which tells you whether or not a drug is safe and efficacious.
The noble Lord took exception to anyone uttering the expressions "human rights" and "commercial freedom" in the context of the Bill. I am sorry about that. I understand his attitude towards the tobacco industry—it is an attitude that I respect even though I do not share it—but we must not forget that we are dealing here with a legal product. If it were an illegal product, I would be the first to agree with the noble Lord that the questions of human rights and commercial freedom should go out of the window, but we cannot do that here.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the issue. One of the points I was trying to make is that if, before putting its products on the market, the tobacco industry had to meet the standards that pharmaceutical companies have to meet, no one would be able to buy any cigarettes in this country at all—and no one would argue that that was an infringement of their human rights or anything of that kind. That is the point I was trying to make.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for being the kind of Conservative Back-Bencher who is not afraid to speak his mind.
I should also like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who, not for the first time today, has enlightened our proceedings. I would say to him that it is not entirely surprising that he seeks to raise the possibility of a legal challenge, as opposed to any other sort of challenge, to the validity of the Bill. The sort of challenge that I am proposing in this amendment is a challenge by the Minister of the day, and I should have thought that a ministerial decision based on the available evidence would be a much better route than legal action for determining whether the Bill's provisions should continue in existence.
The Government professed to believe that this Bill will lead to a reduction in smoking prevalence of about 2.5 per cent in the long term. Either that estimate is well founded or it is not. If the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, are so confident about the science and the strength of the evidence, they have absolutely nothing to fear from the sunset clause: nothing at all. Nor would I wish to interfere with a ministerial decision that the Bill had had the desired effect and that it was proportionate.
1724
However, notwithstanding the strength of the opposition to the arguments I have advanced, I beg leave to take the opinion of the House on this issue.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 49.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Liverpool, E.

Burnham, L.

Luke, L. [Teller]

Erroll, E.

Monson, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Moynihan, L.

Geddes, L.

Northesk, E.

Haslam, L.

Palmer, L.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Andrews, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Barker, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Maclennan of Rogan, L.

Campbell-sovours, L.

McNally, L.

Carter, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]

Miller of Chilthome Domer, B.

Condon, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dubs, L.

Newby, L.

Elder, L.

Northover, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L. [Teller]

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Filkin, L.

Peston, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gale, B.

Rea, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Greaves, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hamwee, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Haskel, L.

Simon, V.

Hayman, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hooson, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Taveme, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wilkins, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Listowel, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.6 p.m.
Clause 16 [Penalties]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 9, line 13, at end insert—
"() On service of notice of appeal against conviction on the ground that the offence is not "prescribed by law" either—

(a) as is capable of justification under Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights as not requisite or proportionate to protect public health; or

(b) as is proscribed by Articles 28 and 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Community as an arbitrary or disguised restriction on trade between Member States more extensive than requisite to achieve a legitimate object,

1725
the High Court may order a stay on enforcement of any penalty imposed pending determination of the appeal, or until further order, on such terms as may be deemed to be just and expedient."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment derives from a probing amendment moved at Committee stage on 18th January. I thank all noble Lords whose contributions on that occasion were reflected in the amendment that I move today, which was printed on 22nd January.
But at the outset I have given notice of my intention to do so to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that I have the misfortune to deal with a formal complaint made to the Commons Clerk of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am member, as to my conduct when moving the probing amendment.
Complaint was made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, by letter of 15th February, to which a copy of the amendment I am moving today was attached. The noble Lord gave me no notice of his intention to write that letter or indeed no notice of any complaint that he had as to my conduct. The noble Lord said in the letter of the 15th to the Commons Clerk that the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights of 17th December had been brought to his attention and that I gave the impression at Committee stage on 18th January that my amendment was,
"in line with the views of the Joint Committee of which he [is] a member".
First, that is totally untrue. Secondly, anyone who cares to read the Official Report of 18th January and the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights of 17th December, will see at once that I referred to paragraphs in the report of the JCHR concerned with "prescribed by law" and "proportionality" only to identify the two areas of appeal against conviction as to which, on the basis that there was an arguable case, the measure of safeguard proposed by the amendment would be appropriate.
I did not refer to paragraph 19 of the report, which suggested that such matters should be explored by Members of both Houses: for such was what I was doing. That was well understood by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, notwithstanding that he held the opinion that the Government were right in regard to compatibility with the ECHR—on which he would be the first to concede that mistakes have been in the past.
The sting in this is all too plain: that I, as a member of that committee, gave the false impression that the probing amendment—and the amendment that I move today—was in line with the views of the committee on which I serve in order to bolster the argument that there is an arguable case. I adhere to the view that there is an arguable case, particularly in the light of the judgments of the Court of Appeal in the transport case. As I said earlier, such matters cannot be resolved by the confident assertion of any noble Lord. They are resolved by a court of law, subject to supra-national law. So it comes to this.
I have been in this House for some 20 years. My conduct has never been called into question by anyone, save, perhaps, my own party.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Well, not publicly, not on the Floor of the House. As I see it, this is a totally unwarranted and unwelcome aspersion cast upon conduct on the Floor of the House by a Member of the House. A complaint was made to a Clerk of the House of Commons, without any form of notice.
On 26th February, the Joint Committee met, absolved me of any want of propriety and asserted the freedom of any member of that committee to use the reports in either House. It was agreed that I should deal with the matter today.
I turn to the amendment. On 20th February. I received a most interesting letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which could well dispose of the amendment—as it appears that in the international transport case the enforcement of penalties on conviction were stayed pending appeal. If that procedure were to be implemented generally. I totally accept that the amendment would be otiose. However, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. and their department for the courtesy and trouble that they took in writing to me. Perhaps for the sake of the record I may quote a section from the letter:
"Thank you for your letter of the 21 January notifying me of your amendment for Report stage … I was very grateful to you for writing to me and I have looked at the Amendment very carefully. The view taken here is that the Amendment does not give any additional rights over and above those that exist at present. When a person appeals against conviction, the court to which he appeals already has the right to stay any penalty pending determination of the appeal. I therefore do not see why we need to make any special provision for people who may be convicted under the provisions of this Bill".
The Court of Appeal then gave its decision on 26th February. I am grateful to the noble Lords and to those in their department. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may begin, as a fellow member of the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, by mildly teasing the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I remember one evening, at about nine o'clock, I was trying to persuade this House—we may have been in Committee—that there should be a Human Rights Act, when the noble Lord got up after I had made a point and said that I was making a serious point after the dinner hour. He said it as though that were a high crime and misdemeanour. The exchange has now been quoted in books as an example of the sense of humour that we have among ourselves. I begin with that story because I am very concerned that we should keep a sense of humour.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is not a joke. It is a sting against my character, and I would be obliged if the noble Lord would not start by telling jokes.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I do not mean to be offensive.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: You were.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I apologise for having caused offence. I suggest that the matter indicates a misunderstanding. I think that that was the view taken in the Joint Select Committee when the matter was discussed and the noble Lord and I were both present.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones was concerned about the fact that, when our Committee met in December, it considered his Bill without his having any opportunity to make any representations. This is a Private Member's Bill, and he felt concerned about that. Therefore, on my advice, he decided that he would write to the committee. I was not responsible for the letter, but that is how it came about. He wanted to draw the committee's attention to the fact that he had had no opportunity to make representations.
I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, construes my noble friend's letter as a complaint against him. I myself certainly do not construe it in that way, nor do I believe that it was so intended. What I am quite clear about is that the committee reaffirmed what is obvious anyway—that each member of that committee, and any Member of this House, is entirely free to make whatever use they intend of the public record contained in our reports. The noble Lord was entirely entitled to table his amendment on his interpretation of the report, and that is what he did. No criticism of any kind should be made of him for doing that, and the committee has made that perfectly clear. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will wish to add anything to what I have just said.
I move to the amendment itself, which I do not believe is necessary or a result of our Joint Select Committee report. In paragraph 19 of the report, we indicated what we thought about legal certainty. There is no point in my repeating that. The amendment, however, would write into the Bill a power in the High Court to stay the enforcement of a penalty when there had been a conviction on the ground that the offence was not proscribed by law. That is not a necessary power to write into the Bill, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, more or less concedes that in the kind things that he said about the department.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I clearly conceded it. However, I have not yet received an acknowledgement or an apology for a sting and a slur on my character. I gather that the noble Lord did not draft it, but he advised on the letter. I think that this is an incredible way of dealing with a charge of misconduct on the Floor of the House. I protest.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I think that I have said all that I can say on that matter. I finish on the amendment itself. It is not necessary because the court has an inherent power to stay proceedings. The
1728
noble Lord referred to one example in which I acted as counsel in the lorry drivers' case. There was a stay in order to allow the Human Rights Convention points to be taken. The points in this amendment are all points that could be taken in the courts. If they were taken, the inherent jurisdiction of the court would ensure that there was a stay so that no one had to pay a penalty while the matter was being tested. If necessary the Court of Appeal would be asked to give a declaration of incompatibility—which is what would happen in this case, if the argument were correct—and there would be a stay pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The argument would be that this statute as a matter of law is outwith the European Human Rights Convention or European Community law and is incompatible. Therefore, one should either strike it down under Community law or declare incompatibility under the European Convention.
If that were done under European Community law, there is no question that a stay would be granted. If it were done under European Convention law, the same would follow. The amendment is in my view not necessary and does not really follow or flow from the Joint Select Committee report. As I say, I do not think that the committee has taken the view that there is the slightest stain on the noble Lord's character, or any aspersion against him. However, that is a matter between the two noble Lords.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the amendment has been well disposed of. As regards the letters, I have not seen copies of the correspondence but I am sure that all noble Lords will know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is a man of the highest integrity and that his contribution to this Bill has been wholly positive and welcome.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this is a valuable opportunity for me to set the record straight. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has dealt with the substance of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has indicated what he plans to do with regard to the amendment. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, if he considers that I have made a charge of misconduct against him. Certainly, that was not my intention in the letter to the Joint Select Committee. No discourtesy of any description was intended. It was not intended as a complaint about misconduct. I have no complaint about the noble Lord's conduct in Committee. Perhaps the wording of the letter was not as felicitous as it might have been. Perhaps I should have stated that I gained the impression, rather than that he gave the impression. That would have given a better flavour of my subjective interpretation of what he said in Committee.
It is important for the House to know the context of this matter. I was not given the benefit of any discussion with the Joint Select Committee. The report that was quoted—I heard about the report for the first time when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, raised it in Committee—came as a complete surprise to me. I did, indeed, gain the impression that the noble

1729
Lord was praying in aid the committee's report. However, that was clearly my problem rather than his. As has been explained, on the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I wrote to the Joint Select Committee asking for clarification and whether or not the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for Report stage was in line with the committee's views, as paragraph 19 of its report was clearly at odds with it, which somewhat baffled me.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, could not advise me on the substance of the report as he had not been present through the deliberations of the committee on that particular occasion. Therefore, it was purely a matter of whether or not it was appropriate to write to the committee. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, if he felt that that comprised in a sense some personal allegation against him. If it had been, I certainly would have—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he accept that we are neither friends nor enemies, that we do not really know each other and that if he is going to write about me to the Commons Clerk of a committee why on earth does he not give me some notice? Why write? Why do all this even on the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Lester? Why do a thing like this without giving notice?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am not going to prolong this discussion much further. I have explained the background and apologised to the noble Lord. The fact is that he is a member of that committee and received a copy of the letter as part of the committee papers. There was no personal complaint against him and it seemed quite proper that this matter should have been between myself and the Clerk—I asked him to place a matter on the committee's agenda. I was advised that the Clerk was the proper person to write to and I believe that the committee dealt with the matter entirely properly, as subsequent events have shown. That is my position.
On the substance of the amendment, my noble friend Lord Lester, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the ministerial letter set out the position very clearly. All the points in the amendment are, as a matter of law, available in any event.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has made a very distinguished contribution to the House over many years and to this Bill. I hope that he will accept the explanations presented by my noble friends, which were given with full honesty and generosity. It would be a great shame if our debate on this milestone of a Bill, to which the noble Lord has contributed, ended on a note of personal disharmony. I hope that he feels able to accept the statements made from these Benches.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 63A:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
"DEFENCES: BURDEN OF PROOF

(1) This section applies where a person charged with an offence under this Act relies on a defence under any of sections 5(1) to (6), 6(1), 9(4), 10(3) and (4) and 15(3).

(2) Where evidence is adduced which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to that defence, the court or jury shall assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Regulations]:
[Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Transitional provisions: sponsorship]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 65A:
Leave out Clause 19.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones, said earlier that he wants the Bill to contain as few exemptions as possible. If the Bill is so important to the health of the nation, there should in logic be no exemptions at all. In our debate on the sunset clause, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, gave some impressive statistical data and research results, which led me—and, I am sure, most other noble Lords—to have absolutely no doubt about the fact that banning advertising and promotion will save lives. I therefore find it very difficult to accept any delay in implementation.
Since our debate in Committee, my attention has been drawn to a study known as the Keith Dun ant project. It was commissioned by the Oxford health authority and undertaken by Wendy Fidler. It is entitled, The Influence of the Adult Role Model of Smoking in Children as Young as Three to Five Years Old. The role models that young boys—and, in some cases, young girls—look up to are not just pop stars; they are also Formula 1 drivers and snooker players. I therefore find it difficult to accept the proposed exemption of Formula 1 and snooker. Those sports have a huge potential to glamorise tobacco and they provide role models. If the proposed exemption for Formula 1 and snooker were removed by the Government, that would send a very powerful signal to young people in particular that smoking and its promotion were strongly discouraged.
Additionally, the Ecclestone affair left a bitter taste and the feeling that government policy—principled and empirically based—could be watered down as a result of special pleading from a source that had provided substantial donations to the Labour Party. The Government now have an opportunity fully to put that episode behind them.
While it is true that Formula I may suffer in the short term, many people believe that tobacco sponsorship would swiftly be replaced by other more benign forms of sponsorship, which might perhaps he at more generous levels than the tobacco companies had provided. Indeed, to judge by recent press reports, some Formula 1 teams have already been hit by the

1731
withdrawal of tobacco sponsors. However, I believe that the best teams are still financially secure. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly. In Committee I stated how sympathetic I was to the views that the noble Baroness has just expressed. I want to go on record as saying that I have not changed my mind. On the other hand, on viewing the Bill I believe that 90 per cent of the loaf is better than none. Having made that point, that is all that one can say.
However, I want to make one additional point. If the BBC were to stick to the letter of its charter and if the ITV were to show some public responsibility, then neither of these possibly exempted sports would appear on terrestrial television. In that case, there would be no pay-off to the sponsorship and we should not have this problem. One should bear in mind how the sponsorship works. It works because the television companies essentially do not respond in a proper public way. I wanted to place that point on the record, too.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right. In my experience, the television companies bend over backwards to avoid showing advertisements on the side of an arena or football ground. Sometimes, of course, it is unavoidable, depending on the play, in which case the advertisements are almost always out of focus.
From a sedentary position, my noble friend made the point that players sometimes wear strips, as I believe they are called—it is not exactly my subject—which may have the effect of promoting a tobacco product. That makes it much more difficult for the television companies. I do not believe that the television companies are principally to blame. Other people are to blame, and blame is certainly appropriately "castable", for want of a better expression.
So far as concerns my noble friend's amendment, I believe that it is perhaps going a little far to leave the entire clause out of the Bill. However, every sponsor should be treated alike. Therefore, there should not be any special date at any particular time. If the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and, indeed, the Minister intend to reject my noble friend's kill-all proposal, perhaps they would be good enough to accept mine.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I intervene wholly to reinforce what my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has just said. If there is to be a cut-off date, then surely it must be common right across the board, regardless of the type of sport or activity. It is invidious that there should be any exceptions to a general rule.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for raising this matter and, of course, for her general
1732
support for the intent of the Bill. I certainly understand her wish to ensure that sponsorship of events with a view to promoting tobacco products is phased out as soon as possible.
One theme that we have discussed throughout the Bill is the need to take a balanced and proportionate approach. That is why the Government wish to see some leeway given to sports in particular; they would not wish to see the ban having a long-term negative impact on those sports. Therefore, the Government took the view that, subject to consultation, most sponsorship of sporting events should end by 2003. Global sporting events, which receive considerable income from tobacco interests, should be given until October 2006 to do the same, provided, first, that they do not sign new contracts with tobacco companies and, secondly, that they phase out the current sponsorship that they receive. That is a perfectly reasonable approach: first, to accept that sporting events need some time in order to prepare for the withdrawal of tobacco sponsorship; and, secondly, to accept that those international sports where tobacco sponsorship has contributed such a huge proportion of the income that they receive should be given a little longer.
To those who fear that that will have a wholly negative impact on sports organisations in general I say that the task force that was set up by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the continued advice that is available from the department, are available to those sports organisations and they are in a position to take advantage of that. Overall, it is perfectly reasonable to allow a little time for most sports and a littler longer time for those international sports that have relied so much on tobacco sponsorship, but at the end of the day, by 1st October 2006, all tobacco sponsorship will be removed.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is snooker a world sport?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the draft regulations that were developed in relation to the 1998 EC directive state that,
"'exceptional global event' means an event or activity that takes place in at least two continents and three countries and which is the subject of a sponsorship contract for which the financial consideration is in excess of two and a half million pounds per annum".
That was the definition used in relation to the original 1998 EC directive.
Assuming that the Bill passes through this House and another place in its current form, it will be for the Government to make a policy decision in accordance with the current clause as it is and to make the appropriate regulations. At this stage I cannot say which sports will be involved and whether the same criteria will be used. I believe that those criteria give a general view of the kind of definitions that are likely to be used.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I do not want to be the nut in this particular nutcracker. I strongly agree with everything that the noble Baroness has said, as do

1733
my party and all my colleagues on these Benches. However, taking my turn from that great Conservative, Rab Butler, I am conscious of the art of the possible. Therefore, I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, that 90 per cent of a loaf is better than no loaf at all. In those circumstances, the quicker that we move on to the other stages of this Bill, without too much comment, the better.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have intervened. I hope that people will read carefully what has happened and read what I have said in conjunction with the wonderful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The health of the nation is the most important point. From my older and noble friend Lord Peston I take the advice that 90 per cent of a loaf is better than no bread. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Commencement, short title and extent]:
Lord Skehnersdale Lord Skehnersdale: moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 10, line 39, at end insert—
"() The provisions of this Act which apply to publishing, distributing or transmitting by electronic means shall not come into force until—

(a) such time as they have been notified to the European Commission under the terms of Directive 98/34/EC' (as amended by Directive 98/48/EC), and

(b) such standstill obligations as the Directive requires have expired."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, today I have been providing the House with the bread between which 65 amendments to this Bill have been sandwiched. I make no apology for returning to a matter that has surfaced at every stage of the Bill so far and on which the Minister sent me a letter, which, in spite of my rude comments earlier, I was eventually extremely grateful to receive. Unfortunately, the letter arrived too late. as I had already tabled my amendment. That was probably just as well as, having read the letter carefully, I would have tabled a similar amendment anyway.
Before turning to the contents of that letter, which is in the Library, but which I am sure many noble Lords have not seen, I want to refer to the Commission's vade-mecum on the directive, which is the subject of this amendment; namely, 98/34 EC as amended by 98/48 EC.
That vade-mecum states:
"The directive requires notification of drafts whose justification, content and purpose indicate that they are directly or openly devoted, in whole or in part, to controlling information, society, services. In such a case, the provisions in a national regulatory instrument will be specifically designed and expressly drafted to reflect the fact that the activity/service is supplied at a distance by electronic means and at the individual request or a recipient of services. Thus not only are regulatory instruments covered, which as a whole are devoted to information, society, services, but also regulations of which only a part (possibly an article or even a paragraph) specifically concerns an information, society, service",
It goes on to give examples, one of which is of a law on pornography in which there is a specific provision on the liability of the information service provider.
The meat of the response of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to my concerns reads as follows:
"You are quite right to suggest that any measure relating to the Internet needs to be scrutinised, but a close examination of the relevant provisions of the Bill leads us to the view that it is not notifiable. In general terms the provisions amount to non-specific rules; that is, they are not specific to information, society, services, and/or are merely enabling. In addition, a critical element of the definition of information, society, services in the directive is lacking in that none of the provisions regulate such services provided 'at the individual request of the recipient"'.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord did not draft the letter himself before signing it. I find it difficult to accept the advice that he was giving. Indeed, I beg to differ.
Let us look specifically at Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill. Clause 2 creates an offence to publish, print, devise or distribute a tobacco advertisement. Does not that amount to a prohibition? It stops stone dead any possibility that information of the nature described in the clause could be provided,
"at the individual request of the recipient".
Clause 3, too, can hardly be said to be a non-specific rule. It makes proprietors, editors, procurers of advertising, distributors and sellers of electronic or printed publications personally liable. How is that non-specific?
It can hardly have escaped the attention of the House, as I said at the very beginning of today's proceedings, that tomorrow it will be three months since the Second Reading of the Bill. Had the noble Lord followed my suggestion then, there would be no danger of the threat in the directive—that of killing national legislation which has not complied with European legislation. That danger would have disappeared. It is that danger and no other which this amendment seeks to avoid. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of this amendment and I rise to support its thrust.
My noble friend outlined the apparently unshakeable conviction of the Government that there is no requirement to notify this Bill on the basis of its provisions for the Internet. Like my noble friend, I am less certain.
Perhaps I can ask the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, whether any discussions have taken place with appropriate officials of the European Commission to ascertain its view on this matter. That is to say, do we know what the Commission's attitude is towards the notification status of this Bill?
The point should be made that this is not just a narrow procedural point. As I understand it—I hope the Minister can confirm this—if this Bill is enacted without notification and it subsequently transpires that it should have been notified, it will be open to anyone, on simple application to the court, to strike the whole Bill down in its entirety. To say the least, that would be unfortunate.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I too rise to support the thrust and specific content of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale.
There are two points that may be of benefit to the House in the debate. The first is to draw the attention of the House to, and to ask the Minister whether he thinks that there is any relevance in, the fact that both the Netherlands and the Danish Governments have notified remarkably similar legislation to the Commission and are awaiting a response.
The second point, of which I think the Minister is aware, and if not, I am now informing him, is that I am one of seven signatories from your Lordships' House who wrote to the European Commission on 13th February inquiring about that point. We were not satisfied at that stage, nor indeed are we now, that the Government—as my noble friend Lord Northesk has just asked—have inquired of the Commission about that matter. Since we did not have that information, we inquired of the Commission and are awaiting a response.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he is as puzzled as I am—indeed, puzzled to the point almost of hysterics—that the noble Lords opposite are seeking solace in Brussels for their concerns. Perhaps I may ask whether they have asked permission of the leader of their party to move in that direction. This has been a most enjoyable day, but I think that this is perhaps the high point.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I respect the noble Lord's concerns about the relationship between this directive and the provisions of the Bill. But, as was said at Second Reading, and is still said, the Government do not consider that the Bill needs to be notified under the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC as amended. Therefore, the Government do not support the amendment.
A close examination of the provisions of the Bill relating to publishing, distributing or transmitting by electronic means has led us to the conclusion that these provisions are not notifiable. The Technical Standards Directive applies to Internet society services. These provisions are not services. Because we are not in doubt on this matter there have not been discussions with the European Commission, although we shall be interested to hear when noble Lords receive a response to their inquiry.
In general terms, the provisions amount to nonspecific rules; that is, they are not specific to information society services and/or are merely enabling. In addition, a critical element of the definition of information society services in the directive is lacking in that none of the provisions regulates such services provided "at the individual request of the recipient". I note the contrary view to that of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. We shall study carefully what he has said when we consider Hansard and the rest of our debate on this amendment.
1736
The effect of Clause 4(1)(b) is that any information provided at the individual request of the recipient is outwith the scope of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, is quite right that the Netherlands and Denmark have notified apparently similar provisions under the Technical Standards Directive. It is for them to decide what they think is necessary and not for us to question whether they have got it right. We have to make our own judgment on our own legislation as to whether we think that there is a requirement to consult the European Commission. Each measure needs to be considered on its own terms, and the decision of one member state whether or not to notify does not set a precedent for others.
We believe that any regulations made under the powers relating to brand sharing in Clause 11 may give rise to a requirement to notify in due course. But I believe that we have made the right decision in not notifying the Tobacco Advertising and Promotions Bill. Therefore, we suggest that the amendment is not needed.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this has been a very interesting technical debate. I confess that I have learned more about the Technical Standards Directive than I ever wanted to. I have little to add to what the Minister had to say. I have reviewed the advice that the Minister has given to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, as regards the duty to notify. My conclusions are the same. I entirely agree with the Minister's analysis on this point. It may be that the brand-sharing regulations will need to be notified in due course, but that is further down the track and does not relate to the primary legislation. I do not entirely understand why the Netherlands and Denmark have notified what at first sight are similar provisions, but we shall see whether they have the right approach. In those circumstances, it would be wrong to make the blinding assumption that we automatically fall under the technical standards directive, so the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if I have shown nothing else today, I should have thought that it was blindingly obvious that I do not blindly follow any particular line or concept. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Northesk and Lord Geddes, but this is far from being a narrow procedural point. It is not even exclusively relevant to the Bill; it may well arise in relation to other legislation that applies to the provision of Internet services.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, with his usual good humour and a smiling face, made an interesting political point that I really do not think is appropriate for this Chamber. We are not good at political points; we are quite good at logic—sometimes better than others, I accept. Why should not my noble friend Lord Geddes and I seek solace from European law? After all, we are both long-standing members of various subcommittees of your Lordships' Select Committee on

1737
the European Union. My noble friend tells me that he is a former chairman of one such sub-committee, on which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, now sits with me.
Of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If the Bill needs to be referred and the Government have got it wrong—as I maintain that they have—the Bill will be struck down by the European Court. No one wants that they really do not. The Government are being totally dogmatic for
1738
the wrong reasons. Were it not that so few Members are present, I should be very tempted to test: the opinion of the House, but given the late hour, I shall resist that temptation.
The noble Lord smiles; perhaps he would like me to change my mind. No? In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at seven minutes to five o'clock.

  Census Internet Site
  Census Internet Site
  ECHR Judgments: Northern Ireland
  ECHR Judgments: Northern Ireland
  NHS: Information about Local Services
  NHS: Information about Local Services
  NHS Hospitals: Cleanliness
  NHS Hospitals: Cleanliness
  Medical Toxicology Unit
  Medical Toxicology Unit
  Childline: Fundraising
  Childline: Fundraising
  EU Health Council, 15 November 2001
  EU Health Council, 15 November 2001
  NHS Charges
  NHS Charges
  Internment
  Internment