Sitting of 15 March 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders of the Day
  Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill
    New Clause 1

      SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
      'In the exercise of any function under this Act a person or body must have regard to the desirability of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9.35 am
      The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      It genuinely gives me great pleasure to be present for the Report stage of this Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I offer him my congratulations—as I did on Second Reading and in Committee—on bringing the Bill so far.
      As I outlined in Committee, legislation for the marine environment is a complex matter. In addition to the important issues of conserving nationally important species and habitats, a wide range of other interests need to be taken into account in any legislation. The amendments proposed by the Government strike the right balance; they will protect the marine environment while taking into account other legitimate interests and users of the sea.
      It is thus appropriate that the new clause concerns the application of the principles of sustainable development. The provision sets out a responsibility for the nature conservation bodies, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the National Assembly for Wales and any other bodies exercising functions under the Bill to take proper account of the need to achieve sustainable development.
      The need for sustainable development is central to all Government policy. In May 1999, the Government published "A better quality of life: a strategy for sustainable development for the United Kingdom", which brought the environment, social progress and the economy alongside each other at the heart of policy making.
      Achieving sustainable development is all about recognising, evaluating and taking into account the costs and benefits of actions on the economy, the environment
      1126
      and people's livelihoods. The application can sometimes be fraught, but that is the principle. The new clause would ensure that such a balance was struck when any bodies exercising functions under the Bill made decisions that could affect nationally important species and habitats.
      Many activities, such as shipping, fishing, offshore minerals exploitation, sustainable energy and coastal zone development make use of our seas and shores. The new clause would ensure that, where those activities affect protected sites, Departments and other bodies carrying out their functions under the Bill—such as establishing management schemes or confirming site notifications—will have regard to the benefits of permitting sustainable use of marine resources and other social and economic uses of the site, as well as securing the conservation of the marine environment.
      The new clause would help to ensure that protected sites will not lead to a series of no-go areas for development. In the confirmation of sites, in giving advice to competent marine authorities about potentially damaging operations, in making byelaws and in establishing management schemes, it is important to act proportionately. I realise that not every measure to protect marine sites will be justifiable when all sustainable development objectives are taken into account. However, in the marine environment we are dealing with risks in areas where our knowledge of the likelihood of impact is limited or where there is continuing scientific uncertainty. Therefore, we will need to adopt a precautionary approach that is consistent and in line with the Nice European Council resolution on the precautionary principle. That is very important.
      We believe that the inclusion of the clause would introduce a degree of consistency between the process of selection for sites under the Bill and that for sites of special scientific interest on land. I shall repeat those words several times this morning, if I catch your eye. Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the confirmation of sites on land, the conservation agency is placed under a duty by section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 to have
      "due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas."
      The clause would ensure that similar concerns relating to the marine environment are taken into account.
      Mr. John Randall: I thank the Minister and his Department for the constructive way in which they have examined the Bill and tabled helpful amendments and new clauses. However, I require confirmation of a few matters relating to one or two of them. On the new clause, can the Minister confirm that the proposed duty to have regard to the desirability of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development would not lead to nature conservation interests' being overridden by other interests? Secondly, if a marine site of special interest was notified and a development issue subsequently arose on that site, would the proposed development influence the decision whether to confirm the marine site of special interest?
      If the Minister would satisfy me on those two points, I should be happy to accept the new clause.
      Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I, too, welcome the new clause because, as the Minister says, it

      1127
      places on all competent marine authorities, when carrying out any function under the Bill, a duty to have regard to the desirability of achieving sustainable development.
      I have a long-standing interest in the potential of the renewable energy industries to contribute to our nation's efforts to achieve sustainable development. I have had some concerns about the Bill's potential for creating an extra hoop for the wind industry to jump through. I believe that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) recognised the concerns of the wind energy industry and I know that since Second Reading he has met the British Wind Energy Association to seek to provide additional reassurance, but I believe that the clause will assist, in that it will help to ensure that genuine, sensible economic development can still take place in the right circumstances, in suitably protected marine sites of special interest.
      I did not hear the Minister make any specific reference to the offshore wind industry and I hope that when he replies to the debate he might allude in a little more detail to how the clause would provide additional protection against further delays in considering consents for offshore wind farms to go ahead. I say that against a backdrop of some concern in our country about whether we shall meet our CO2 reduction targets for 2010.
      I know that the Minister has heard of the survey by Cambridge Econometrics, published on 4 February, which implied that if current trends from 2000–01 were to continue, by 2010 CO2 emissions would be only about 6.5 per cent. below 1990 levels. There is a concern that if the sustainable energy industry, such as offshore wind generation, is not helped to grow, our wider CO2 emission targets might not be achieved. I am sure that the whole House would recognise that that would be a tragedy. The potential for the Bill to place that extra hoop—that extra delay—on the consents process for offshore wind sites is a concern of the industry and should be addressed.
      9.45 am
      Will the Minister be able to guarantee that when the sites are being designated there will be a consultation process with the offshore wind industry? When sites of special scientific interest—the land-based equivalent of MSSIs—are designated, the selected area must contain more than 1 per cent. of the British population of a specific species. On Second Reading I flagged up the concern of the British Wind Energy Association that many of the identified 18 offshore wind farm sites—the list was compiled just before the last general election—fall within areas that could conceivably be designated as marine sites of scientific interest. Members of the wind energy industry will have to collect data on much of the marine environment before a bid for an offshore farm can be granted and they are concerned that, because of the lack of data about the wider marine environment, a site might be deemed to be a very important marine site of scientific interest and therefore an application for a offshore wind farm would be denied.
      Can the Minister tell me what the clause could do to help on carbon capture and sequestration? He will know from his involvement in the recently published energy review that there is growing industrial interest in removing carbon dioxide from fossil fuels before they are
      1128
      released into the atmosphere—sequestering the carbon in deep repositories so that it is locked up and is not released into the atmosphere. That process offers a series of benefits to the coal industry and other fossil fuel industries, enabling them to continue to produce and to provide jobs for this country while not continuing to damage the environment.
      Two necessary steps have been identified for carbon capture and sequestration. First, the carbon dioxide must be captured; then it must be transported to a geologically appropriate repository. I raise that issue at this stage because the United Kingdom has many potential CO2 repositories under the bed of the North sea, so there is a concern that the Bill might, down the line, stop sensible development of carbon capture and sequestration. I realise that there is a need for research and investigation in other forums on whether carbon capture and sequestration can genuinely help the achievement of our carbon dioxide targets, but I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance that the Bill will not build that additional delay into the system. That would cause problems.
      I welcome the new clause; it is a sensible addition to the Bill. I believe that much further work is necessary by the Minister's Department and the Department of Trade and Industry to reduce the time that the planning system requires for consideration of wind energy sites both on land and offshore, and I seek an assurance that, just as we have begun to shorten the likely time scales for granting an application, the consents process for offshore wind energy sites will not suddenly be extended by the Bill. I believe that the clause may help in that regard but I seek reassurance from the Minister to that effect.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: I seek reassurance from the Minister about what I perceive to be some of the nuances implicit in the new clause. For example, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the legislative provisions that pertain to SSSIs and national parks. He will be aware that his Department is dealing with the order to designate a large part of my constituency as a national park. He quoted the law pertaining to that, which says that due regard has to be taken of the needs of agriculture, forestry, economic and social interests of the area. In the new clause, the maritime equivalent of that provision is that account should be taken of sustainable development.
      Will the Minister confirm that he includes in sustainable development the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth? That concept comes from "Achieving a better quality of life: Review of progress towards sustainable development" in the Government's annual report 2000, and it seems to involve a rather stronger requirement than that used in the legislation that relates to land.
      There is another significant difference between the Countryside Act 1968, to which the Minister referred, and the new clause. That Act, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, states:
      "it shall be the duty of every Minister, and of the Agency, the Council, English Nature and the local authorities to have due regard to certain things."
      The right hon. Gentleman's new clause would merely require them to "have regard to". The word "due" implies the need for a balance; leaving it out implies an

      1129
      imperative. Am I seeing a conspiracy where none exists? Am I placing too much emphasis on the word "due"? I ask for the Minister's reassurance.
      Mr. David Heath: I come new to the Bill, not having had the opportunity to serve on the Standing Committee, but, as the Minister knows, I do not come new to the subject, having debated it at length during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and having promoted thoughts similar to those of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), whom I congratulate on having brought his Bill this far. I also congratulate the Minister on the amendments that he has tabled, which clearly show a constructive attitude to the Bill. I do not intend speak at length today because I want to ensure that we consider the various amendments before us so that the Bill can make further progress.
      I understand some of the rationale behind the new clause; it is roughly analogous to the equivalent provisions in the arrangements for the notification of SSSIs on land. I share the view of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) that the principal objective must surely relate to sustainable energy production at sea, and I should be grateful to the Minister if he would confirm that in relation not only to producing energy from offshore wind, but to the other means of producing energy at sea that may exist.
      Clearly, a balance often has to be found between competing environmental protection measures, irrespective of whether we are talking about species protection— which is, in essence, what we discussing in the Bill—or about other environmental protection issues and encouraging sustainability.
      We shall return to this issue later, but I hope that clear guidance will be given on how this new clause and others should be interpreted by the competent marine authorities, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. For example, I should be interested to know how the Bill will apply to artificial reefs, which may also be considered in this respect. So long as we do not lose the spirit of species conservation that is inherent in the Bill and the protection of SSSIs in the interests of general development, which should take place only if there is a clear environmental advantage and that balance has been properly assessed by the competent authorities, there seems to be no reason why we should not accept the new clause.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I shall speak for just a few moments. I welcome the new clause, with the caveat mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I understand all too readily the need and the importance of meeting a high proportion of our electricity generation requirements from renewable energy sources, including wind energy.
      As chairman of the sustainable development committee of the 43-country Council of Europe, I know that It is carefully considering the problems of ensuring sustainable development, which is vital to the future of our planet. There can be sustainable development arguments on both sides of any environmental issue. Therefore, to echo the words of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), close consultation and careful analysis are vital before resolving such matters one way or the other.
      Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I had not known of the hon. Gentleman's role in the Council of Europe. Is he aware
      1130
      that the Minister for Industry and Energy, when speaking at a parliamentary renewable and sustainable energy seminar just 10 days ago, highlighted the fact that two thirds of onshore wind energy projects granted funding under the non-fossil fuel obligation have not gone ahead because the planning applications have been rejected? Should not that provide a powerful caution for us when considering the implications for offshore wind or wave and tidal power, to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) alluded?
      Sir Sydney Chapman: Unfortunately I was unable to attend that meeting and I was aware that two thirds of planning applications for onshore projects had been rejected. We will need to provide every possible encouragement to renewable forms of energyif we are to meet the target, to which the Government are commited, of 10 per cent. of our electricity needs coming from renewabale sources by 2010. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point.
      I conclude by simply reiterating that sustainable development policies are essential. Sometimes, there are good reasons on both sides of an argument when assessing the environmental needs, and we must be very careful and intelligent, and adopt a joined-up approach to the decisions that we will have to take.
      Mr. Meacher: There is general agreement on both sides of the House about the importance of sustainable development. I was asked how exactly that concept will be applied, which is not an easy matter to consider, but I shall try to provide the assurances that were requested.
      The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) asked whether the nature conservation interests would be overridden if a development issue arose on a site before the notification was confirmed. The answer is that the notification of the site will have identified features of special interest and that the confirmation of the notification will have regard to the wider interests of sustainable development.
      The important point is that the scientific value that the conservation body has identified will be of particular importance in that decision. Obviously, such decisions will have to be taken on a case-by-case basis, but I hope that that provides appropriate assurance. The identification of such a development interest will certainly not readily or automatically override the conservation interest. However, as in so many of these matters, it is all a question of making a judgment about the balance.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) raised some pertinent issues about offshore wind energy. Such issues are precisely why the new clause was introduced. Of course we recognise the importance of renewable energy considerations, which are of themselves of considerable environmental benefit, as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said. The need for offshore wind energy will be a major factor in deciding whether it is necessary to build wind farms in a marine site of special interest.
      10 am
      I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West that there will be full consultation on the criteria for site selection, including with offshore wind energy bodies. I can confirm that in achieving our Kyoto targets, the

      1131
      development of renewables—in particular, both offshore and onshore wind energy—is important. The target is 10 per cent. by 2010. As we have achieved only 3 or 4 per cent. of that, we have a long way to go and wind is clearly an important factor.
      Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My right hon. Friend is obviously aware that the energy review recommends adopting a 20 per cent. target, which I hope will be accepted. Does he understand that the wind energy community is sensitive about the issue, partly because it recognises that we need to move away from the shallower sites that have been designated for wind energy farm development thus far to deeper waters, on which we have less marine data? That sensitivity is exacerbated by the fact that the Ministry of Defence has understandably ruled out areas that could be suitable for wind farm development because of the implications for radar.
      Although the wind energy community welcomes the new clause, will my right hon. Friend reassure it further that there will be detailed consultation on future development—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. That is an extremely long intervention. I think the Minister has got the drift.
      Mr. Meacher: I certainly have and I will try to make my answer shorter than the question.
      I am just as concerned about the development of offshore wind energy as I am about the conservation of genuine sites of national conservation interest. The question is how we achieve that, which is what the clause is all about. We acknowledge the sensitivities of the wind energy community, especially with regard to moving sites further offshore and to the decision by the Ministry of Defence. However, I believe that it is possible to reconcile the different interests, and we must try to do that. It is not a case of one interest overriding the other. We have a strong interest in wind energy in the United Kingdom. We have, I think, about 35 per cent. of potential wind energy generation within the European Union and we have exploited only a tiny proportion of that. It is in the interests of the Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that that is developed further.
      Tony Cunningham: In support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) said, will the Minister bear in mind the problem caused by delaying the process? In the areas around my constituency, it is only possible to build a wind farm in the summer. A planning delay could put a scheme back 12 months because construction might not start until the following year. That is a serious issue.
      Mr. Meacher: I understand that, but it depends on when notification was made in the first place. I can give my hon. Friend the strong reassurance that the Government and the confirming authority—the Secretary of State—have no intention or desire to delay the process to secure procrastination. That is not in our mind at all.
      My response to the point raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is that we need to achieve a balance, a word that he used. Of course
      1132
      sustainable development includes high and stable levels of economic growth, but they should not be to the detriment of nature conservation. The key consideration is that we strike the correct balance. I recognise that it is easy to say that in the abstract. In those cases in which it is difficult to reconcile different interests, we have to make the best judgment possible. That is not intended to interfere with or deter in any way the achievement of high levels of economic growth, and that includes those that can be achieved in the marine environment. That is what sustainable development is all about.
      I also assure the hon. Gentleman that "have regard to" is appropriate to the new clause. I do not see a difference between that and "due regard". The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to say that he was perhaps a little over-concerned, and I think he was right.
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) also referred to the importance of offshore wind. I accept that we should try to give as clear and detailed guidance as possible on the interpretation of the general principle behind the new clause. We are trying to do that in other ways, not just in the marine environment. I take his point about artificial reefs. With regard to the notification of a site, that is obviously one factor to which the conservation agencies will draw the attention of the confirming authority.
      The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet re-emphasised the importance of renewable energy. From an environmental point of view, conservation is not our only consideration; we are also extremely anxious to develop renewable sources of energy. With those reassurances, I hope that the House will accept the new clause
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      INSTALLATION OF BOUNDARY MARKERS
      '(1) The appropriate nature conservation body may install markers indicating the boundaries of a marine site of special interest.
      (2) Markers may be installed at any time after a notification has effect.
      (3) If a notification ceases to have effect, or has effect as modified, the appropriate nature conservation body must if necessary and as soon as reasonably practicable remove or alter markers installed under this section.
      (4) Before doing anything under this section, the appropriate nature conservation body must obtain the consent of the owner of the land or sea bed on which a marker is to be installed.
      (5) Nothing in this section exempts the appropriate nature conservation body from a statutory requirement to obtain any other consent (in particular any consent which may be required under section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (c. 74) or section 1 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 (c. 33)).'—[Mr. Meacher.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 4—Meaning of "marine area" and "marine site of special interest".
      Government new clause 5—General interpretation.

      1133
      Government new clause 6—Notification of marine sites.
      Government new clause 7—Further provisions about notification.
      Government new clause 8—Modification or denotification.
      Government new clause 9—Denotification in relation to European marine sites
      Government amendment No. 30.
      Amendment No. 41, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, after "kind", insert—
      'or person or body who customarily carries on a trade, occupation or business'.
      Amendment No. 42, in page 1, line 18, leave out "one month" and insert "three months".
      Amendment No. 44, in page 1, line 20, after "consider" insert "in public".
      Amendment No. 45, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—',
      after taking due account of international best practice'.
      Amendment No. 46, in page 2, line 10, after "features" insert—
      'and the management structure and its financing'.
      Amendment No. 47, in page 2, line 13, leave out "six" and insert "three".
      Amendment No. 50, in page 2, line 23, leave out "six" and insert "three".
      Amendment No. 51, in page 3, line 1, after "body", insert—
      ', after consultation with the persons mentioned in subsection (1)'
      Amendment No. 52, in page 3, line 13, at end insert—
      '(11A) Any notice issued under subsection (10) or (11) shall be accompanied by a statement of reasons for that variation or denotification as the case may be.'.
      Amendment No. 55, in clause 3, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
      'and taking account of international best practice'.
      Amendment No. 56, in page 3, line 33, after "body", insert—
      '(ia) take account of international best practice;'
      Government amendment No. 38.
      Amendment No. 67, in clause 7, page 5, line 19, at end insert—
      'or
      (c) any river estuary'.
      Mr. Meacher: This group of new clauses and amendments goes to the heart of the mechanisms by which the Bill will be implemented. I apologise in advance for the length of my remarks, but it is necessary to spell out as clearly and succinctly as possible exactly how it will work in practice.
      The purpose of the new clauses and amendments is to clarify the procedures and definitions for the selection, notification and confirmation of marine sites of special interest. They may look complicated, but I assure hon. Members that their purpose is simple. New Clause 4 aims to identify areas within which an MSSI can be notified. The Bill will allow an MSSI to be notified in any area that is covered by tidal waters between mean low water mark to the limit of territorial waters. A notification may include the water column and the sea bed. In order to
      1134
      cover any burrowing species, it can extend to 30 m below the sea bed. That depth is consistent with the depth to which byelaws under clause 6 can be made.
      New notifications should not duplicate similar designations under different legislation. New clause 4(3) would ensure that an MSSI could not be notified in an area in which an SSSI existed, and subsection (4) would ensure that an SSSI—a terrestrial one—could not be notified within an area already covered by an MSSI.
      Apart from SSSIs, the other major relevant nature conservation designations in the marine environment are European marine sites. The new clause would ensure that an MSSI could not be notified in an area containing an EMS for the same reasons for which the EMS had been designated. However, although the list of species and habitats covered by an EMS will be of international importance, on occasion other species or habitats of national importance may occur within an EMS. In those circumstances, an MSSI can be notified within an area covered by an EMS. On occasion, the designation of an EMS may occur after an MSSI has been notified. Subsection (5) would ensure that the MSSI was denotified if an EMS were designated in the same area for the same reasons.
      Clause 1 lays the groundwork for notification, the effects of which must be clear and unambiguous. Amendment No. 30 would delete the whole of clause 1 and replace it with new clause 6, which is designed to clarify the procedures for notifying MSSIs. Subsection (1) would provide that the appropriate nature conservation agency may notify a marine area as an MSSI by reason of its flora, fauna, or geographical or physiographical features. That would provide the conservation agencies with a power, rather than a duty, to notify sites.
      I said in Committee that I believed a power to be more appropriate because it would give nature conservation agencies greater flexibility in exercising that function, and more time to plan and programme the work required for the identification and notification of sites. It would allow time to gather scientific information and to undertake work on the criteria. The House will know that we are currently in the process of implementing regulations that transpose the habitats directive in respect of marine sites. That is crucial work in which the conservation agencies are heavily involved, which is why it is relevant to the question of time. I cannot guarantee at this stage when that work will be completed, although we want to complete it as soon as possible.
      The interim report of the review of marine nature conservation identifies
      "a need to draw together the identification of those habitats, sites and species which are nationally important and which justify conservation action".
      Given that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee will be looking at criteria for the identification of nationally important marine habitats and species as part of the review, I propose that the Bill's provisions should not be implemented—at least in respect of England—until the review has concluded its work. That is not designed to create delay, but is a common-sense procedure in the circumstances. The work of the review will assist in the drawing up of selection criteria and the identification of

      1135
      sites under the Bill, and will help to influence the size and scope of suitable areas. The Bill will form an intrinsic part of a strategic approach to marine nature conservation.
      Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister elaborate on the nature of the criteria being developed: for example, will he confirm that they will be based purely on the site's scientific interest?
      10.15 am
      Mr. Meacher: That is so, and I will say more soon. The hon. Gentleman is on to an important point and I am able to give assurances in that respect.
      While the work of the review is ongoing, I would nevertheless expect English Nature to start looking more closely at the mechanisms for site notification, identifying the costs involved and mapping out new procedures that can be put in place in advance of the outcome of the review. I assure the House that the Government regard protection of the marine environment as a priority: we will give it due consideration in the appropriate allocation of resources to English Nature. I expect English Nature to give the implementation of the Bill's provisions similar emphasis in its corporate plan, and to use its power to notify sites wherever it has identified areas that fully comply with the criteria. I hope that that demonstrates the extent to which we are putting Government resources wholly behind implementation of the Bill.
      New clause 6(2) deals with the publication of criteria for site selection by the confirming authority, after consultation with the appropriate conservation agency. New Clause 5 would provide that the confirming authority would be the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England, and the National Assembly for Wales in Wales. I think it wise to introduce criteria to ensure that sites are notified on a sound and consistent basis, and that they add value and do not duplicate existing designations.
      To answer the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), I confirm that the criteria will be scientific and will not take account of socioeconomic considerations. I expect the site selection criteria for England to be based on the JNCC's work under the review. There will be full consultation with the appropriate nature conservation agencies, enabling us to work together to understand the features that merit notification and the likely size of sites. There will be public consultation on the criteria, and before publishing them the Secretary of State will take full account of the views of colleagues. Subsection (3) would allow revision of the criteria after further consultation.
      Subsections (4) to (6) deal with the practicalities of notifying a site, clarifying whom the conservation agencies should advise of a site notification and where the notification should be published. The use in subsection (4)(b) of the phrase
      "so far as reasonably practicable"
      acknowledges the difficulties the agency might have in identifying all competent marine authorities who have or could have functions within the area. It is not meant to suggest that the agency will not take account of the views of all those that are known, or do its best to reach them all, merely that certainty is not always possible.
      1136
      Subsection (5) stipulates the effective date of a notification under the new clause. Protection applies from the date the notification is first published. A similar provision applies to land-based SSSIs. The purpose is to prevent any deliberate action to destroy the special interest while representations are being considered.
      The provisions of new clause 7 would replace those in clause 1(3) to (8) and deal with the options open to the confirming authority in considering a notification made by the conservation agency. The notification should specify the features by reason of which the site is of special interest, and contain a statement that sets out both the conservation agency's objectives for the conservation of those features and its views about the management necessary to secure those objectives. Subsection (1) proposes a period of three months, not one, for the submission of representations, and subsection (3) states that the confirming authority should make a decision on the notification within nine months of the notification having first been published. That is a longer period than the one proposed in the Bill, but it matches the timetable for the consideration of a site of special scientific interest on land under the 1981 Act. To ensure that there is a full opportunity for representations to be made, the longer period based on that precedent is right. I give an assurance to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). As a notification takes effect as soon as it is advertised, the longer period allows better decision making but poses no threat to the conservation of the proposed site. I hope that we can get the best of both worlds.
      The statement of views about management of the site is likely to include an indication of the operations which, in the agency's view, would be likely to cause damage to the special features. Representations may be made about this statement, including the listed operations. The statement is likely to prove extremely helpful in, for example, taking decisions under clause 3 in relation to the carrying out of or consenting to operations. It will be important that the competent authority is fully aware, in advance, of the operations that the conservation agency considers are likely to damage the site, and takes full account of these in making its own careful and informed assessment.
      Subsection (3) would provide that the powers of the confirming authority extended to modifying the notification, as well as to confirming it as made, or withdrawing it. I should make it clear that the modification may only reduce— not increase—the size of the site, so it may not cover a new and previously not notified area; and it may only remove, not add, features of interest. It may also amend the conservation objectives. If it is not satisfied that the case has been made, the confirming authority may withdraw a notification. However, there must be a notice giving a clear statement of the reasons for the decision.
      In considering a notification, the most important issue is the special interest, and whether the conservation agency has demonstrated its existence. Representations may question the scientific basis, but in exercising its functions the confirming authority will also be under the duty, set out in new clause 1, to have regard to the desirability of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. Environmental sustainability requires the highest level of protection for irreplaceable natural assets, but this cannot be addressed in isolation from proper consideration of economic and social needs,

      1137
      and the wider environmental agenda. We shall consider these issues on a case-by-case basis, carefully balancing all the benefits and costs. That is the only way forward.
      New clause 8—the House will be glad to know that I am gradually coming to the end of my remarks—addresses circumstances in which the conservation agency wishes to vary the confirmed notification, perhaps because of increased scientific knowledge about the special features or changes in the marine environment.
      Notification of a marine site of special interest includes a number of different features. It marks a boundary within which the marine area is of special interest, identifies features of special interest, and includes conservation objectives and a statement of views about how the site should be managed to conserve the features. The provision allows any of these components to be modified and, at subsection (2), power for the conservation body to propose the cancellation of the MSSI, but only if it believes that the area is no longer of special interest. The procedure for varying a notification is the same as that which applies when a site is first notified. There are restrictions on the confirming authority's capacity to modify in subsections (8) and (9).
      These provisions are modelled on those that already apply to notification of SSSIs under section 28 of the 1981 Act, as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. They provide a necessary degree of flexibility so that the conservation agencies can ensure that notifications remain accurate and take account of new information and knowledge.
      Where the conservation body proposes to cancel a notification it may do so only if it is satisfied that the area is no longer of special interest. The site will continue to be protected until such a notification is confirmed, and the confirming authority will consider the arguments, and any representations made, extremely carefully. I believe that I should mention that for the sake of completeness and thoroughness. In my view, the procedure will be used only exceptionally. If we are to provide a means of identifying and protecting nationally important sites, it would be inappropriate to include sites which we recognised were not, or no longer, of special interest.
      Amendment No. 38 deletes clause 7, and new clause 5 would replace it with provisions that clarified the definitions used in the Bill. They are technical in nature and place the definitions in alphabetical order, for ease of reference.
      As the only function of relevant marine authorities is the establishment of management schemes, the list of authorities permitted to establish management schemes is proposed in amendment No. 2. The definition of "relevant marine authority" is therefore deleted as this term is no longer used.
      The definition of a "European marine site" has been clarified to ensure that it has the same meaning as the 1994 habitats regulations. The definition of "competent marine authority" is now much closer to the definition of "competent authority" in the habitats regulations. I am sure that that has been done to make things simpler and easier to understand and administer. As with the habitats regulations, bodies such as the Crown Estate Commissioners and sea fisheries committees are competent marine authorities.
      Subsections (2) and (3) would enable the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, as appropriate, to amend the definition of "competent marine authority"
      1138
      by statutory instrument in respect of sites that have been notified by English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales.
      New clause 2 replaces clause 1(9). It merely clarifies procedures on the installation of markers indicating the boundaries of MSSIs. The nature conservation agencies must seek the permission of the owner of the land or sea bed on which the markers are to be placed, and must remove markers if the site is denotified. We expect English Nature to forward a copy of site boundaries to the Hydrographic Office, which will consider whether to mark these on Admiralty charts.
      I apologise to the House for the extreme detail and the length of my remarks. However, it is extremely important that there should be no dubiety about the operation of the Bill. I hope that my remarks have been positive towards that end. On that basis, I commend the new clauses and the amendments to the House.
      10.30 am
      Mr. Randall: I thank the Minister for his detailed remarks. He need make no apology for clarification. I think that some of my questions have been answered already, but some of them are so important that it may be appropriate to repeat them. That is the only apology that I make.
      As the Minister said, the duty in clause 1 has been reduced to a power in new clause 6. The Minister flagged that up in Committee. In some respects, it will make the Bill slightly weaker. However, that may be necessary for the reasons outlined by the Minister. Will the Minister confirm that if the new clause is accepted and the duty to notify is reduced to a power, English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales will still be given the resources to enable them to establish effectively a network of nationally important marine areas throughout territorial waters within a reasonable period of the Bill's enactment? Will he confirm that when a site clearly merits designation as a nationally important MSSI, English Nature or the CCW will be expected to notify the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales of that fact?
      I was grateful for the Minister's clarification of new clause 6, and his explanation to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) that the criteria to be agreed will be scientific and will require sites to be notified on the grounds of their scientific interest alone. What consistency will there be between the criteria developed for England and for Wales? Will interested parties other than the statutory nature conservation bodies be consulted during the development of criteria? Will the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly be able to set aside the advice of English Nature or the CCW on criteria for site selection?
      New clause 7 deals with further provisions about notification. Given the widely recognised difficulties that have dogged the designation of marine nature reserves because of the need to achieve complete consensus, is there an intention to require 100 per cent. agreement by all interested parties before notification of an MSSI is confirmed? Will the Minister confirm that, as long as English Nature and the CCW take reasonably practicable steps to secure consensus, the Secretary of State or the

      1139
      Welsh Assembly will confirm notification of an MSSI despite outstanding objections, providing the science clearly justifies notification?
      Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: May I echo the hon. Gentleman's concern about the need for 100 per cent. consensus before an MSSI is designated, and flag up a parallel concern about inland waters of which the British canoeing fraternity is only too well aware? Riparian owners can exclude canoeists from their waters, even when there would be no impact whatever on the environment or their land. There is a danger, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the 100 per cent consensus may stop sensible action.
      Mr. Randall: I am afraid that I am not an expert on canoeing, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. As the House knows, it is almost impossible to achieve 100 per cent. consensus; it would be a great shame if the requirement meant that one small voice could stop something as important as notification going ahead.
      Mr. Swayne: Is not the key point that we are seeking reassurance from the Minister that we are not going to give legal effect to the guidance which has stalled the marine nature reserve programme?
      Mr. Randall: My hon. Friend is astute.
      Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend is very kind.
      Mr. Randall: My hon. Friend deserves it.
      Will the Minister confirm that operations likely to cause damage can be included in the conservation statement in new clause 7 and will constitute part of the statutory notification? I am pretty certain that he said the Crown Estate is considered a competent marine authority under clause 3 on the duties of competent marine authorities. Clause 4, on management schemes, would be amended by Government amendment No. 2, which we shall debate later. Will the Minister confirm that the Crown Estate could be added to the proposed list of authorities able to establish management schemes for MSSIs by virtue of Government amendment No. 14?
      On that note, I shall conclude, and await the Minister's response.
      Mr. Andrew Dismore: I congratulate the Minister on many of the Government's amendments. Some of the amendments that I have tabled have been overtaken by the Government amendments, but I should like to push others for the sake of clarification.
      Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Before my hon. Friend launches into his speech, will he join me in seeking clarification from the Minister about whether new clause 2(4) is needed? To return to my intervention on the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), there are 10,800 miles of rapidly moving water or other waters suitable for canoeists in this country. However, because the consent of the owner of the land is required, canoeists have access to only 1 per cent. of those waters. Subsection (4) would
      1140
      surely prevent the sensible development of MSSIs, and would provide a bitter parallel with the circumstances of canoeists in this country.
      Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an interesting intervention. I shall shortly address the need for consent in the context of notifications. However, the point that I am about to make may be of more interest to my hon. Friend. I assume that he is primarily talking about canoeing on rivers which, of course, the Bill does not address. My amendment No. 67 seeks to extend its provisions to river estuaries. It is a probing amendment; I am not sure of the extent to which river estuaries are already protected under arrangements for sites of special scientific interest.
      Shona McIsaac: As my hon. Friend will be aware, my constituency is bounded by the River Humber, which has one of the largest river estuaries in the country. Many SSSIs among the mudflats at the edge of the river are already protected.
      Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I was going to use the Humber as an example. As she knows, I grew up in east Yorkshire in the seaside town of Bridlington, and I was going to refer to one or two of my experiences. However, I wish to refer specifically to tidal rivers.
      In introducing the Government amendments, my right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the definitions of high and low water marks. Many years ago, in my professional life, I had to interpret the high water mark in relation to the Fire Services Act 1947 to determine when the fire brigade's duty began and ended. I know from that complicated legislation that determining such marks can be difficult, which is why I have flagged up the issue of river estuaries and tidal rivers. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would deal with that in his reply and assure us that we are covering all the bases, either through existing legislation or the Bill, if it is enacted.
      I am grateful for the Government amendments which clarify the timetable. My amendments Nos. 42, 47 and 50 attempt to do the same, but far less scientifically; I defer to my right hon. Friend, and shall not seek to press them. However, I echo some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Uxbridge in response to my right hon. Friend's substituting a power for a duty in new clause 6. I, too, am worried about that, although I recognise that there are resource implications, so I understand his reasons. I shall return to the question of resources.
      With regard to notification, there are three options. I assume that my right hon. Friend's amendment will prevail. The first option as to who should be notified is in the original Bill. In amendment No. 41, I set out an addition to that, and my right hon. Friend dealt with it in new clause 6. My main aim is to make sure that the people who are likely to be affected by the designation of a marine site are properly notified and consulted.
      Clause 1 states that
      "as far as is reasonably practicable, every holder of a property right or statutory right of any kind in relation to any of that marine area"
      should receive notification. My right hon. Friend's new clause 6(4) states:
      "If a body decides to make a notification under subsection (1), it must notify… any other person who the body is directed by the confirming authority to notify"—

      1141
      the confirming authority in this context being the Minister. Similar provisions apply in Wales. My aim is to make it clear who will be the subject of that direction from the Minister. Many. many people will be affected. My amendment No. 41 would have incorporated into the original wording a provision that anybody who carried out a trade, occupation or business that could be affected by the introduction of a marine site should be notified. If we are not careful about the wording, people may fall through the net.
      New clause 6 makes provision for advertisement of the notification in a local newspaper, but that may not reach everybody. For example, fishermen who are out at sea for several weeks may not see the local paper. That must be taken into account. On Second Reading—I think—my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) dealt with the problems that the fishing industry could face as a result of the Bill, and with how it could benefit as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) nods; there is still something of a deep sea fleet based around the Humber. We must make sure that the fishing industry is consulted—both the inshore fishing industry, which is based in towns like my old home town, Bridlington, and the offshore fleet.
      Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: If my hon. Friend's amendment No. 67 is successful, river estuaries will be incorporated into the terms of the Bill. I echo his concerns about the need for clearer specification of who should be consulted. The relevant authorities are pretty good at consulting the fishing industry and fishing interests in general, but the British Canoe Union might be a suitable addition to my hon. Friend's list of consultees.
      Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I intend to deal with some of the recreational uses of our waters. I know that he is a great advocate of the canoeing fraternity. I used to do a little canoeing in my youth, until I did an eskimo roll once and came up on the other side without my glasses, which somewhat put me off the sport.
      We must consider not only the commercial fisheries but recreational fishing, which is indirectly quite an important trade or business to the day-trip boats that go out of harbours such as Bridlington. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is not present to speak up for his constituents in that regard.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has drawn the attention of the House to recreational uses. Apart from canoeing, there is a great deal of sailing and yachting activity. Yacht clubs are important not just as recreational organisations but as businesses. The diving fraternity will be affected, as will pleasure boats. I know that the pleasure boats that go out towards Flamborough Head and up and down that part of the east coast are important businesses which could be affected by the introduction of a marine site in that area.
      10.45 am
      Mr. Randall: I assume that, knowing the area so well, the hon. Gentleman also recognises that it is a good feeding ground for all the sea birds that breed along that coast, particularly at Bempton cliffs.
      Mr. Dismore: That is my next point. I have been a regular visitor to Bempton cliffs and I still am, when I
      1142
      occasionally go home to see my mother in Yorkshire. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the cliffs are a spectacular site. The boats stay well away from that area.
      New recreational industries are growing—for example, whale watching.
      Shona McIsaac: And seal watching.
      Mr. Dismore: Indeed. I see from the report entitled "Whale Watching 2001", which was prepared by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, that that is a growth industry. In 1991, some 400 people in the UK were engaged in that activity, spending $43,000 directly and $330,000 indirectly, but in 1998 there were more than 121,000 whale watchers, who spent almost $1.9 million in direct expenditure and more than $8 million in indirect expenditure. So, it is an important industry.
      Much of that activity, I expect, would take place in the sort of area that we are talking about protecting. Such industries also need to be protected. According to the same report, 28 per cent. of visitors to the Moray firth said that the presence of dolphins had been the sole reason for their visit. Through my amendment, I am trying to ensure that all those whose livelihood is likely to be affected—sometimes positively as well as negatively—are properly consulted.
      New clause 7 introduces the concept of management, to which my amendment No. 46 refers. New clause 7(2)(b) provides that the notification statement must include details of how the site should be managed. Several of my amendments, in this group as well as later groups, refer to the importance of the management regime for the site. Without a good management regime, many problems could occur.
      Amendment No. 46 goes beyond that and deals with how the management regime is to be financed. It is important to recognise that if we do the job properly, there will be costs. The question is where the money will come from. It is all well and good for us to talk about introducing marine sites of scientific interest and looking after them, but if the resources are not put in to achieve that, whether from charitable trusts, the Government, nature protection bodies or Europe, we will not accomplish a great deal.
      I return to new clause 7 and the representation procedure, and my amendments Nos. 44 and 51. With regard to the people who should be consulted about a marine site, the new clause refers to the need for representations and consideration of those representations, but it makes no provision on how those representations should be made. For example, should they be produced in writing, or would a picket of angry fishermen suffice?
      We need to be a little more specific about how representations should be made. For example, there is no power to make regulations that would specify in subordinate legislation how representations should be made, a timetable for their consideration and so on. That is a feature of similar legislation, but it is lacking from this Bill. When he replies to the debate, perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us how he sees such representations being received.
      In its briefing for this debate, English Nature states that it
      "wishes to see the Bill tightened in some areas, particularly in relation to how competent authorities are expected to take account of English Nature's advice when deciding what might constitute a damaging operation.

      1143
      Consultation is an important theme that should run throughout the Bill, and although such considerations do not necessarily form part of that aspect of consultation, they need to be addressed in our approach to implementing the legislation.
      Having discussed how representations should be made, we should next ask how they will be considered. New clause 7 refers to the "confirming authority"—in other words, the Minister—
      "having regard to any representations or objections"
      The Opposition expressed criticism about the issue. Does "having regard" mean having due regard, having full regard, or simply looking at such representations and throwing them in the bin? I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not throw them in the bin, but the provision needs a bit more substance.
      My right hon. Friend doubtless would not accept the procedure outlined in my amendment No. 44. Nevertheless, it goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve: the consideration of representations "in public". If the process is to work, we must build consensus among all who are affected—be they those engaged in trade, such as fishermen, or nature conservation enthusiasts and bodies. The best way to achieve that is to consider openly and in public all the views that are expressed. I believe in open government, and such a procedure would make a very important contribution to it. The amendments are important, and I shall be interested to hear my right hon. Friend's comments on the way in which representations should be made and considered, and decisions confirmed.
      I welcome new clause 7(3), which states that if the original notification is withdrawn or modified, notice given by the confirming authority
      "must include a statement of reasons"
      That chimes with my amendment No. 52. It would be appalling if, after hearing various representations, a blue pen was simply struck through various parts of the original notification decision, and no thought was given to explaining why the change was made. Without representations, certain decisions taken under this legislation could give rise to heated views on both sides.
      Amendments Nos. 45, 55 and 56—relating to the need to take account of international best practice—constitute my main contribution to this group, and I was pleased to note that they were indeed selected. Although the concept of protecting our marine wildlife through this kind of legislation is relatively new, such protection has been offered throughout the rest of the world for some time. We can learn a lot from what has happened elsewhere, and perhaps I might illustrate the point with two or three brief examples.
      The first two examples concern Greece, a country that I know well and have visited widely. The national marine park of the northern Sporades, on the island of Alonissos—which incorporates six smaller islands—was founded on 28 May 1992, so the Greeks have considerable experience of such matters. It is a very isolated area in which there is only limited human interference, so there was already a good natural environment for making the land and sea areas of the park an ideal habitat for many of the Aegean's threatened species of plants and animals. Severe restrictions are imposed on commercial activities
      1144
      such as fishing and tourism. They could have a serious impact on the people of the northern Sporades, who earn their living from those two industries. In fact, there is little else for them to do. The marine park deals not only with fish but with certain rare sea birds and, perhaps most importantly, the Mediterranean monk seal, which is under threat. It is an ancient animal that has been represented throughout history, including on ancient Greek coins. It is one of the largest seals in the world, but its rate of reproduction is very slow.
      Until recently, the monk seal was hunted intensively for its fur and skin, and fishermen who worried about its stealing food from their nets also used to bump it off. It is important to note that, since the marine park's introduction, virtually no such incidents have occurred. The marine park has actively engaged the region's fishermen and the fishing co-operative of Alonissos in its protection efforts, which has contributed greatly to stopping the killing of those seals.
      When one arrives in Alonissos, a little presentation—it is almost a museum—takes place on the dockside, explaining what the Government of Greece are trying to achieve in promoting the marine park. It engages tourists in the concept of the marine park, and perhaps encourages them to proselytise elsewhere. On visiting it. my eyes were certainly opened to the benefits of protecting marine wildlife in that way. An interesting documentary by a friend of mine, Mrs. Lydia Carras, recently won the Europa Nostra award for the best European nature documentary. It is called "The Song of the Monk Seal", and I am happy to lend my videotape copy to anyone who wants to watch it.
      One downside of the Alonissos marine park is that protection is voluntary. Although the inhabitants of Alonissos and the neighbouring island of Skopelos were united in pressing the Government of Greece to establish the marine park, and although there is a biological station, a formal management system has yet to be put in place. That can be contrasted with the island of Zakynthos, which is famous throughout the world for its turtle beaches. Such a management regime has been established in Zakynthos for a couple of years. However, unlike in Alonissos—where people want, but have yet to get, the protection afforded by a management scheme—ections of the Zakynthos population are against such a scheme. A management scheme is perhaps more important in Zakynthos, given the hostility of local businesses to such measures.
      The Zakynthos marine park also integrates protection of the territorial zones on land—the nesting grounds of the loggerhead turtles—with protection of nearby affected sea areas. It has achieved a great deal, despite being unable to bring the local community along with it. Greece therefore offers a couple of good examples of how international practice can inform the way in which we develop our own arrangements.
      My final example is from Australia. A few years ago, I was fortunate enough to visit the great barrier reef, which is the largest world heritage area. Some 1,500 species of fish, more than 300 species of reef-building corals, 4,000 molluscs and 400 species of sponges have so far been identified there. Australia probably has more experience of such matters than anywhere else. In 1976, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—a joint federal Government and Queensland state government body—assumed responsibility for the conservation and

      1145
      management of one of the world's largest and most unusual parks: the great barrier reef underwater park. On visiting the reef, I was impressed by the way in which the company that took us there by boat applied strict rules and regulations governing the conduct of visitors. For example, people who were snorkelling or diving were not allowed to stand on the coral, and the authorities made sure that they did not. That is an extremely important area, and it is part of Australia's national oceans policy.
      We could learn a great deal from the way in which the Australians established their authority, which undertakes a variety of tasks, including management plans, research, monitoring and interpreting data, and providing educational services and management advice. The day-to-day management is carried out by the Queensland agencies, subject to the authority's mandate, and they issue permits and give advice and assistance, nationally and internationally. I am sure that they would be prepared to help us to make our own arrangements.
      Will my right hon. Friend look beyond our own shores to international best practice to see how we can learn from what is good and bad overseas? Will he also take account of the need to ensure that those who will be most affected by the designation of a marine site will be properly consulted and involved in the process? Only by doing that can we achieve the success that the Bill very much deserves
      11 am
      Mr. Heath: I certainly concur with the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about the need to look at international best practice. There is considerable experience elsewhere in the world of operating marine reserves, and we should learn from that.
      These are important new clauses and amendments, and I do not dissent from the broad sweep of their intent, but I want to raise several important issues. The compass of new clause 5(1) underlines the extraordinary complexity of current coastal zone management and we need to address that. On a general point, it is absurd that we have so many bodies with different powers and responsibilities, often overlapping and sometimes in conflict. It is right to review that, and I note what the Minister said about the intention to implement the Bill, if it is passed, after the review of marine conservation. Some, including major UK ports, have said that the entire Bill should have been delayed until after that review; I do not agree. We need to get the Bill on to the statute book as well as to review our arrangements for coastal zone management.
      It is perhaps for that reason that subsection (1)(g) refers to
      "any other public body of any description",
      which is the catch-all phrase for all the bodies that the Minister either does not wish to list or fears that he may have omitted earlier in the subsection. I should have liked the sea fisheries committees to be explicitly included. They are essential to the Bill, and after all they are hardly a new invention, having been around since 1888. They deserve to be listed, not least because of the resource implications for them of implementing the Bill—something to which I am sure we shall return. The Minister said that the intention was to include them as a competent marine authority, but it would be better if they were listed in the new clause.
      1146
      If sea fisheries committees were named in new clause 5, it would be clear that, under new clause 6, they had to be notified when an area was to be designated a site of special interest. It would be remiss of any body that was, within the meaning of the Bill, a competent marine authority not to notify the appropriate sea fisheries committee when it intended to designate an area. On that point, the Bill differs from the equivalent legislation relating to land, in which there are requirements to consult relevant agricultural interests and landowners. It is unfortunate that the equivalent parts of the fisheries economy are not included in the Bill.
      Shona McIsaac: It is a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that sea fisheries committees are not mentioned. Government amendment No. 2 refers to
      "any local fisheries committee provided for under section 1 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966".
      So the committees are in fact mentioned in amendments that we will discuss today.
      Mr. Heath: Those are amendments that we will discuss later, and I would be out of order if I responded to a point about amendment No. 2. There may a reference to the committees, but they are not named as a competent marine authority, which would put them at the heart of the Bill, where they ought to be.
      I have another slight problem with new clause 6. Subsection (2) says that criteria will be published. As we have heard, those are the scientific criteria that will be used to judge whether a marine SSI should be established. However, there is no requirement in the Government's proposals to publish any form of statutory advice. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) made that point in Committee when he tabled amendments of his own. The Minister said that he would consider the matter carefully and determine how advice should be given. That advice is not mentioned in the amendments that we are discussing today.
      It would be extremely helpful if a code of statutory guidance were to be published by Ministers for the assistance not only of the marine authorities responsible for designation and notification but of everybody else concerned. Everyone would know exactly where they stood, and they would know which points to consider, not least so that they could make objections. Hon. Members will recall that we debated that matter at great length during proceedings on the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The more grounds for objection one can eliminate, the more focused any objections will be, and the easier it will be to deal with proper objections. That is important, so I would be grateful if the Minister told the House whether he intends to publish such guidance, statutory or otherwise.
      I want to make two points that may appear fatuous, although I hope they do not. One has to consider what may go wrong when the Bill is implemented. Under the designation and notification procedures, the appropriate nature conservation bodies are defined as English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. What will happen when the area concerned is in the jurisdiction of both bodies, in the Bristol channel? There is no provision for them to act jointly.
      It is not inconceivable that the problem will arise. The water borders between England and Wales, off Somerset. are quite odd. Because of local authority boundaries, a

      1147
      spit of English water goes down the middle of the Bristol channel; Steep Holme is in one country and Flatholm is in the other. My point is not therefore completely ridiculous: can the two nature conservation bodies act together?
      My second point may seem even sillier, but I must ask the Minister to consider it. It concerns the definition of a marine SSI. The sea bed and land below the sea bed is mentioned, as well as the water column. In the legislation dealing with land sites of special scientific interest there is a clear legal understanding that the column of air above the land is also included. Will the Minister assure me that that is also the case in this Bill, which refers to the water column but not the air above it? Clearly, one of the nature conservation interests may be sea birds, and disturbance of sea birds above the surface of the sea could be detrimental to the reasons for designation. I would hate to find that that was not included in the definition in legislation because of a misunderstanding or a misconstruction of the terms used.
      Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. However, it is most likely that the birds affected would be sea duck, whose feeding area is on the surface, and not necessarily birds that are in flight above it. However, it is an interesting point and I would be grateful to the Minister if he were to clarify it.
      Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right. Sea birds, with the exception of the albatross, do not tend to stay airborne for long periods. However, as we have discussed previously with regard to SSSIs, disturbance to the birds rather than destruction of the habitat is included. One can imagine a construction that causes no damage to the sea or the sea bed but that, nevertheless, irreparably damages the sea bird interest of a particular area. If a clever lawyer working for a corporation somewhere were able to say that that was not part of the marine site of special interest because it was above the water column, it would be a great shame. Perhaps the Minister will consider that point or take advice on it. I hope that I am barking up the wrong tree about that, and that my argument is a complete waste of time, but let us be sure.
      Shona McIsaac: First, I apologise to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and the Minister for not being in the Chamber earlier to hear their opening remarks.
      As I said earlier, my constituency is bounded by the River Humber, one of the biggest estuaries in this country. Indeed, it is an important breeding ground for migratory sea birds, and many of the mud flats above the low water mark are already designated as sites of special scientific interest. Those areas are covered by what we might call land-based legislation, whereas I understand that this Bill relates to areas below the mean low water mark. When the tide goes out in the Humber, it goes out an awful long way. On some days, one feels that one can walk to the Netherlands or Denmark, such is the expanse of mud flats. However, when the tide comes in, it comes in fast, which causes a problem when people get stranded on sand banks.
      I support the Bill, but I would like clarification from the Minister on a couple of points. The Bill makes it clear that designation of a marine site of special interest will be
      1148
      based on scientific evidence of its flora and fauna or on geological or physiographical criteria. Earlier this week, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) managed to get a private Member's Bill on marine archaeology through Committee. That Bill mainly gave responsibility for marine archaeology to English Heritage, which had not occurred before, and it had all-party support. What is the interplay between that Bill and this Bill? Under this Bill, geological and physiographical aspects will be taken into account, and submerged landscapes are of scientific interest in marine archaeology.
      11.15 am
      Mr. Randall: I was on the Committee that considered the National Heritage Bill to which the hon. Lady refers, although, unfortunately, I was only briefly present for its proceedings. That Bill has the support of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and is seen as part of a wider picture. It might cover wrecks that would be marine sites of special interest because of the important biodiversity found there. The Bills are compatible rather than being in competition.
      Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, because I wanted to establish whether the two Bills would be compatible. The hon. Gentleman is right that many archaeological remains such as wrecks of ships and even aircraft become important marine habitats, which create great biodiversity. We must therefore strike the right balance in that regard. I hope that the Minister will shed light on the interplay between marine archaeology and this Bill. and on submerged landscapes that are the result of changed sea levels.
      Mr. Randall: The hon. Lady may also be interested to know that the National Heritage Bill was introduced in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Anelay, who has said that if we were lucky enough to obtain the passage of this Bill to the other place, she would help to support it. That emphasises the compatibility of the two Bills.
      Shona McIsaac: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. My fondness for this Bill is growing by the minute.
      Fishing and the fishing industry is a slightly more controversial subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) mentioned that there was still a distant water fleet based mainly in Grimsby and Hull. Some—not all—fishermen are concerned about this Bill. Those concerns revolve first around notification. Many distant water trawlermen are away for long periods of time, and I hope that they are notified in some way. Fishermen are saying that the introduction of these special sites will exclude them from important fishing grounds. Because of the slim margins that exist today in the fishing industry, some fishermen are fearful that the Bill may affect their livelihoods. Given that quotas can be draconian, I hope that the Minister will appreciate the concern expressed by some trawlermen in my constituency. I have explained to trawlermen that the introduction of these sites will create important breeding grounds for fish species, and that excluding commercial fisheries from those sites could be beneficial to the fishing industry.

      1149
      The other point that I want to mention on behalf of the fishing community is the level of fines imposed for damage—£20,000, I understand. Again, concern has been expressed that that is a high level. Will there be any way for fishermen to appeal against fines imposed on them? Trawl nets are very large and can create damage. Marine biologists have expressed concern about the damage done to coral reefs off Britain.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said, coral reefs are not just found in Australia, and concern has been expressed about the effect that trawl nets and fishing equipment might have on the reefs. Given the size of the nets, we must be very careful where we place markers in such areas. Trawl nets might damage the reef even though the boat itself was well outside the area. We must consider how we can deal with that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon referred to whale and dolphin watching and I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) did not suggest that we could watch whales from canoes. That would have given him another opportunity to mention canoeing in the debate. However, I wanted to refer briefly to grey and common seals, because the United Kingdom has about 40 per cent. of the world's population of these species.
      Some members of the fishing industry suggest that some of those seals should be culled because of the amount of fish they eat. However, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)—he has responsibility for fisheries—has made it clear that there is no scientific evidence that would justify the culling of the species. In fact, the scientific evidence shows that dolphins eat more fish than seals ever do. However, seals are more visible to fisherman, who then blame the seals and want to cull their numbers.
      My family is from an area on the coast of Scotland and I know that many seals breed near the islands there. Will the Bill offer more protection to colonies of seals? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will he able to confirm that there is no scientific basis for culling seals. In fact, the seal population in this country is much lower than it was before the distemper outbreak took place in the 1980s. We must also consider this aspect of marine conservation.
      I support the Bill and wish it well. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will clarify some of the issues that I have raised.
      Bob Spink: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who spoke eloquently about her constituency interest in the matter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on his persistence and skill in bringing the Bill this far. I hope that he will be successful in getting it on to the statute book. He has a good chance of doing that because of the constructive and helpful approach that the Government have taken. I congratulate the Minister on his contribution.
      I do not intend to delay the House for long, but I hope that the debate on this group of new clauses and amendments—in particular that on new clause 4, which relates to the identification and notification of MSSIs—is the appropriate one on which to discuss fishing interests. We now better understand the dynamic nature of the marine environment.
      1150
      Although I did not serve on the Committee considering the Bill—that is my loss—and although I am only a humble Back Bencher, I wish to consider two constituency interests: conservation and the inshore fishing industry. Those interests are complementary to each other. Furthermore, my constituency lies in and on the Thames estuary; Canvey island and part of Two Tree island are in the Thames.
      The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has a valid interest in the Bill. Commercial fishermen depend on the marine environment to sustain and replenish fish stocks, so I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the NFFO's concerns have been fully taken on board. I was interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on the subject—he spoke quite wisely—so will the Minister place on record how the Bill will affect, if indeed, it will, the imminent and much-needed reform of the common fisheries policy? Although my views are well known in the House—I believe that we should get out of the policy and have nothing to do with it—clarification on that point would be appreciated.
      I wish the Bill well. I will not detain the House any further other than to congratulate again my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and the Minister on their approach.
      Mr. Meacher: I felt the need to apologise for the length of my opening remarks, and I now have to apologise for the length of my closing remarks. This is the main group of amendments and a range of important and highly pertinent questions have been asked by Members on both sides. I shall try to deal with them as quickly and as succinctly as I can.
      The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) asked about the effect of the duty to notify being reduced to a power and wondered whether English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales will still be given the resources to enable them effectively to establish a network of important marine areas. I said—I hope that he accepts this—that a power may be appropriate on the ground that it would offer greater flexibility and provide more time given the work that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and conservation agencies are doing on other issues. The change will allow for scientific information to be gathered and for work on the criteria to be carried out. As I have said, the nature conservation agencies already have priorities for marine work.
      On the point about resources, I said that we intend to provide the extra resources that will enable English Nature properly to implement the provisions in the Bill. In Wales, it will be a matter for the National Assembly, but the Government are putting their resources behind the Bill.
      When a site clearly merits designation as an MSSI, the hon. Gentleman asked whether English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales will be expected to notify the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales of that fact. The answer is yes. I assure him that, where a site merits designation as an MSSI against the criteria published by the confirming authority, I certainly expect English Nature to notify that fact, and I am quite sure that it will. Notification in Wales is, of course, a matter for the National Assembly.
      When English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales go as far is reasonably practical to secure consensus between interested parties, the hon. Gentleman

      1151
      asked me whether I could confirm that when English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales have gone as far as reasonably practicable to secure consensus between interested parties, the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales will confirm notification of an MSSI despite outstanding objections. Is absolute consensus required? The answer is that the confirming authority is quite properly obliged to consider all the representations made to him or her in deciding whether to confirm a site. However, I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that it will not be necessary to obtain 100 per cent. consensus of opinion before the authority confirms the site.
      11.30 am
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether interested parties other than the statutory nature conservation bodies will be consulted during development of the criteria and, again, the answer is yes. As I said, I would expect the site selection criteria for England to be based on the work that is being carried out by the JNCC under the auspices of the review, and there will be full consultation with the appropriate nature conservation agencies, but we intend to have public consultation on the criteria. As I said, before publishing them, the Secretary of State will also take full account of the views of colleagues or other bodies making representations.
      On the question of consistency between the criteria developed for England and those developed for Wales, this is a devolved issue and there is the potential for discrepancy, although I think that there is a recognition on both sides that, if possible, it is best avoided. I would expect the criteria for England to be based on the work on nationally important site selection carried out by the JNCC as part of the review of marine nature conservation. That will have a Great Britain perspective and it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State, in consultation with English Nature, to ensure that the criteria are suitable for England. I repeat, because it is the formal position, that the criteria for Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales, but there will certainly be discussion between us to ensure that we obtain a common view if possible.
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales would be able to set aside the advice of English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales on criteria for site selection, and the answer is that in considering a notification the most important issue is—
      Tony Cunningham: This might sound strange, but where we have, as we have in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), huge areas of sand once the tide goes out and we are establishing an MSSI according to various criteria, can we bear in mind the criteria for the SSSIs on land? If the low water mark is the benchmark, sea birds could be protected on a certain amount of sand once the tide goes out, but not when it comes in, and there could be two
      1152
      different criteria. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the criteria for SSSIs when establishing the criteria for their marine equivalent?
      Mr. Meacher: I had intended to deal with that when I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), but in the light of that intervention I shall do so now.
      In deciding the boundaries between SSSIs and MSSIs we shall seek to avoid there being a point at which there is a discontinuity. The mean low water mark has been chosen as the upper landward limit of an MSSI, as that generally corresponds to the lower seaward limit under which SSSIs are designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, so the problem about which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) is concerned should not arise.
      I return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge about setting aside the advice of the nature conservation agencies. I repeat that in considering a notification the most important issue is the special interest and whether the conservation agency has demonstrated its existence. That is the heart of the process. Representations may choose to question the scientific basis of the proposed notification, but in exercising its functions, the confirming authority will also, as I said, be under the duty set out in new clause 1 to have regard to the desirability of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.
      We will consider those issues on a case-by-case basis and the aim is to balance them carefully. I cannot give an assurance that either those who have particular concerns for development interests or those who have particular concerns for conservation interests will automatically override the other. Sustainable development is designed to try to obtain a balance in which neither automatically overrides the other, but in a particular case the aim is to reconcile them.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked me to confirm that operations likely to damage can be included in the conservation statement issued under new clause 7, and that where they are included they will constitute part of a statutory notification. The statement of views about the management of the site is likely to include an indication of the operations which, in the agency's view, would be likely to cause damage to the special features. That is an essential part of the statement. Representations may be made about the statement, including a list of operations. The statement is likely to be helpful, particularly, as I said, in taking decisions under clause 3 in relation to the carrying out of or consenting to operations.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked me, for the purposes of clause 3, which relates to competent marine authorities' duties, whether the Crown Estate Commissioners are considered a competent marine authority. Under new clause 5, the definition of competent marine authority is now a great deal closer to the definition of competent authority in the habitats regulations and, as with those regulations, bodies such as the Crown Estate Commissioners are competent marine authorities.
      I come now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) in the course of an intervention on new clause 2(4). The majority of the sea bed covered by the Bill is owned by the Crown and new clause 2 is about the placement of markers to mark

      1153
      the site. If markers are to be placed, it is only right that the landowner's permission is sought. The refusal of permission to place a marker does not mean that a site cannot be fixed, but it is certainly right that that permission should he sought and I imagine that in the overwhelming majority of cases it would be given.
      I come now to several points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and the many amendments that we have considered carefully. First, with regard to whether river estuaries are included, the answer is that they are if they are intertidal. As I said earlier, an MSSI can be notified in any area covered by tidal waters between the mean low water mark out to the limit of territorial waters.
      My hon. Friend asked about notification and advertisements and I can assure him that the appropriate nature conservation authority will, as a matter of best practice, try to involve all relevant persons about a notification. During the work on the review, I would expect English Nature to start looking more closely at the mechanisms for site notification. I have taken on board my hon. Friend's comments and I shall convey the organisations that he has listed to English Nature for consideration. Of course, the Secretary of State will and, I think, must, retain the power to direct conservation agencies if he or she feels that any relevant bodies have been missed.
      My hon. Friend mentioned advertisements. The Secretary of State retains a power to direct, but I am sure that the conservation body will consider placing appropriate advertisements in journals covering the industry, such as Fishing News, as well as using electronic means of communication, which could be especially important in respect of fishing fleets that go out to sea for considerable periods. My hon. Friend also asked about giving notice. That means notice in writing, but includes notice given by electronic means; we certainly do not want to shut our eyes to new technology.
      My hon. Friend referred to international best practice and mentioned Zakynthos and the Great Barrier reef. Obviously, the Government are advised on conservation issues by conservation agencies and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. I assure him that those bodies are fully involved in the international scientific community and will take account of international best practice—that is obviously what we want to do—including site management that takes account of tourism interests.
      My hon. Friend also asked how competent marine authorities would take account of advice on what constitutes a potentially damaging operation and how representations would be considered. When deciding whether an operation is likely to damage the features for which a site has been designated, we would expect the competent marine authority to have regard to any list of potentially damaging operations that may be contained in the conservation statement for that site. I repeat the term "have regard to", which means taking the issues seriously, and considering them carefully and fully—it does not mean looking at them and discarding them—and is used in statute. In line with other considerations to which the competent marine authority must have regard when taking decisions, I must accept that the need for the operation may outweigh the pure nature conservation consideration. That is the essence of sustainable development.
      1154
      Finally, my hon. Friend asked me how representations would be considered. Of course, representations about notifications will be considered fully. Where possible, we will encourage a dialogue with English Nature to see whether the concerns can be resolved. That is the best way of proceeding, as it is best to achieve the least confrontational approach possible. Currently, we see no need for the confirming authority to consider those representations in public before reaching a decision, but we will obviously consider very carefully the procedures that we propose to adopt, taking account of what hon. Members have said, before the Bill is implemented. We will certainly ensure a full and fair process.
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked about the production of guidance. I repeat that it is our intention that guidance on the provisions will be published before the Bill takes effect. That makes sense; it ensures as far as possible that everyone fully understands exactly what is required. I can certainly give a full commitment on that point, but I do not see a need for statutory guidance. Indeed, it is much easier to change such guidance where appropriate if it is not statutory.
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is correct that sea fisheries committees will be important in terms of the Bill's implementation. The list of competent marine authorities is drawn from a similar list for SSSIs on land. I can assure him that sea fisheries committees are competent marine authorities and are mentioned as one of the bodies capable of making management schemes. He asked about cross-border sites and made an ingenious suggestion about the Bristol channel. The general rule is that sites in England will be notified by English Nature, while in Wales they will be notified by the Countryside Council for Wales. There will be no cross-border sites, but sites can be notified to each other. Where sites abut, I expect their management to be carried out with a high degree of co-operation. In terms of the middle of the Bristol channel, those involved will have to talk fully with one another.
      11.45 am
      I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes asked about whether archaeological sites such as wrecks were covered by the Bill. If fauna and flora in or near wrecks merit notification under the specified criteria, we expect such sites to be notified on that basis.
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred to protection of the air above the water. The Bill is primarily a site-protection mechanism. I understand that the protection afforded to species such as birds while airborne is covered by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The arrangement is similar to SSSIs on land, which protect the habitat, but not the air above it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes also referred to seals, which are protected by the Conservation of Seals Act 1970. In the UK, four seal colonies are protected by European designation. Whether seal colonies will be covered by the Bill will be down to the criteria that may result from the work of the review of marine nature conservation.
      I think that I have dealt with all the points that have been raised, apart from those made by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who asked whether the Bill would affect fisheries. Of course, sea fisheries committees already have powers to make byelaws that regulate

      1155
      fisheries for marine environment purposes, including the conservation of flora and fauna. Powers to control fishing already exist separately. The Bill will clarify the position of nationally important sites of marine interest and provide a mechanism through management schemes whereby appropriate operations may continue.
      I think that my very last point relates to what the hon. Gentleman asked me about the common fisheries policy. [Laughter.] Much as one might like this private Member's Bill, I do not think that it is an instrument for changing the common fisheries policy. Conclusions from the review of the policy may have implications for the operation and management of inshore fisheries, but we will have to await the outcome of the review before those implications can be assessed. I understand that the Commission's proposals are likely to emerge shortly and decisions are needed by the end of the year.
      I hope that in light of the assurances that I have given, the House will accept the new clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION IN A MARINE SITE
      '(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

      (a) intentionally or recklessly damages or destroys any of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which a marine area is a marine site of special interest; and

      (b) knew that what he damaged or destroyed was within a marine site of special interest.

      (2) Subsection (1) does not have effect in relation to a competent marine authority acting in the exercise of its functions.
      (3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that the damage or destruction was the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided.
      (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

      (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;

      (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

      (5) In determining the amount of any fine to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence under this section, the court must in particular have regard to any financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue to that person in consequence of the offence.
      (6) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

      (a) any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate; or

      (b) any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

      he, as well, as the body corporate, is guilty of the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
      (7) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.
      (8) An offence under this section is for the purposes of conferring jurisdiction to be deemed to have been committed in any place where the offender is found or to which he is first brought after the commission of the offence.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
      Brought up and read the first time
      Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 26 to 29.
      Mr. Meacher: The Bill provides for no offences and the Government felt that that was an important omission. New clause 3 introduces a new offence of intentionally damaging or destroying the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features of a marine site of special interest that make it of special interest, or being reckless as to whether the special interest would be destroyed or damaged. An offence is committed only if a person or body other than the competent marine authority damages or destroys the special feature, knowing that it is within an MSSI. The matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) during the previous debate. We have fixed the fine at the level of £20,000. I did not say then that this is a new offence of intentionally damaging or destroying or being reckless. That is important. An offence would not be committed in other circumstances.
      Examples of offences under the provision would include intentional reckless damage to or destruction of the special feature of an MSSI through the collection of material or direct impact by divers, the digging up of sea grass beds to put down moorings or breaking off and removing sea fans where the person knew that what he damaged or destroyed was within an MSSI. I hope that that reassures those who think that they may unwittingly and inadvertently fall foul of the Bill. We are talking about deliberate, reckless action.
      Mr. Swayne: I take the Minister's point and congratulate him on the new clause, but I remind him that the provision includes a defence. What is the reason for that?
      Mr. Meacher: That is a good point. I shall come to that thread of my speech a little later—in fact, now.
      Subsection (3) of the new clause would provide a defence where the person can show that the activity that caused the damage was
      "the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided."
      The defence is intended to protect someone who acts without malice or recklessness and is carrying out a lawful operation, but as a result may incidentally cause the relevant effects.
      Mr. Swayne: If the offence is reckless or with intent, how can it be a defence to say that it was not carried out with malice?
      Mr. Meacher: If it is intentional action to damage or destroy flora or fauna, or if it is reckless, the defence will not apply. It is intended to protect people who do not fall into that category.
      There is nothing new in the provision. It is consistent with the defence contained in section 4(2)(c) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—passed by a Conservative Government, whom we support in that

      1157
      respect—relating to the protection of birds and section 10(3)(c), which concerns the protection of schedule 5 wild animals.
      The penalties in subsection (4) are consistent with the SSSI provisions. Other parts of the new clause are more technical. For instance, it explains what happens where an offence is committed by a corporate body with the consent, or owing to the neglect, of an officer of the body, and confers jurisdiction on the courts in the place where an offender is found or first brought to after the offence has been committed.
      The precedent that we had in mind for the offence was section 28P(6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 concerning SSSIs. That section was framed primarily to discourage actions, mainly by persons other than owners or occupiers of land, which were causing damage. A similar disincentive is required for marine sites.
      I am aware of concerns that activities carried out in pursuit of the public rights of navigation and fishing would be assessed against the provisions of the new offence. However, I stress that the offence is committed only where a person intends to damage or recklessly damages the protected features of an MSSI. The person must have known that what he damaged was in an MSSI. The defence that I described applies where a member of the public is carrying out a lawful activity such as navigation, and damage to an MSSI-protected feature is the incidental result. However, he could not avail himself of the defence had there been reasonable steps that he could have taken to avoid the damage, but he did not take them. Ultimately, the court must make a judgment on the matter.
      Mr. Randall: When we start talking about legal niceties it is as well for me to keep out of it, but I presume that if someone was warned that their action would be reckless and they carried on, there would be no defence.
      Mr. Meacher: Yes. That would be regarded as an intent recklessly to damage, having been warned that such an action would be contrary to the provisions.
      I should emphasise that the main purpose of the offence is to act as a deterrent. A fine of £20,000 should be a significant deterrent to individual acts of irresponsibility that result in deliberate or reckless damage or destruction.
      I shall deal with the enforcement of the provision. I appreciate that the enforcement of nature conservation legislation in the marine environment is a difficult issue, especially as no one body is responsible for it. It is clear that the enforcement of marine offences requires clarification. That is why the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime, sometimes known as PAW, which is co-chaired by my Department, is setting up a sub-group to consider how marine enforcement can be improved. The Bill is not an appropriate vehicle to address that wider issue, and I take the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall).
      In its interim report published last year, the review of marine nature conservation recommended that the Government should commission an exercise to identify best practice in marine enforcement both here and abroad. That will examine available methods of enforcement and common approaches concerning the relationship between regulators and sea users. The results of the review will be taken into account when looking more closely at the enforcement of the Bill's provisions.
      1158
      Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 are principally designed to clarify the byelaw-making procedures in clause 6. Amendment No. 26 provides that the consent of the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly for Wales in respect of Wales, is needed for a nature conservation agency to make byelaws for the protection of MSSIs. That is consistent with section 37(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The power to make byelaws will be a useful tool for agencies to use in trying to modify behaviour where it is causing damage to features of acknowledged importance. It will draw on the examination of enforcement in the marine environment to which I referred.
      We thought it would be helpful to rectify this omission in the Bill. I commend the new clause and amendments to the House.
      Mr. Randall: I thank the Minister for including the new clause. It would not have been appropriate for me to include measures such as fines in a private Member's Bill. I am grateful to the Government for dealing with that, because without proper deterrence such legislation is not necessarily worth the paper it is written on.
      12 noon
      Mr. Swayne: I merely want to dwell on the content of my intervention. I acknowledge that the Minister has done a service to the Bill by introducing the new clause, but I am concerned about the defence. I accept that my concern might be due to my limitations in understanding such legal matters, but it is worth reinforcing the point.
      The offence is clear—it is intentionally or recklessly to damage or destroy flora or fauna if the defendant knows that what he has damaged or destroyed is within a marine site of special interest. It follows logically from that that the defence would be that the defendant did not know he was within a designated area or that he was not intentionally reckless in his activities. However, to include a defence that that might be an incidental consequence of an otherwise lawful activity undermines the nature of the offence.
      Given that my experience of the sort of activities that we are talking about is limited and my expertise does not extend to maritime matters, it would be helpful if the Minister could provide examples to which the defence might apply. Perhaps he could give some examples of the activities that might destroy the maritime flora and fauna, but would otherwise be lawful and provide an adequate defence under the Bill. The new clause seems to let people off the hook.
      People are annoyed and frustrated about damage to SSSIs on land when they see designation of those sites being completely ignored by developers or landowners and there is insufficient penalty to provide a disincentive. In framing the new clause, the Minister has dealt with that: he has provided an adequate disincentive through a fine. I should hate to see that undermined by this defence. I think that my argument has force, and I note from the body language of Labour Members with greater legal experience than I have that that view is not confined to me. I would certainly welcome greater clarification from the Minister.
      Mr. Dismore: I should like to follow the points made by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), because I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Minister has his mens rea jumbled up in this new clause.

      1159
      Subsection (1) of the new clause sets out a clear offence of intentionally or recklessly causing damage, but I am concerned about the defence, which seems more appropriate to damage caused negligently. The new clause provides an unnecessary defence. Let us suppose, for example, that a ship was in distress at sea in a storm and the ship's captain dropped anchor. I presume that that would be a lawful operation. If it caused damage, it could be said that the damage could not reasonably have been avoided. When the ship's captain dropped anchor, he was not intentionally trying to destroy the flora or fauna under the sea bed, but was trying to save the lives of the people on the ship; nor was he acting recklessly.
      It is difficult to imagine circumstances in which someone intentionally or recklessly damages the sea bed or anything appertaining to it, yet at the same time is engaging in a lawful operation that could not reasonably have been avoided.
      Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), a warning would be wholly irrelevant. One could issue a warning that what someone was about to do would intentionally or recklessly cause damage and that person could knowingly go ahead and do it, but he would still have a defence under new clause 3(3). Thus any warning becomes otiose. My right hon. Friend the Minister should consider whether subsection (3) is needed. I believe that it would be needed only if the offence were intentionally, recklessly or negligently to damage the sea bed. In those circumstances, I see a need for the defence, but as matters stand it drives a potential coach and horses through the offence.
      I refer now to the corporate liability. I am pleased to see that we are lifting the corporate veil and going to the directors, managers and secretaries of a company if they are behind the game. As the Minister knows, I have been keen on this concept in respect of corporate killing, on which I have yet to win the argument. However, it is important. I am concerned about the reference to neglect on the part of the director, manager, secretary or so forth, because we have the mens rea of neglect while the offence itself has the mens rea of intention or reckless behaviour. That seems to be contradictory. If a manager intentionally or recklessly consents to or connives in the offence being committed, so be it, but why should a negligent director face a greater risk of penalty than the person causing the offence?
      We must have another look at this provision and either make the offence one that includes negligence with knowledge, which it would be easy to do, in which case the defence would stand, or remove the defence and redraft the director's liability to bring it more in line with the offence.
      There is a series of different interlocking issues which do not quite add up and which I regret to say would probably provide a field day for my professional colleagues, were I still practising as a solicitor. I still have a practising certificate, but I am pleased to say that I am not taking cases now. I have more important things to do.
      Mr. Heath: The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) has covered some of the ground that I intended to cover. There are internal contradictions in the offences laid out in new clause 3. I welcome the fact that the
      1160
      Government have introduced the new clause, but it needs a little revision, because is hard to reconcile the offence in subsection (1) with the defence in subsection (3).
      I suppose that it is conceivable that somebody might find himself with a snagged net and believe that to retrieve the net he must cause intentional damage, which might however be held to be incidental to a legal operation.
      Mr. Dismore rose —
      Mr. Heath: I am about to be interrupted by a member of the legal profession, who will tell me why I am wrong.
      Mr. Dismore: In those circumstances, the motivating factor behind the act would be not to cause damage but to release the net. One could not say, therefore, that the intent would be to cause damage. It would also he difficult to bring the action within the definition of recklessness, so I am not entirely with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
      Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has more experience of such matters than I have. I was merely suggesting that I could conceive of a circumstance in which that might apply. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's basic hypothesis that, given that the offence is termed intentional or reckless damage, the prosecuting authority must establish that the damage was intentional or reckless in order to achieve a prosecution. Clearly, any action that is accidental or incidental does not fall within that category.
      My concern is almost the reverse: the provision under subsection (1)(b) and the need for the prosecuting authority to establish that the defendant knew that the damage or destruction was within a marine site of special interest. That is difficult to prove to the satisfaction of a court. Unless a specific notification has been given, it is hard to prove that the person at that time knew that he was in an MSSI.
      We have had similar debates in other capacities, and I have always preferred the absolute offence against mitigating factors, rather than the requirement that the burden of proof be put on the prosecuting authorities to establish not only that the damage was intentional or reckless but that the person knew about it. Had the provision been phrased in such a way that the person might reasonably have been expected to know that he or she was in an MSSI, that would be a different matter, because there would not be an absolute need to prove that the person was in possession of that fact when the offence was committed.
      The issue of whether the wording is right is a minor quibble, although it will need to be tested at some stage, and may be tested in another place. I broadly agree with the Minister's proposals.
      I also agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon about negligence by a body corporate. If such a body has simply not given clear enough instructions to its staff, why should it necessarily be guilty of an offence? If an instruction has not been issued, that does not constitute a deliberate act of intentional or reckless damage or destruction.
      Some guidance on byelaws would be of assistance. I strongly support a legal framework for the protection of MSSIs, but it must be fair to all those who might be affected. Prior consultation on the substance of the

      1161
      byelaws with particular regard for the interests of those who use the seas for various purposes is important. We should consider not only the needs of the fishing industry at large—which are important—but the way that byelaws might affect low-impact fishing methods: for example, the mackerel handliners, bass longliners, cove shell fishermen or even the few remaining mudhorse fishermen on the mudflats of Bridgwater bay.
      Those activities would not have a significant effect on conservation areas but could be caught by byelaws that were unintentionally framed too widely. I hope that proper regard will be paid to those interests in the drawing up and confirming of byelaws.
      Mrs. Helen Clark (Peterborough): My remarks will cover some familiar issues, but as it is important that these views are fully recorded, I beg the indulgence of the House if some of my points have already been made.
      I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on this important Bill. I spoke in favour of it on Second Reading and had the honour of serving as a member of the Standing Committee that considered it. It is clear from the many new clauses and amendments that have been tabled that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall)—the Bill's promoter—have worked extremely closely together since those proceedings, and I congratulate them on their constructive approach.
      I also want to highlight the wide support for the Bill throughout the country. Anyone who thinks that this is a side issue is not living in the real world. Many Members on both sides of the House have received letters from constituents, whether our constituencies are land or sea-bound—Peterborough is certainly not sea-boundߞasking us to support the Bill. That demonstrates once again the deep concern for the marine environment.
      I was pleased to receive a letter from the Wildlife and Countryside Link—its representatives might be in the House today—which is an umbrella organisation for environmental groups that express support for the successful consideration of the Bill.
      Government new clause 3 is a very welcome addition, as we have stressed. It will mean that anyone found intentionally or recklessly damaging or destroying any of the interests of an MSSI, when they knew that what they had damaged or destroyed lay within such a site, could be guilty of an offence. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to clarify a few issues in relation to the new offence.
      In making my first point, I am traversing familiar ground. The Government propose to add a defence, but, like the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), I am concerned about that. The provision states that, where the damage or disturbance was the incidental result of an otherwise lawful activity, the person causing the damage would not be guilty of an offence. The SSSI protection measures provided under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—to which my right hon. Friend referred—do not provide that defence because fishing is a lawful activity. There is a public right to fish and we should protect it. It is unclear why such a defence is needed for marine SSIs or how it will work in practice in the marine environment.
      1162
      12.15 pm
      The marine environment is subject to the exercise of public rights—more so than on land. One example is the public right to fish. It is possible that the exercise of such rights could result in intentional or reckless damage to a marine SSI; for example, weighing anchor within a lophelia coral reef—although I have never tried that. Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether damage from the exercise of such public rights would be considered an incidental result of an otherwise lawful activity, even if the person carrying out the activity had been informed that it was damaging a site? Will he also confirm whether someone who exercised a public right, but had been informed that in doing so they were damaging, or would damage, a marine SSI, could not then rely on the
      "incidental result of a lawful operation"
      defence to escape censure?
      I shall now cover some new ground. The second difference between the offence in the 1981 Act and new clause 3 is that the Act refers not only to intentional and reckless damage or destruction but also to disturbance of notified fauna. The issue of reckless disturbance of marine wildlife is close to my heart, as hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware. In February 2000, I introduced the Marine Wildlife Protection Bill—with the able support of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and other non-governmental organisations—to tackle the problems of harassment of, and disturbance to, marine wildlife by motorised marine leisure vessels and jet-skis.
      My Bill would not only have enabled local authorities to protect marine wildlife and promote safety by prohibiting the use of motorised marine leisure vessels in coastal areas, but would have made it an offence to disturb marine wildlife recklessly or intentionally. Since then, the Government have passed the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, with which I was proud to be involved. The Act was a significant and welcome step forward for nature conservation. As a result of it, there is an offence of intentional or reckless disturbance of whales, dolphins, porpoises and basking sharks—something which my Bill also sought to address. That was an important change, on which the Government can build in this Bill by extending that provision to other wildlife.
      One of my major concerns when I introduced my Bill was the level of hidden disturbance, and indeed persecution, of marine wildlife. I had hoped that this Bill would face up to those problems and tackle them head on. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Minister to clarify why, as a departure from the offence in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, disturbance of fauna is not included in the offence proposed by new clause 3.
      Mr. Meacher: There are some concerns about the new clause, although I hope to allay them and obviously we shall consider further what has been said. First, the hon. Member for Oxbridge—[Laughter.] That was a Freudian slip. The hon. Member for Uxbridge said that he was grateful for the Government's avidity; I thank him for that.
      The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) discussed further the concerns that he adumbrated earlier and asked for examples of where the defence might apply and why it was necessary. During preparation of the Bill, various persons and organisations have asked us what its

      1163
      impact would be in terms of the commission of offences. The most obvious examples are the fisheries industry and the public engaging in recreational navigation. We believe that it is useful for a defence to be made explicit in the Bill because it assures those persons and organisations of its parameters.
      I entirely understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that it would be otiose to make the defence explicit. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that either an offence is committed under subsection (1) or it is not, and asked why, if it is not, we need a defence, because the defence would be that no offence had been committed under subsection (1). I also understand that argument. However, the fact that we were approached by the fisheries industry and some others for assurance persuaded us that the inclusion of the defence was justified.
      I explained how the defence would operate. Perhaps I should add that if a person were charged, they would certainly need to prove that the defence was available to them in those circumstances, but I repeat that the clause is consistent with provisions in other nature conservation legislation, which, as far as I am aware, operates without problems. However, I am sure that further clarification of the provisions of the clause will be made in the guidance that we intend to introduce; I am glad to give the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome an assurance on that point.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon raised the issue of corporate liability and the negligence of directors. Directors are liable alongside the corporation only when, in the management of the corporation, they have consented to the offence, connived in committing the offence or been neglectful about whether the corporation committed the offence. The negligence of directors can lead to their becoming criminally liable along with the corporation, where it leads to the corporation's committing a criminal offence. I believe that I heard the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome say that he wanted us to consider again whether we should include negligence with knowledge. Perhaps I should discuss the matter further with him afterwards. I am quite prepared to consider the matter in the light of what he says.
      I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) for introducing a Bill on a similar subject and for her long-term commitment to the marine environment. She asked whether the right of anchorage of vessels would be removed by the clause. The customary right of anchoring would of course be subject to the provisions of the clause in the same way as the public rights of fishing and navigation would. I do not see why a person who drops anchor knowing that he or she is in an MSSI and intentionally or recklessly damages a special feature by reason of which it has been notified—such as a coral reef, which she mentioned—should be immune from prosecution. Of course the defence in subsection (3) would be available, where the criteria for the defence were met, but I would obviously expect the defence to apply where it was necessary for a vessel to drop anchor because of force majeure, as was stated in the debate, or because it was in distress, or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons or ships in danger or distress.
      1164
      My hon. Friend also asked whether we could extend the provisions to include the disturbance of wildlife, which was the thrust of her Bill. Of course, this is a private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill. Although the disturbance of wildlife is a relevant and interesting phenomenon, it raises further, considerable issues, such as how it should be defined, and I do not think that the Bill represents the channel to deal with them.
      Finally, my hon. Friend asked why disturbance of fauna is not included in the offence under the Bill. I should point out, as I have already, that the Bill is promoted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge. Given the amount of Government involvement, hon. Members might think that it has become a quasi-Government Bill, but it is a private Member's Bill.
      As I said earlier, the Government feel strongly that a criminal offence of intentional or reckless damage should be incorporated to strengthen the protection offered by the Bill, and that that offence should be relevant and proportionate to the marine environment. Similar provisions were introduced in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and apply when a specific threat is posed by disturbance of certain species. Disturbance of marine species is more relevant to species-protection legislation rather than to site-based mechanisms in the Bill. My hon. Friend correctly drew attention to a gap that remains, but I do not think that we can resolve the issue in considering the Bill. Again, on that basis, I hope that, although there are doubts about the operation of the defence, those legal provisions will be acceptable to the House. They seem to have general support.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 4

      MEANING OF "MARINE AREA" AND "MARINE SITE OF SPECIAL INTEREST"
      '(1) For the purposes of this Act—
      a "marine area" is any part of the sea in or adjacent to England or Wales, or any land covered (continuously or intermittently) by tidal waters in or adjacent to England or Wales;
      a "marine site of special interest" is a marine area in respect of which a notification has effect under this Act.
      (2) A marine area notified as a marine site of special interest—

      (a) may extend from the mean low water mark up to the seaward limit of territorial waters;

      (b) may include the sea bed, the soil under the sea bed to a depth of 30 metres, and the water column.

      (3) A marine site of special interest must not include—

      (a) any part of an area of land which has been notified under section 28(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69) (sites of special scientific interest);

      (b) any part of a European marine site, unless the reason for which that part of the marine area is a marine site of special interest is a reason other than that for which it is a European marine site.

      (4) In section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69) (sites of special scientific interest), after subsection (10) insert—
      "(11) An area notified under this section must not include any part of an area of land which has been notified as a marine site of special interest under the Marine Wildlife Conservation Act 2002 (c. 00)."
      (5) If any part of a marine site of special interest is, after it has been notified as such, included in a European marine site, that part ceases to be a marine site of special interest, unless the reason for which that part is a marine site of special interest is a reason other than that for which it is a European marine site.
      (6) References in this Act to the reasons for which a marine area is a European marine site are references to—

      (a) the natural habitat types in Annex I to the Habitats Directive hosted by the site;

      (b) the native species in Annex II to the Habitats Directive hosted by the site; or

      (c) the bird species for which the site is classified pursuant to Article 4(1) or (2) of the Wild Birds Directive.'.— [Mr. Meacher.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 5

      GENERAL INTERPRETATION
      '(1) In this Act—
      "the appropriate nature conservation body" means—

      (a) in relation to the sea in or adjacent to England, or land covered by tidal waters in or adjacent to England. English Nature;

      (b) in relation to the sea in or adjacent to Wales, or land covered by tidal waters in or adjacent to Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales;

      "the confirming authority" means—

      (a) the Secretary of State, as respects a notification or byelaws made by English Nature;

      (b) the National Assembly for Wales, as respects a notification or byelaws made by the Countryside Council for Wales;

      "competent marine authority" means—

      (a) a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (c. 26)) or a Government department;

      (b) the National Assembly for Wales;

      (c) in England, a county, district or London borough council, or the Common Council of the City of London;

      (d) in Wales, a county council or county borough council;

      (e) a person holding an office—

      (i) under the Crown,

      (ii) created or continued in existence by a public general Act of Parliament, or

      (iii) the remuneration in respect of which is paid out of money provided by Parliament;

      (f) statutory undertaker (meaning the persons referred to in section 262(1), (3) and (6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)); and

      (g) any other public body of any description;

      "European marine site" means a European marine site which is included in the European sites register maintained by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales under the Natural Habitats Regulations;
      "the Habitats Directive" means Council Directive 92/43/EC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended from time to time;
      "the Natural Habitats Regulations" means the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994 (S.I. 1994/2716), as they have effect from time to time:
      "the sea adjacent to Wales" is to be construed in accordance with Article 6 of the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/672), as that Article may be amended or replaced from time to time by Order under the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38);
      "the Wild Birds Directive" means Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, as amended from time to time.'
      (2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend the definition of "competent marine authority" in relation to marine sites of special interest which are the subject of a notification by English Nature.
      (3) The National Assembly for Wales may by order made by statutory instrument amend the definition of "competent marine authority" in relation to marine sites of special interest which are the subject of a notification by the Countryside Council for Wales.
      (4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (2) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 6

      NOTIFICATION OF MARINE SITES
      '(1) If the appropriate nature conservation body is of the opinion that a marine area is a marine site of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features, it may notify that fact.
      (2) The confirming authority must, after consulting the appropriate nature conservation body, publish criteria in accordance with which the bodies are to determine whether a marine area is a marine site of special interest for the purposes of this Act.
      (3) The confirming authority may, after consulting the appropriate nature conservation bodies, revise criteria published under subsection (2).
      (4) If a body decides to make a notification under subsection (1), it must notify—

      (a) the confirming authority;

      (b) so far as reasonably practicable, each competent marine authority which exercises functions in relation to the marine area;

      (c) any other competent marine authority which in the opinion of the body should be notified;

      (d) any other person who the body is directed by the confirming authority to notify.

      (5) The body must also publish the notification, on as many occasions as the confirming authority may direct, in—

      (a) the London Gazette;

      (b) at least one local newspaper circulating in an area near to the marine area; and

      (c) such other publications as the confirming authority may direct.

      (6) A notification under this section has effect from the date on which it is first published in the London Gazette.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 7

      FURTHER PROVISIONS ABOUT NOTIFICATION
      '(1) A notification under section 1 must specify the time (not being less than three months from the date of the giving of the notification) within which representations or objections with respect to it may be made to the confirming authority.
      (2) A notification must also—

      (a) specify the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the marine area is a marine site of special interest;

      (b) contain a statement of the appropriate nature conservation body's objectives in relation to the conservation of that flora or fauna, or those features ("the conservation objectives") and the body's views about how the site should be managed for the purpose of achieving those objectives.

      (3) The confirming authority, having regard to any representations or objections made under subsection (1), may before the end of the period of nine months beginning with the date on which the notification is first published in the London Gazette, give notice to the appropriate nature conservation body that the notification is—

      (a) confirmed;

      (b) withdrawn; or

      (c) modified;

      and the notice must include a statement of reasons for a withdrawal or modification.
      (4) The notification may be modified by the confirming authority only by—

      (a) reducing the size of the marine site of special interest (but so that the site remains within the boundaries of the site in respect of which the notification was made);

      (b) removing the specification of one or more of the species of flora or fauna, or one or more of the geological or physiographical features;

      (c) amending the statement relating to the conservation objectives.

      (5) A notification ceases to have effect—

      (a) at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice is given to the appropriate nature conservation body that the notification is withdrawn;

      (b) if no notice is given under subsection (3), at the end of the period of nine months beginning with the date on which the notification is first published in the London Gazette.

      (6) A notification has effect as modified by a notice under subsection (3) at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice of the modification is given to the appropriate nature conservation body.
      (7) The appropriate nature conservation body must so far as reasonably practicable notify each person who was notified under section 1(4)(b) to (d)—

      (a) of a notice of confirmation, withdrawal or modification under subsection (3): or

      (b) that no notice has been given under subsection (3) before the end of the period of nine months mentioned in subsection (5)(b).'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 8

      MODIFICATION OR DENOTIFICATION
      '(1) The appropriate nature conservation body may notify a modification of a notification—

      (a) at any time after notice confirming the notification is given; or

      (b) if the notification is modified by the confirming authority, at any time after the notification has effect as modified.

      (2) If the appropriate nature conservation body is of the opinion that a marine area is no longer a marine site of special interest by reason of any of the matters specified in section 1(1), a modification under subsection (1) may cancel the notification in respect of the area.
      (3) If the body decides to make a notification under subsection (1), it must notify —

      (a) the confirming authority;

      (b) so far as reasonably practicable, each competent marine authority which exercises functions in relation to the marine area;

      1168

      (c) any other competent marine authority which in the opinion of the body should be notified;

      (d) any other person who the body is directed by the confirming authority to notify.

      (4) The body must also publish the notification, on as many occasions as the confirming authority may direct, in—

      (a) the London Gazette;

      (b) at least one local newspaper circulating in or near to the marine area; and

      (c) such other publications as the confirming authority may direct.

      (5) A notification under subsection (1), other than a notification which is a cancellation as mentioned in subsection (2), has effect from the date on which it is first published in the London Gazette.
      (6) A notification under subsection (1) must specify the time (not being less than three months from the date of the giving of the notification) within which representations or objections with respect to it may be made to the confirming authority.
      (7) The confirming authority, having regard to any representations or objections made under subsection (6), may before the end of the period of nine months beginning with the date on which the notification is first published in the London Gazette, give notice to the appropriate nature conservation body that the notification is —

      (a) confirmed;

      (b) withdrawn; or

      (c) modified;

      and the notice must include a statement of the reasons for a withdrawal or modification.
      (8) If a notification under subsection (1) would reduce the size of the site or cancel the notification, the confirming authority may modify that part of the notification only by increasing the size of the marine site (but so that the site remains within the boundaries of the site in respect of which the notification which is proposed to be modified was made).
      (9) Apart from that, the confirming authority may modify the notification only by —

      (a) removing or reinstating the specification of one or more of the species of flora or fauna, or one or more of the geological or physiographical features;

      (b) amending the statement relating to the conservation objectives.

      (10) A notification under subsection (1) which is a cancellation as mentioned in subsection (2)—

      (a) has effect, or has effect as modified, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice is given under subsection (7) to the appropriate nature conservation body that the notification is confirmed or modified;

      (b) if no such notice is given or notice is given that the notification is withdrawn, does not have effect.

      (11) A notification under subsection (1), other than a notification which is a cancellation as mentioned in subsection (2), ceases to have effect—

      (a) at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice is given to the appropriate nature conservation body that the notification is withdrawn;

      (b) if no notice is given under subsection (7), at the end of the period of nine months beginning with the date on which the notification is first published in the London Gazette.

      (12) A notification under subsection (1), other than a notification which is a cancellation as mentioned in subsection (2), has effect as modified by a notice under subsection (7) at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice of the modification is given to the appropriate nature conservation body.
      (13) The appropriate nature conservation body must so far as reasonably practicable notify each person who was notified under subsection (3)(b) to (d)—

      (a) of a notice of confirmation, withdrawal or modification under subsection (7); or

      (b) that no notice has been given under subsection (7) before the end of the period of nine months mentioned in subsection (11)(b).'.—(Mr. Meacher.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 9

      DENOTIFICATION IN RELATION TO EUROPEAN MARINE SITES
      '(1) If any part of a marine site of special interest ceases to be included in such a site because it is included in a European marine site, the appropriate nature conservation body must notify—

      (a) the confirming authority;

      (b) so far as reasonably practicable, each competent marine authority which exercises functions in relation to the site;

      (c) any other competent marine authority which in the opinion of the body should be notified;

      (d) any other person who the body is directed by the confirming authority to notify.

      (2) The body must also publish the notification, on as many occasions as the confirming authority may direct, in—

      (a) the London Gazette;

      (b) at least one local newspaper circulating in an area near to the site; and

      (c) such other publication as the confirming authority may direct.

      (3) A notification under this section has effect from the date on which it is published in the London Gazette.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 10

      APPLICATION TO CROWN
      '(1) This Act binds the Crown, except that nothing in this Act affects Her Majesty in her private capacity.
      (2) Byelaws made under section 6 may apply to Crown land only if the appropriate authority (within the meaning of section 101(11) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949 c. 97)) consents.
      (3) Crown land means land an interest in which—

      (a) belongs to Her Majesty in the right of the Crown or the Duchy of Lancaster;

      (b) belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall;

      (c) belongs to a government department; or

      (d) is held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department.

      (4) The Crown is not criminally liable as a result of any provision made by or under this Act.
      (5) Subsection (4) does not affect the application of any provision made by or under this Act in relation to persons in the public service of the Crown.'—[Mr. Meacher.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      12.30 pm
      Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      It is customary for a Bill to be specific about the extent to which it applies to the Crown, and the new clause provides the necessary explanation. It indicates that the Bill shall bind the Crown but that the Crown should not be criminally liable, and that includes liability under byelaws, which may only be made on Crown land with the consent of the appropriate authority. It defines what constitutes Crown land, using a definition akin to that in section 67 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The new clause deals with an important aspect of the Bill because most of the sea bed in territorial waters belongs to the Crown, and both Departments and persons holding office under the Crown are defined as competent marine authorities in the amended Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 1
      MARINE SITES OF SPECIAL INTEREST
      Amendment made: No. 30, in page 1, line 1, leave out Clause 1.—[Mr. Meacher.]
    Clause 2

      DUTY TO COMPILE AND MAINTAIN A REGISTER OF MARINE SITES OF SPECIAL INTEREST
      Mr. Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 3, line 18, leave out from beginning to "available" in line 20 and insert—
      '(1) Each appropriate nature conservation body must maintain, in such form as it thinks fit, a register of marine sites of special interest.
      (2) The register under subsection (1) must include the coordinates of each marine site of special interest and a chart illustrating its boundaries.
      (3) A copy of the register maintained under subsection (1) must be'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 53, in page 3, line 21, at end insert —
      'in a land-based location as conveniently near as is reasonably practicable to the marine site of special interest.'.
      Mr. Meacher: The purpose of the amendment is to make drafting improvements to clause 2, which relates to the duty of the nature conservation bodies to compile and maintain a register of marine sites of special interest. It also adds the need for the register to include the co-ordinates of each site and a chart illustrating site boundaries to ensure that they are clearly identifiable.
      A copy of the register must be available for public inspection. It is reasonable to expect the appropriate nature conservation body to keep a copy at each of its local offices that cover the area relating to the MSSI. With that assurance, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) not to press amendment No. 53 to a vote, because it is not necessary.
      Mr. Randall: I am a little confused about how people who are unaware of the presence of an MSSI will be made

      1171
      aware of its existence if the information is not held by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office or included on maritime charts. They might not know that they should visit the offices of English Nature or whatever. I am not suggesting that the information should be included immediately. I am not sure of the system, but perhaps it can be added when the charts are revised. In addition, why is there no duty on English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales to notify the Hydrographic Office of the boundaries of MSSIs?
      Mr. Dismore: It is important, perhaps for the same reasons as the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) adumbrated, that people know where the boundaries of the marine sites are located. Having the maps in the headquarters of a nature conservation body in London is not much use if a site is off Cornwall or Yorkshire. It should not be beyond the wit of man to make the charts available in the local headquarters and on the internet so that people can look them up even if they are a long distance away.
      It is important that we make every effort possible to ensure that everyone who lives, works or participates in recreational activities in an area knows where the boundaries lie. The best way to do that is to give the sites as much publicity as possible locally.
      Mr. Swayne: The point is simply that such measures are desirable. We have just discussed the provisions of new clause 3 in relation to offences. An offence of damaging an MSSI is not committed if the person who does the damage does not know that the site is part of an MSSI. To provide that the information has to appear on all the available charts is elementary. There should be a duty to notify the information to the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office so that it can be put on the charts.
      Mr. Meacher: The debate has centred on ensuring that people have access locally to information on the existence and boundaries of the MSSI. I fully accept the points made.
      The hon. Member for Uxbridge asked whether a copy of site boundaries would be shown in the Hydrographic Office, and whether that information would be placed on maritime charts. We certainly expect English Nature to forward a copy of site boundaries to the Hydrographic Office, although whether to mark the boundaries on Admiralty charts would be a matter for the Hydrographic Office. It would be helpful if that were done, but I do not think that it should be a statutory requirement.
      I entirely agree that such information should be available locally. In my opening remarks I said that I certainly expect the appropriate nature conservation body to keep a copy at each of its local offices covering the area relating to the MSSI. Such provision would give persons in the vicinity who are likely to use the relevant waters a perfectly adequate opportunity to acquaint themselves fully with the fact that an MSSI is present locally and with its precise boundaries. I do not disagree with amendment No. 53, but its provisions are already covered by the Government's proposals.
      Mr. Swayne: The question is simple. Would it be a defence for someone in a leisure craft who had damaged
      1172
      an MSSI by some operation, for example, by weighing anchor, to argue that there was no offence because he did not know that the area was part of an MSSI because the Admiralty chart he was using did not contain the information?
      Mr. Meacher: My belief is that that would not constitute a defence because the person in question had not taken all reasonable steps to acquaint himself with the information he needed. One cannot rely with certainty on the contents of Admiralty charts, although as I said it would be helpful if the information were included. I would expect such a person to contact other bodies that could provide a guarantee and certain clarification. On that basis, I hope that Government amendment No. 31 is acceptable to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3

      COMPETENT MARINE AUTHORITIES: DUTIES
      Mr. Dismore: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 3, line 24, after "take", insert "all".
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 32 to 34.
      Amendment No. 58, in page 3, line 38, leave out "(where one exists)".
      Amendment No. 59, in page 3, line 38, leave out "a" and insert "the".
      Amendment No. 60, in page 3, line 39, at end insert "concerned".,
      Government amendments Nos. 35 to 37.
      Mr. Dismore: To a large extent my amendments have been overtaken by the Government amendments. My intention was to ensure that the marine authority did not merely take any old reasonable steps but took all the reasonable steps it could take to exercise its functions, and to deal with the fact that there is no point having an MSSI if there is no management scheme. That harks back to remarks I made previously. Subject to the Minister's comments on the Government amendments, I do not intend to press mine
      Mr. Randall: Government amendment No. 32 would amend clause 3. It provides that a competent marine authority
      "must notify the appropriate nature conservation body"
      before carrying out or consenting to others carrying out operations which in its opinion—those words are important—are likely to damage a site.
      There are some concerns. When a competent marine authority wishes to carry out, or to give its consent for others to carry out, operations that are likely to damage in the context of the conservation statement, it will be required under clause 3, as amended by amendment No. 32, to consult the relevant nature conservation agency. That is unless subsection (9) of amendment No. 36 applies.

      1173
      I am also interested in who will set benchmarks on which operations constitute damage to the interest of a marine site of special interest, so as to guide competent authorities in identifying damaging activities under clause 3.
      I am concerned that there is no requirement to review existing consents. Perhaps the Minister will clarify what arrangements exist for English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales to request competent marine authorities to review existing consent activities to assess their compatibility with an MSSI. What will happen if a competent marine authority fails to review an existing consent activity, having been asked to do so, if that results in continued or further damage to a marine site of special scientific interest?
      Government amendment No. 37 removes the duty on English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales to report on implementation of the Bill. Will the Minister confirm that English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales will be expected to monitor the status and health of the MSSIs, and to report on implementation of the Bill? Will the Minister confirm that the two bodies will be provided with adequate resources to enable them to carry out the necessary monitoring and reporting? If they cannot carry out those duties, there is not so much import.
      Mr. Mark Simmonds: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on all the hard work that he has put in to his excellent Bill so far. I thank the Minister, because I know that he has been working hard on the Bill.
      I shall make some brief comments about the sea fisheries committees. I am glad that they are now included under the heading of "competent marine authority". The committees are intrinsically inshore fishing management bodies. Fishermen in Boston are deeply unhappy with the current arrangements and workings of the local committee. Better funding is needed for these bodies, and I hope that extra funding will be given. The committees will have to implement new powers, which are set out in the Bill.
      The committees are struggling to meet existing responsibilities, both in general terms and environmentally, especially under the European Union habitats and birds directives. That is due specifically to a lack of funds.
      The committees are funded by local authority levies, and there needs to be a review. The committees need to be funded by a mixture of local authority levies and central Government funding. That would enable them to have financial security. At the same time, they would maintain local responsibility and a certain amount of local control. This view was supported by the Select Committee, which suggested that
      "the funding arrangements for the SFCs be re-examined to establish a secure, permanent, financial framework within which they can plan and perform their duties."
      It may be appropriate to take the opportunity look at the structure and lack of success of SFCs, which are not working.
      12.45 pm
      Mr. Swayne: Briefly, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has drawn to my attention a key point in amendment No. 54 which I had not spotted. The
      1174
      actions that the competent marine authority proposes to carry out or to which it proposes to give its consent are new actions, not pre-existing ones. Having re-read the amendment carefully, I believe that that is implicit rather than explicit. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case, or will the amendment apply to actions currently under way? The position on the actions which the competent authority proposes to take is clearer than that on any consents that it may give. Any action that it may take will be taken anew every time, but any consent already given does not necessarily have to be renewed and reviewed.
      Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and his acceptance of the broad thrust of the Government amendments, which meet the requirements expressed in his amendments.
      I shall briefly spell out the intention of the Government amendments, some of which have been questioned. Their purpose is to clarify the way in which competent marine authorities should act when proposing to carry out operations or authorise any activity likely to damage an MSSI. They also outline the procedures to be undertaken if the site has a management scheme, the context for which is the duty in clause 3(1). In exercising its functions, a competent marine authority should take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of its functions, to further the conservation of the features for which the site has been notified, which is consistent with provisions relating to SSSIs on land. Amendment No. 54, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, does not add value to the clause's provisions, and I am grateful that he accepts that.
      Government amendment No. 32 ensures that, before deciding to undertake or give a consent to an operation which is likely to damage an MSSI, the competent marine authority informs the appropriate nature conservation body. When deciding whether an operation or a consent is likely to damage the features for which a site has been designated, we expect the competent marine authority to have regard to any list of potentially damaging operations which may be contained in the conservation statement for that site.
      The nature conservation body has 28 days in which to comment on the proposal. Any comments received from the appropriate nature conservation body within that period must be considered by the competent marine authority before it reaches its decision. The procedure is similar to that required for operations on SSSIs. In line with the other considerations to which a competent marine authority must have regard when taking decisions, the need for the operation or consent may outweigh pure nature conservation considerations. I repeat that that is the essence of sustainable development. The competent marine authority must inform the conservation agency how, if at all, it has taken account of its advice. That is an important protection; the authority cannot simply issue a statement that it has taken the advice into account, but must produce a much fuller statement on its treatment of that advice. Again, similar to the procedures for SSSIs, the operation should be carried out or authorised in such a manner as to give rise to as little damage as possible to the protected site.
      It is likely that a number of marine sites of special interest will be the subject of management schemes set up under clause 4. That is a subject in which my hon. Friend

      1175
      the Member for Hendon has taken a special interest. Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 provide for such schemes to be taken into account by competent marine authorities. Where management schemes are set up, competent marine authorities will be required to take reasonable steps to carry out their functions in accordance with the scheme.
      However, I do not accept that it would be necessary for every MSSI to have a management scheme. A management scheme should be established only if there is a need, and then pursued through agreement. Amendments Nos. 58 to 60 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, which would require every site to have a management scheme, go too far.
      The main purpose of management schemes is to co-ordinate the activities of those operating in the MSSI to ensure the conservation of the site. Within a scheme it will be possible to allow certain damaging activities to take place which do not affect the overall conservation of the site or detract from achieving the conservation objectives for the site. Obviously, that is a fine judgment to make. If those activities are in line with a management scheme, the competent marine authority will not be obliged to go through the procedures set out in amendment No. 32.
      Amendment No. 36 provides for the Secretary of State to exempt from the provisions of clause 3 activities carried out in the interests of national security. I do not expect this power to be widely used, but the clause is loosely based on similar provisions in the Environment Act 1995.
      Amendment No. 37 removes subsection (4) of clause 3. The Government consider that this provision is not necessary. Paragraph 20(1)(b) of schedule 6 to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires the nature conservation body to make a report on the exercise and performance of its functions every year, and there is nothing to suggest that that is confined to functions under that Act. We would therefore expect the appropriate conservation body, in any report made under that provision, to include details about how it has carried out its functions and duties in relation to the Bill, so that there will be regular reporting of functions carried out under the Bill.
      It might be convenient now for me to answer some of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Uxbridge asked me to confirm that English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales will be expected to monitor MSSIs and to report on the implementation of the Bill. I have already answered that.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked me to confirm that English Nature and CCW will be provided with adequate resources to enable them to carry out the necessary monitoring and reporting. I have made it clear that we intend to provide appropriate resources for English Nature, and that it would consequently be expected to make changes to its corporate plan to ensure that the requirements under the Bill and the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be properly carried through.
      The hon. Member for Uxbridge and the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) asked me to clarify what arrangements exist to request competent marine authorities to review existing consented activities to assess their compatibility with a marine site of special interest.
      1176
      The answer is that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the appropriate nature conservation agency from reviewing existing consents—we would expect the agency to do so—and indicating a view on those activities to the relevant competent marine authority, which I would expect to take note of that advice and to make decisions accordingly.
      The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) raised issues relating to sea fisheries committees. We had an earlier discussion on that matter, for which he was unable to be present, so perhaps he could refer to it in Hansard. His main concerns were funding and the adequacy of sea fisheries committees in achieving their desired role. Those are certainly important points, but I am afraid that they fall somewhat outside the Bill's parameters. However, I can say that no decisions will be taken on whether to address funding issues, or on the form of any review of sea fisheries committees, before the common fisheries policy review is complete.
      As the hon. Gentleman said, funding issues are currently a matter for local government, because sea fishery committees are local authority bodies wholly funded by levy on their constituent local councils—perhaps excluding certain EC grants for fisheries enforcement. This is a relevant issue to which he has rightly drawn attention, and I am sure that he will find other opportunities to pursue it. However, I cannot take it further in the context of the Bill.
      Mr. Dismore: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      COMPETENT MARINE AUTHORITIES: DUTIES
      Amendments made: No. 32, in page 3, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 and insert—
      '(2) This subsection applies to any operation—>

      (a) which a competent marine authority proposes to undertake; or

      (b) to which a competent marine authority proposes to give its consent,

      if in the opinion of the competent marine authority the operation is likely to damage any of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which a marine area is a marine site of special interest.
      (3) If subsection (2) applies, the competent marine authority must before deciding to undertake the operation or give consent to the operation give notice to the appropriate nature conservation body.
      (4) The competent marine authority must not decide to undertake the operation or give consent to it before whichever is the earliest of—

      (a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice is given under subsection (3); or

      (b) the receipt of representations from the appropriate nature conservation body.

      (5) In deciding whether to undertake the operation or give consent to it the competent marine authority must consider any representations made by the appropriate nature conservation body and must notify the appropriate nature conservation body of how (if at all) it has taken into account the representations.
      (6) To the extent that the competent marine authority does not take into account the representations of the appropriate nature conservation body it must, in undertaking or giving consent to the

      1177
      operation, do so in such a way as to give rise to as little damage as is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances to the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special interest.
      (7) Subsection (2) does not apply to an operation which in the opinion of the competent marine authority is an emergency operation, but in that case the competent marine authority must within 7 days of undertaking or consenting to the emergency operation notify the appropriate nature conservation body of the operation.'.
      No. 33, in page 3, line 37, at beginning insert—
      '(8) A competent marine authority must'.
      No. 34, in page 3, line 38, leave out from "scheme" to end of line 41.
      No. 35, in page 3, line 42, at end insert—
      '(9) Subsection (2) does not apply to an operation the undertaking of which in the opinion of the competent marine authority concerned is in accordance with—

      (a) a management scheme established under section 4; or

      (b) a management scheme established under the Natural Habitats Regulations (management schemes for European marine sites).'.

      No. 36, in page 3, line 42, at end insert—
      '(10) Nothing in this section has effect in relation to the exercise of a function or the undertaking of an operation to the extent that the Secretary of State certifies that it is requisite or expedient in the interests of national security that it should not have effect in relation to the exercise of the function or the undertaking of the operation.'.
      No. 37, in page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Meacher.]

    Clause 4

      MANAGEMENT SCHEMES
      Mr. Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 7, leave out from beginning to "for" in line 8 and insert—
      '(1) Any one or more of the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) may establish a management scheme'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 61, in page 4, line 7, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
      Government amendments Nos. 2 to 6.
      Amendment No. 62, in page 4, line 18, leave out "from time to time" and insert—
      'at least every five years'.
      Government amendments Nos. 7 to 12.
      Amendment No. 63, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
      'and to those subject to notification under section 1(1)'.
      Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
      Amendment No. 64, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
      '(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of section I, no notification establishing a marine site of special interest shall take effect until a management scheme has been established.
      (7) In establishing a management scheme, the competent marine authority shall have due regard to—

      (a) any directions of the Secretary of State (as regards England) and the National Assembly for Wales (as regards Wales) issued under section 5;

      (b) the likely cost of establishing and maintaining the management scheme and the availability of sustainable funding to continue to meet that cost;

      1178

      (c) the views of the appropriate nature conservation body;

      (d) the views of those subject to notification under section 1(1); and

      (e) international best practice.'.

      Government amendments Nos. 15 to 17.
      Amendment No. 65, in clause 5, page 4, line 26, at end insert—
      ', after due consultation with those subject to notification under section 1(1) and the appropriate nature conservation body'
      Government amendment No. 18.
      Amendment No. 66, in page 4, line 27, after "Directions", insert—
      'shall comply with international best practice and'.
      Government amendments Nos. 19 to 25.
      Mr. Meacher: The establishment, where appropriate, of management schemes for MSSIs will set the framework in which activities will be managed, so as to secure a site's conservation objectives. The amendments are therefore important, and once again I recognise the important contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) in enabling us to reconsider several of these points.
      Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 outline which bodies may be involved in the creation of a management scheme. By way of background, I should point out that regulation 34 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994—known as the habitats regulations—allows for the creation of management schemes for European marine sites to fulfil our obligations under the EC directives on wild birds and on habitats. Having regard to the list of species and habitats included in those directives, such sites are of international importance. A statutory basis already exists, therefore, for management schemes for European marine sites, and through pilots for those sites we are already developing schemes on the ground. It would be appropriate therefore if the bodies able to make management schemes under the Bill were, as far as possible, the same as those bodies permitted to make schemes under the habitats regulations. The bodies listed in amendment No. 2 have been chosen explicitly to ensure that there is a large degree of consistency.
      1 pm
      Amendment No. 14 provides the power for the Secretary of State, in respect of England, and the National Assembly for Wales, in respect of Wales, to alter, if necessary, the list proposed by amendment No. 2 by means of statutory instrument. For England, that will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The procedures for a statutory instrument as regards Wales require approval by the National Assembly for Wales in accordance with its Standing Orders.
      Any one or more of the prescribed bodies may establish a management scheme, but it is important that, as far as possible, all the organisations or people who carry out activities within an MSSI are consulted about its establishment. Amendment No. 4 will give those bodies an opportunity to engage fully in the consultation process that develops a management scheme, and ensure that their interests are taken into account. That is especially important for those competent marine authorities not directly involved in the setting up of management schemes, which nevertheless under clause 3(2)(b) will have to take reasonable steps to carry our their functions in accordance with such schemes.

      1179
      Amendment No. 3 will ensure that the bodies that make the scheme exercise their functions to secure the conservation objectives. That, coupled with the duty in clause 3 on all competent marine authorities to take reasonable steps to ensure that they exercise their functions in accordance with a management scheme, should ensure that the schemes make a positive contribution to the conservation of sites.
      There may be situations where an MSSI is notified within a marine area in which a European marine site has already been established or a European marine site is established which overlaps an existing MSSI. I referred to this matter earlier, and I shall say a little more about it now. New clause 4 will remove the possibility of an MSSI and a European marine site overlapping if they are designated for identical reasons.
      There are, however, likely to be occasions when an MSSI overlaps a European marine site but the MSSI has been notified to protect features different from those covered by the European site. In those cases MSSIs and European sites may overlap. That may happen in cases where the criteria for notifying an MSSI identifies a nationally important species not listed in the directives within a European site designated for a different species or habitat. I am sorry that this is rather complex, but I hope that the sense of it is clear. It is important that the management of overlapping sites is co-ordinated with the minimum of additional bureaucracy, and the amendments are designed to achieve that.
      For that reason amendment No. 5 ensures that where an MSSI and a European site overlap, there cannot be more than one management scheme. Where a European site overlaps an MSSI either partially or fully, the management scheme for the European site can take into account the conservation objectives of the MSSI, as long as those are compatible with management of the features for which the European site was designated. If the European site has no management scheme, then a management scheme may still be made for the MSSI.
      Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 to 12 are intended to improve and clarify the text relating to when and how a management scheme should be amended and published. It is important that when a scheme is established, it is kept under review to ensure that it takes account of relevant activities that may affect the site. To ensure that the reviews are regular, amendment No. 7 requires that they are carried out at least once every five years.
      As currently drafted, the Bill makes no provision for identifying a date when a management scheme comes into force. That is important, because the activities of competent marine authorities in relation to an MSSI are affected by the establishment of a management scheme. Amendment No. 13 provides such a date by linking the establishment date to the publication of the scheme.
      There may be occasions when, for a number of reasons, a management scheme for an MSSI has not been developed. Clause 5 provides the opportunity for the Secretary of State, with regard to England, or the National Assembly for Wales for sites in Wales, to direct those bodies capable of establishing a management scheme to do so, if they feel that a management scheme is required.
      Amendment No. 15 clarifies that the direction to establish a management scheme can only be made if no scheme is in place for that MSSI. The amendment is
      1180
      necessary because, as outlined in clause 4, each MSSI can only have one management scheme. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 bring the provisions of this clause closer into line with those in regulation 35 of the 1994 habitats regulations. The amendments give the confirming authority power to stipulate in a direction that the approval of the confirming authority needs to be obtained before a management scheme is made. The amendments ensure that the directing authority is also able to obtain such information as it requires concerning the establishment and operation of the scheme.
      Amendments Nos. 16 to 19 are textual amendments to clause 5 to ensure consistency in terminology between this clause and other clauses in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 provide similar changes to clause 5. Those changes will allow the confirming authority to make directions to amend management schemes that are already in existence. Experience suggests that plans prepared by local bodies and suited to local circumstances are more effective than those imposed from outside. However, there may be circumstances in which schemes that have been established do not, for one reason or another, function effectively. The direction to amend management schemes may be used if it becomes clear that local liaison, co-ordination or consultation has proved inadequate to achieve the site's conservation objectives. However, I want to stress that our preferred option is to allow those bodies that operate and know the site area to prepare and manage a scheme.
      I commend the Government amendments to the House. In the light of my detailed explanation, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon—to whose concerns we have given careful consideration—will not feel that it is necessary to press his amendment.
      Mr. Paul Tyler: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House, because I was not able to attend the early stages of this debate. I was dealing with a watery problem of a different nature as an amateur plumber's mate.
      I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for presenting this important Bill to the House. I congratulate him particularly because I cannot imagine that he has a constituency interest in the matter. It can hardly be a parochial concern for him—far from it. However, I am delighted to be able to participate briefly in this debate, not only because of my constituency interest but because when I was elected again to the House in 1992 I chaired an all-party group on coastal concerns, and one of our anxieties related precisely to the subject of this Bill.
      These amendments are extremely important. If we do not have an effective management structure, I fear that the good will that has been invested in this Bill—on all sides, but particularly by the hon. Member for Uxbridge—may not be fulfilled. I want to emphasise to the Minister—should he need a reminder—that effective management will have cost implications, particularly in the early stages. That was referred to earlier in the context of the sea fisheries committees, but other official and voluntary bodies will clearly have difficulty in meeting their obligations under the Bill.
      I know that, in Committee and in this debate, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) has laid great stress on the management process. We should be under no

      1181
      illusions that, particularly in the early days, local communities' views on the way in which the Bill has been rolled out will depend on sensitive management. That will apply whether to my fishing communities in North Cornwall, to the handliners that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned or to the conservation bodies that have great expectations of the Bill.
      The sea fisheries committees are already under great strain—they are not alone—in terms of the resources made available to them. Surely the time has come to review the way in which they are able to fund their activities. At present, as we all know, the burden falls on local government and some local authorities already have great difficulty in coping with it. The teething problems that the Bill will inevitably create will be costly to deal with, so the Government should take the opportunity to review the way in which funding takes place.
      The Minister will recall that, when the then Select Committee on Agriculture reported on sea fishing, it recommended that
      "the funding arrangements for SFCs be re-examined in order to establish a secure, permanent, financial framework within which they can plan and perform their duties."
      These Government amendments will clearly lay a responsibility on a number of bodies, including the sea fisheries committees, and we must be concerned to ensure that those bodies are able to fulfil their responsibilities. We do not want them to let us all down and to leave Parliament in a difficult position because of the inadequacy of their financial arrangements.
      It is already the experience of the sea fisheries committees that a special area of conservation or a site of special scientific interest with a significant marine interest can cost about £10,000 to £20,000 to monitor and to manage responsibly. In those circumstances, we must be sure that the funding will he made available. The Minister referred to funding, and I would like to he sure that these Government amendments will not place new financial responsibilities and new financial penalties on bodies that are already hard-pressed.
      Mr. Dismore: The nub of the disagreement between me and my right hon. Friend the Minister relates to amendment No. 60, which I tabled, and Government amendment No. 1. I do not understand how we can make the Bill effective without a management scheme for each of the areas selected. When the right hon Gentleman replies, perhaps he will cite examples of the areas that he thinks would not require a management scheme. That might help to put my mind at rest.
      Earlier, I gave examples of sites overseas where there were or were not management schemes. The marine park of Alonissos and northern Sporades has been a great success but, in the absence of a management scheme, all the local interests involved feel very vulnerable about their ability to continue to maintain the park effectively. Co-operation has enabled the park to work well, but it might be vulnerable to predators from outside who might come into the park to fish. At the other end of the scale, the Great Barrier reef has shown how a management scheme can work effectively. Although the Bill does not make provision for sites of that size, I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us the sort of areas where a management scheme would be appropriate and those where it would not. If he does that, I will be able to withdraw my amendment.
      1182
      I am glad that we have taken on board the need to consult. Many of my amendments were geared towards creating the need to consult all those involved, and I do not intend to say any more about that. Perhaps great minds think alike, because I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has come up with the same formula for the review of the management scheme as I did. A period of five years is sensible in terms of allowing the marine site to settle down and of keeping matters under review.
      1.15 pm
      The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked about the costs involved, an issue that I raised when we debated the second group of amendments and which is mentioned in my amendment No. 64. In setting up management schemes it is important to identify where the funding will come from. As I said earlier, the marine park at Zakynthos is funded through a variety of sources, including local businesses, central and local government in Greece, and major conservation bodies, producing an effective funding partnership even without a management scheme. However, it is important to recognise that a cost is involved and to identify where the money will come from, whether from the Government or otherwise. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister replies, he will give us some guidance on that.
      My other amendments refer primarily to remarks that I made earlier, which I shall not repeat, but they make valid points in terms of consultation and international best practice.
      Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for the short debate and, again, I shall try to respond briefly to the points that have been made.
      The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) raised two perfectly relevant and important issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) has just reiterated one of them. All Bills that will have a significant effect—this Bill will have an important effect in enabling a national system of marine sites of special interest to be established—require adequate resourcing, and we have fully taken account of that.
      As I said earlier, we shall increase resources to English Nature to take account of the Bill's requirements and we expect English Nature to make equivalent amendments to its corporate plan to ensure that it is properly resourced. We have examined the costs of monitoring and managing sites, but the full implications of that will only be certain in time. However, we have made what we believe to be adequate provision.
      As I said in the previous debate, the Government recognise that the adequacy of the role and, in particular, the funding of the sea fisheries committees is under review, and that a review of their funding will have to await the review of the common fisheries policy, but I would expect any funding review to consider the implications of their environmental duties.
      Mr. Tyler: Whenever a Minister refers to waiting for the review of the common fisheries policy, or, indeed, the common agricultural policy, my heart sinks, because that usually means many years of discussion, and there will be an intervening period when the sea fisheries committees will be under severe financial strain.
      Mr. Meacher: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I can only repeat that the Government are extremely keen to see the review of the common fisheries policy undertaken and completed. Until that review is complete, it would not make sense to consider the funding of the sea fisheries committees. That is not because we hope that that review will drag on for years, so that we need make no provision with regard to the sea fisheries committees. There is a logic in this and, I repeat, it is the Government's view that we will have to wait for the completion of that review. The hon. Gentleman may want to pursue the matter with some of my colleagues who are more closely associated with it than me.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon asked in what instances a management scheme would not be needed. I agree that a management scheme would be a helpful tool in the vast majority of cases, and we will encourage the development of such schemes. However, there may be cases in which no operations are taking place but a scheme is necessary. I think that that must be assessed as sites are identified and notified, and as experience develops, including in relation to the pilot schemes that are now being undertaken in certain European marine sites.
      I am glad that my hon. Friend and I take the same view on the review period. All that I can say with regard to his final point—as I said, I do not think that management schemes are needed in every case—is that I would be reluctant to include provisions that prevented the notification of sites and the recognition and protection that it provides before a management scheme has been established. Such an arrangement would be the wrong way round, so I hope that he will not press the matter.
      With those assurances, I hope that the House will accept the amendment.

      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 2, in page 4, line 9, leave out from "interest" to end of line 11 and insert—
      '(2) The bodies are—

      (a) an appropriate nature conservation body;

      (b) the Environment Agency;

      (c) in England, a county, district or London borough council, or the Common Council of the City of London;

      (d) in Wales, a county council or county borough council;

      (e) any water undertaker or sewerage undertaker;

      (f) any navigation authority, within the meaning of section 221(1) of the Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57);

      (g) any harbour authority within the meaning of section 57 of the Harbours Act 1964 (c. 40);

      (h) the general lighthouse authority, or a local lighthouse authority, within the meaning of section 193 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c. 21);

      (i) any local fisheries committee provided for under section 1 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 (c. 38).'.

      No. 3, in page 4, line 11, at end insert—
      '(3) A management scheme must set out how the functions of the body or bodies making the scheme (including, in the case of an appropriate nature conservation body, the function of making byelaws with respect to the site) are to be exercised so as to secure the achievement of the conservation objectives.'.
      No. 4, in page 4, line 13, at end insert—
      '(5) Before making a management scheme under subsection (1), the body or bodies making it must consult—

      (a) the confirming authority;

      1184

      (b) so far as reasonably practicable, each competent marine authority which exercises functions in relation to the site;

      (c) any other competent marine authority which in the opinion of the body or bodies should be consulted;

      (d) any other person who in the opinion of the body or bodies is likely to be affected by the management scheme.'.

      No. 5, in page 4, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 and insert—
      '(6) If any part of a marine site of special interest falls within a European marine site and a management scheme is established for the European marine site under the Natural Habitats Regulations—

      (a) no management scheme may be established under this section for the marine site of special interest; and

      (b) a management scheme which is already established under this section ceases to have effect.

      (7) A management scheme established for a European marine site may take into account the conservation objectives for a marine site of special interest, but only to the extent that securing those objectives is compatible with securing compliance with the Habitats Directive as required by the Natural Habitats Regulations.'.
      No. 6, in page 4, line 17, leave out—
      'relating to a marine site of special interest shall'
      and insert "is to".
      No. 7, in page 4, line 18, leave out "if necessary amended" and insert—
      'at least once in every five years.'.
      No. 8, in page 4, line 18, at end insert—
      '(9) A management scheme may be amended at any time.'.
      No. 9, in page 4, line 19, at beginning insert—
      'Unless an appropriate nature conservation body is the body, or one of the bodies, which establishes a management scheme,'.
      No. 10, in page 4, line 19, leave out "management".
      No. 11, in page 4, line 20, leave out "shall" and insert "must".
      No. 12, in page 4, line 20, leave out—
      'relevant marine authority or authorities'
      and insert "body or bodies".
      No. 13, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
      '(10) The appropriate nature conservation body must publish a management scheme—

      (a) established or amended by it under this section; or

      (b) a copy of which is sent to it as established or amended under this section.

      (11) A management scheme has effect, or has effect as amended, from the date on which it is first published under subsection (10).'.
      No. 14, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
      '(12) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend subsection (2) in relation to marine sites of special interest which are the subject of a notification by English Nature.
      (13) The National Assembly for Wales may by order made by statutory instrument amend subsection (2) in relation to marine sites of special interest which are the subject of a notification by the Countryside Council for Wales.
      (14) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (12) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliment.'.—[Mr Meacher.]

    Clause 5

      DIRECTIONS IN RELATION TO MANAGEMENT SCHEME
      Amendments made: No. 15, in page 4, line 23, leave out from beginning to "may" in line 24 and insert—
      '(1) If no management scheme has been established for a marine site of special interest, the confirming authority'.
      No. 16, in page 4, line 24, leave out—
      'the relevant marine authorities, or any of them,'
      and insert—
      'any one or more of the bodies mentioned in section 4(2)'.
      No. 17, in page 4, line 26, leave out—
      'for a marine site of special interest'.
      No. 18, in page 4, line 27, after "Directions", insert "under subsection (1)"
      No. 19, in page 4, line 30, leave out "relevant marine authorities" and insert—
      'bodies to which the direction is given'.
      No. 20, in page 4, line 32, at end insert—
      '() provide that the approval of the confirming authority is required before the scheme is established.'.
      No. 21, in page 4, line 32, at end insert—
      () require the body or bodies to which the direction is given to supply to the confirming authority such information concerning the establishment or operation of the scheme as may be specified in the direction.'.
      No. 22, in page 4, line 33, leave out from beginning to "may" in line 34 and insert "The confirming authority".
      No. 23, in page 4, line 34, leave out—
      'relevant marine authorities, or any of them,'
      and insert—
      'body or bodies which established a management scheme'.
      No. 24, in page 4, line 35, leave out—
      'a management scheme for a marine site of special interest'
      and insert "the scheme".
      No. 25, in page 4, line 37, leave out "shall" and insert "must"—[Mr Meacher.]

    Clause 6

      BYELAWS FOR PROTECTION OF MARINE SITES OF SPECIAL INTEREST
      Amendments made: No. 26, in page 5, line 2, after "may", insert—
      ', with the consent of the confirming authority,'.
      No. 27, in page 5, line 3, leave out "under" and insert—
      '(2) Subsections (2) to (4), and (10) and (11) of'.
      No. 28, in page 5, line 4, after "reserves)", insert—
      'have effect in relation to byelaws made under this section as respects a marine site of special interest as they have effect in relation to byelaws made under that section as respects a marine nature reserve.'.
      No. 29, in page 5, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 and insert—
      '(3) Sections 236 to 238 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) (which relate to the procedure for making byelaws, authorise byelaws to impose fines and provide for the proof of byelaws in
      1186
      legal proceedings) have effect in relation to byelaws made under this section as if the appropriate nature conservation body were a local authority within the meaning of that Act.
      (4) In relation to byelaws made under this section, those sections apply subject to any modifications made by the confirming authority by regulations made by statutory instrument (including modifications increasing the maximum fines which the byelaws may impose).
      (5) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
      (6) The confirming authority may, after consultation with the appropriate nature conservation body, direct the body—

      (a) to revoke any byelaws previously made under this section; or

      (b) to make such amendments of byelaws so made as may be specified in the direction.

      (7) The appropriate nature conservation body has power to enforce byelaws made under this section.
      (8) Except with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, proceedings for an offence under byelaws made under this section may not be taken other than by the appropriate nature conservation body.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

    Clause 7

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendment made: No. 38, in page 5, line 12, leave out Clause 7.—[Mr. Meacher.]
      Order for Third Reading read:—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      1.22 pm
      Mr. Randall: I am delighted that this morning's proceedings have been taken in the same good spirit from all parts of the House that has characterised all stages of the Bill's passage. I am also pleased that Third Reading will, it is to be hoped, he short enough to allow hon. Members to consider on Second Reading another very important Bill, which I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House will again support.
      I want to acknowledge in this debate the excellent support for the Bill that has come from so many individuals and organisations. I made special mention of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on Second Reading, and I should like to pay tribute once again to its hard work and ongoing support of my Bill. In particular, I want to mention Duncan Huggett, Ben Stafford and Sharon Thompson. As you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, my duties in the House mean that I do not always concentrate full-time on the Bill. Sometimes I have to do my job in following the Government rather like a great skua harrying a flock of terns. I hope to resume that role quite soon.
      I should like also to express my thanks for the hard work of the wider environmental NGO movement, especially through the wildlife and countryside links and the wildlife trusts. It would not be right for me not to thank all those many members of environmental organisations and of the public who have lent their support to the Bill. I know that many colleagues will bear testimony to the extent of that support, as they have expressed to me their delight at receiving so many letters

      1187

      on the subject—of course, that is because it gives them more work to do. I have to admit that that is the result of the hard work of the NGOs, not my personal chivvying of people in their constituencies.
      I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) for her hard work. As she said, there is a genuine and deep desire to protect our marine environment. An early-day motion on the Bill was signed by 114 Members. Although I am not a great fan of early-day motions, that support shows that the views of the electorate are mirrored by hon. Members.
      I am delighted to have met representatives of what could be described as the marine industries, including fisheries, ports, shipping, offshore oil and gas, and wind energy as well as those with leisure interests in the marine environment. Our discussions have been, in the popular parlance, frank and open, and I hope that most of their outstanding concerns have been tackled.
      I repeatedly said in those meetings that, as someone who comes from business, I am the last person to propose regulation for its own sake. However, it is right to take new measures if they are required to protect nationally important wildlife. I thank the Minister and the Department for their hard work on the measure. Although it is not technically a hybrid Bill, it is getting less private by the minute.
      On Second Reading, there were rumours that the Bill was being holed below the water line. Again, I pay tribute to the Minister and the Department for their excellent salvage job, and I thank senior members of all parties. As a member of the Opposition Whips Office, I pay tribute to the Government Whips Office, and especially to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). I am pleased that he is not in his place, otherwise he would be deeply embarrassed. [Interruption.] I do not readily praise Harrow, East, but I am happy to do that on this occasion.
      I welcome the fact that most of my aims remain in the Bill despite some amendments. The Bill will allow the notification of marine sites of special interest throughout the territorial waters of England and Wales and give clear conservation objectives and guidance on what management is required. The strong duty on all "competent marine authorities" to further conservation of MSSIs remains, and English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales can exercise new byelaw-making powers when no other authority has the necessary management powers. Those are only some of the fundamental points that continue to underpin the Bill.
      I congratulate the Government on tabling amendments to strengthen the measure. For example, they have provided for a new offence of intentional reckless damage to or destruction of MSSIs. As has been said, the fly in the ointment is the weakening of the provision through a defence of incidental damage. We have discussed that and we may return to the matter if the Bill passes to the other place.
      I welcome the clarification that the Crown is considered a competent marine authority, and the requirement on such authorities, when setting aside the advice of English Nature or the CCW, to carry out or allow others to carry out operations in a way that causes as little damage as possible.
      1188
      It would be naive to suggest that the Bill has not occasionally had to weather choppy waters. At the outset, I should perhaps have preferred not to make some of the compromises that were agreed to keep it afloat. As we have mentioned them in our discussions today, I shall not dwell on them any longer.
      I continue to have reservations about the Government's decision to reduce to a power the duty on English Nature and the CCW to notify MSSIs. I believe that it will make marine sites less likely to receive the protection and management that they deserve. I am also worried about the intentions behind the duty to "have regard" to the desirability of contributing to achieving sustainable development. That may seem like motherhood and apple pie, but I fear it may mean that other interests continue to ride roughshod over nature conservation. However, we must wait and see.
      The procedures for reviewing the compatibility of existing activities with the conservation objectives of MSSIs are unclear. What happens if English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales requests that an activity be reviewed, but the competent marine authority chooses to do nothing about it? Can the activity be judicially reviewed, as originally intended in the Bill?
      Despite the fact that the Bill originally contained a requirement to have notifications confirmed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, I fear that the addition of a sustainable development requirement may mean that sites are never confirmed because complete agreement about a designation will never be achieved, although I received a great deal of assurance on that matter on Report.
      I am sure that the marine environment will be debated further in another place and may be the subject of future legislation. I understand that, if the Bill succeeds, it will be only the first step on a long road—the first tentative dip of a toe in the water. However, I would not want to end my speech on a sour note, given the good spirit not only of today's debate but of the discussions that we have had throughout the Bill's passage through the House, and given the hard work that has been put in on all sides. I thank the Minister and his Department again.
      I think that this is a good Bill. It has moved the marine environment up the political agenda, where it is just beginning to reflect the importance that it should have. I hope that the Bill will continue to enjoy broad and generous support and I look forward to watching deliberations on it in another place if we achieve Third Reading today.
      1.32 pm
      Mr. Tyler: May I be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on steering this boat to what I hope proves to be a safe harbour? I hope that it has a successful journey to the other place and beyond. I had never heard a tribute to the usual channels in this Chamber before and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on breaking with precedent. I cannot think of a suitable marine or nautical equivalent to congratulate the usual channels.
      Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have a strong constituency interest in the success of this legislation, particularly in achieving unanimous support at a community level. My constituency has one of the longest coastlines in the United Kingdom and a great number of communities that depend on the sea in some way.

      1189
      The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the Bill is ground breaking. To an extent, it is also a shot in the dark, because it moves into new territory. In those circumstances, there will be sensitivities. Clearly, the ecological balance is extremely sensitive, but so too is the economic balance of many of the coastal communities that I and many other hon. Members represent. It is extremely important that we take people with us in this process. Teething problems are inevitable because there are potential conflicts, as has been evident from the Committee proceedings and even this morning. It is important that sensitivity at the local level matches sensitivity to those potential conflicts, not least between the fishing community and the different types of fishing. The less intrusive fishing methods to which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred will be especially sensitive to potential problems. That sensitivity is not exclusive to them, but it will be important. Similarly, some of the smaller ports will he anxious about the problems that may arise.
      The successful settlement of those problems can be achieved only with appropriate resources—we have had exchanges on that matter already today—and with local commitment. I hope that as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, there will be careful consultation with local authority bodies and others on whom we shall rely greatly for the Bill's successful implementation. With good will, I am sure that the legislation will play an important role in maintaining the marine environment around the shores of this country.
      The Minister said earlier that Her Majesty the Queen and the Prince of Wales had given their assent. I think that that is the right expression; I have never been good at parliamentary expressions, which sometimes seem anachronistic. I suspect that the Prince of Wales is also giving consent in his capacity as Duke of Cornwall which, as we all know, is a much older title than either Prince of Wales or heir to the throne. In that context, I emphasise that many parts of Cornwall would benefit greatly from the measure. As a Cornish MP, I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge and thank him for the persistent hard work that will, I hope, lead to the successful conclusion of the Bill's proceedings.
      1.35 pm
      Mr. Dismore: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on steering his Bill this far. His Third Reading speech was somewhat disparaging, but he has nothing to be ashamed of and much of which to be proud. When I was preparing for today's debate, I looked at the notes for my Second Reading speech. The hon. Gentleman was perhaps lucky not to have had the benefit—or otherwise—of that speech as it had a lot to say about the Bill, as he might have expected. I am pleased that I have rather less to say today, as the Bill has been improved.
      Few Members manage to take a private Member's Bill this far, so the hon. Gentleman should also be proud of that. I hope to be able to repeat that trick in two or three weeks—perhaps with the assistance of the usual channels on his side.
      Mr. David Wilshire: That might be arranged.
      Mr. Dismore: Obviously, the hon. Member for Uxbridge has the thanks of all the people involved in the
      1190
      environmental world, and I echo their gratitude. However, he would also be thanked by many who cannot speak for themselves—the dolphins and seals which will live to a ripe old age and the other marine wildlife which will benefit from what he has achieved on their behalf.
      While we are talking about people who cannot speak for themselves, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks to my parliamentary neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who has also done a good job in helping to pilot the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman might know, I have had several discussions with my hon. Friend about the Bill and I am glad that the House has reached a consensus about taking it forward.
      1.36 pm
      Mr. Swayne: I briefly add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). The measure is a not insignificant step in addressing a large gap in our environmental policy—so much biodiversity is threatened in the maritime environment. It is an enormous task to bring the protection of the maritime environment up to the standards for which we have been working in respect of the land.
      My hon. Friend has carried out a tremendous task. He has been ably assisted by the hard work of the Minister for the Environment and his officials in improving the Bill. It is a good Bill and we wish it every success.
      1.37 pm
      Tony Cunningham: I, too, add my congratulations. Normally, I go home on Thursdays but I attended today's debates because of the sheer volume of letters from my constituents asking me to support the Bill.
      I offer the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) my congratulations and those of my constituents.
      1.38 pm
      Mr. Meacher: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) must be feeling weighed down with congratulations, but I am only too glad to echo what other Members have said. The hon. Gentleman has steered the Bill positively and constructively through choppy waters. Given my classical upbringing, the analogy that came to mind was that of Scylla and Charybdis. Several times, I thought that the measure might hit one or the other—or even both at once. The hon. Gentleman has done extremely well. The Bill is very worth while.
      The House spends far too much time on confrontational activity, although we broadly agree on many issues. It is refreshing that we have achieved consensus on a matter of considerable importance to us all. The hon. Gentleman can take credit for engendering that spirit.
      The measure has also shown us a new and significant role for private Members' Bills. Although they are often enacted, they are sometimes confined to a relatively small role. I would never describe their role as insignificant, but it could be more important. This is unquestionably an important Bill. I consider that private Members' Bills should have a wider coverage and role—as long as the Government are able to ensure that their policy prevails in the end, of course. I believe that that is well understood. I shall be brief because other Bills follow, which are also of considerable importance.

      1191
      The Bill is important for three reasons. First, we have protected land-based SSSIs pretty effectively with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 but marine sites have much less protection, and yet a high proportion of Britain's biodiversity is in the seas around us.

      Secondly, the marine environment is an important part of promoting the policy of sustainable development. It is a very difficult policy. Everyone will pay lip service to it but its effective and balanced application is a work of art. Reconciling development and conservation under the Bill will not be easy. The hon. Member for Uxbridge said delicately that compromises had been made that he would have preferred not to have been made, and he spoke about other interests riding roughshod over conservation. I really do not believe that that will happen. Mechanisms have been put in place to ensure a balance.
      The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is right to say that we must take people with us. We want a broad consensus, not only in the House but "out there", that our fishing communities should be able to thrive but that marine biodiversity in our marine sites should be preserved wherever possible.
      Thirdly, the Bill is important because, although we have European Union protection of international sites—European marine sites—there has been a gap in the legislation in terms of national sites of marine importance. The Bill plugs that gap. As legislative slots are not easy to obtain, I am very grateful, speaking for the Government, that we have had the opportunity to take the first step in our major review of marine conservation, and to channel it through the Bill. Next week I shall travel to Bergen to discuss with the Scandinavian and other Ospar countries the issue of marine conservation in the north-east Atlantic; these matters must be pursued internationally and nationally.
      For all those reasons, the Bill is very important. I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge once again. I thank all those who have collaborated on the Bill and I strongly commend it to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.43 pm
  Rachel Squire: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I begin by declaring the assistance that I have received from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. Its help and expertise has been magnificent and I pay a particular tribute to Caroline Ellis, David Mann, Marilyn Oldershaw and the team that has supported them. I also pay tribute to the many hon. Members from all parties in the House who have been eager to give their full support to the Bill.
  May I give particular recognition to the partnership that has ensured that the Bill has been given the time today for its Second Reading? I add further to their embarrassment by giving special recognition to, dare I say it, the two musketeers: the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who I know have been very keen to give the Bill their support. I thank those who have expressed their support in the other place. I also thank the Government, especially the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for her support.
  Many organisations and bodies outside the House support the Bill. They include the Disability Rights Commission, the Library Association, the National Library for the Blind, the Calibre Cassette Library, the Scottish Braille Press, the Talking Newspaper Association of the United Kingdom, the Torch Trust for the Blind, the UK Association of Braille Producers, the Confederation of Transcribed Information Services, the National Federation of the Blind, the National League of the Blind and Disabled, Scope, Sense, and Deafblind UK.
  A considerable number of authors have expressed their support, including Philip Pullman, Jilly Cooper, Joanna Trollope, Harold Pinter and Nick Hornby.
  The purpose of the Bill is to remove the barriers created by copyright law to visually impaired people's access to books and other reading materials, while safeguarding the rights of authors and publishers. In so doing, it will greatly enhance not just visually impaired people's access to our written culture, but, crucially, the educational and employment opportunities open to such a hugely disadvantaged group.
  Copyright is, in itself, a valid and valuable concept. Writers and other creators are entitled to have their work recognised and respected and to earn a fair return for their intellectual and artistic endeavours. However, visually impaired people face unacceptable delays in gaining access to books and articles in accessible formats or are denied the right to read certain books altogether because of current copyright law.
  Visually impaired people cannot simply walk into their nearest bookshop and choose a book in large print or braille. With the exception of a few commercial publishers of large-print and audio books, most publishers find it uneconomic to make accessible copies of works available to visually impaired people. Research commissioned in 1999 revealed that only 5 per cent. of the 100,000-plus titles published in the United Kingdom in 1998 were available in formats accessible to the

  1193
  2 million visually impaired people a year later. That shows the extent of the limited choice of reading material available.
  The majority of accessible copies are produced by voluntary organisations or teachers of visually impaired students, yet the ability of schools and voluntary organisations to make books, magazines and other materials accessible and readily available to visually impaired people is massively constrained by current copyright restrictions.
  Every time the explicit permission of the rights-holder is required, it is usually granted, hut, typically, there are significant delays and, occasionally, outright refusals. At best it takes a month for permission to come through, but the wait is often much longer. Frequently, six months pass before it is possible to produce an alternative-format version. Sometimes, the wait is as long as two years. When permission is delayed, visually impaired people are unable to participate in our society on the same terms as sighted people. Voluntary organisations find that they waste precious time and money chasing publishers and authors' agents for permission—time and resources that they would prefer to devote to producing more material in accessible formats.
  There is compelling evidence of the disadvantage caused by copyright harriers to blind and partially sighted learners in particular. The largest ever survey of blind and partially sighted young people, the results of which were published last year, revealed that nearly half—47 per cent.—of students in university or higher education do not usually get books in their preferred formats and that 33 per cent. of visually impaired children do not always get their textbooks in an accessible format when they need them.
  Let me give two examples of the problem. The first is of a visually impaired student who asked her university library to enlarge on a photocopier a book that she needed for her studies. It told her that it could copy only one chapter and that she should be grateful for that. How will that student get through her reading list and complete her studies when the copyright law makes it so difficult for her to gain access to books? Will she, sadly, become one of those students who give up their studies as a result? The second example relates to the recent attempts by the RNIB to persuade the agents of two very famous children's authors to give it permission to transcribe their works, which would enrich the lives of visually impaired children. Permission was refused point blank. Is such a denial of access justified simply because children are visually impaired?
  There have been positive developments in voluntary agreements between right-holders and visual impairment organisations, but that does not negate the need for legislation. On the contrary, at the present rate of progress, the RNIB contends that it will take 20 years to get most works covered by such schemes—and many copyright owners will still not join.
  I welcomed the launch last October of the joint industry guidelines on copyright and visually impaired people which stated that it would usually be acceptable for a visually impaired person to make a single copy of a work for personal use, subject to various conditions, without seeking permission. However, publishers reserve the right to opt out, and I understand that many schools and
  1194
  libraries remain wary of transcribing works into accessible formats because the guidelines do not have the force of law.
  The advent of the information society has rendered the copyright problem more acute than ever. It could offer tremendous advantages to visually impaired people. However, the development of digital rights management schemes has added a new technological barrier to the copyright equation. Most of those schemes are incompatible with the screen-reading technology that blind and partially sighted people use to gain access to material displayed on a computer screen.
  Let me deal briefly with how the Bill proposes to address the barriers thrown up by copyright law. It would amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to create two exceptions in copyright law for the benefit of visually impaired people. Clause 1 provides for single accessible copies to be made for work purposes for the personal use of a visually impaired person without infringement of copyright, subject to a few conditions including that the work must be lawfully obtained, that there is significant acknowledgement of the author, and that the work must not already be published in a form that the person concerned can access. There would be no need to ask the rights-holder for permission in such circumstances.
  The clause also makes provision for multiple-access copies to be made for and distributed to visually impaired people without asking permission, but with numerous safeguards for the moral rights of the author and without interfering with the legitimate exploitation of the work. Only educational establishments or bodies that operate on a not-for-profit basis could rely on that exception, and they would have to notify the copyright owner within a reasonable time that they had made accessible copies of the work.
  In the unlikely event of serious infringements of copyright arising from the activities of bodies under the exception, the Secretary of State would have the power in extremis to prohibit the body or bodies involved from acting under the exception. The exception also provides for circumstances in which a large number of copies in an alternative format might be needed: for example, if a novel has to be studied as part of a school subject and children in many schools therefore need the same material to be made accessible, or if an organisation such as the RNIB is building up stock for its renowned talking books service.
  Clause 1 also defines the meaning of an accessible copy and the group to whom the exceptions apply. The accessible copy is one that offers a visually impaired person access to the work equivalent to that of a person who is not visually impaired. It will include formats such as braille, large print, audio cassette or disk.
  Visually impaired people access information in a variety of ways. Among other factors, the age of onset of disability, the amount of rehabilitation received and the facilities at the individual's disposal influence the way in which people are able to read. The Bill's definition of visually impaired persons embraces not only those who are blind or partially sighted, or have uncorrectable sight loss, but anyone who has a physical disability that means that they cannot pick up or manipulate a book, such as those with rheumatoid arthritis. That is the definition used by the publishing industry in the context of copyright issues.

  1195
  Clause 2 specifies that the legislation will apply throughout the UK, given that copyright is a reserved matter. The exceptions cover literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works as defined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. However, given that the owners of copyright in music are highly dependent on royalties for the making of sound recordings of the music, and that a visually impaired person can enjoy such a sound recording without any reformatting, the Bill specifically excludes the making of an accessible copy of a musical work that involves recording a performance.
  The Bill's provisions are heavily influenced by the original Patent Office consultation. They are also the result of lengthy dialogue and consultation with organisations representing visually impaired people and rights-holder organisations. Toward the end of last year I was pleased to meet representatives of the Publishers Licensing Society, the Authors Licensing and Collecting Society, the Publishers Association and the Writers Guild of Great Britain. I am grateful to them for their helpful suggestions, which have influenced the drafting of the Bill.
  Throughout my life, I have been fortunate enough to meet and have contact with both children and adults with visual impairment. They stand out from the crowd not because of their disability, but because of their abilities and achievements in overcoming the many obstacles that they face. I hope that the House will support the Bill today and give visually impaired people opportunities to fulfil their potential—to read, to learn, to work and to participate fully in our society.
  1.59 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) on doing well in the ballot. I know from my own experience that a Member who comes high in the private Members' ballot is never lonely. We are besieged by good causes that wish a Member to take up their banner. There are difficult choices to make, but if I may say so, the hon. Lady has made a good choice in bringing the Bill forward.
  I am aware of the immense amount of work that is involved in bringing a private Member's Bill together and trying to carry Members of all parts of the House in roughly the same direction at roughly the same speed.
  The Bill has the support of the official Opposition. Until the Royal National Institute for the Blind began to lobby Members about the problem, I was unaware of the technical, legal problems that were being caused to many blind and partially sighted people. I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the team that has been involved in the excellent work that has been done at the RNIB in putting everything together, in considering the realities and the safeguards that are needed, and on its most effective lobbying of all hon. Members in setting out the merits of the proposed legislation.
  As always, there are points of detail on which some of us may have differing views, but that is why there is consideration in Committee. Such points are not for today's debate. This is a good Bill and a necessary Bill. It seeks to address a clear case of discrimination against blind and partially sighted people. It would be a travesty if it did not receive Second Reading today.
  1196
  As the hon. Lady has so eloquently described, the problem is in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which wholly overlooks the needs of visually impaired people. As she has told the House, a survey carried out a couple of years ago revealed that only 5 per cent. of titles—I gather that about 100,000 are published every year in the United Kingdom—were available in formats that were accessible to people with visual impairment within a year of their publication. That is a damning statistic.
  Another statistic is that nearly half—47 per cent.—of blind and partially-sighted students in universities and higher education do not usually obtain books in their preferred formats. We all know that it is difficult enough studying a course at university in the first place, without having additional difficulty because one suffers from visual impairment.
  As the RNIB pointed out to me, there are about 3,000 or more voters in my constituency who are shut off from accessible reading material because of the copyright restrictions that the Bill is aimed to deal with. I am sure that the matter has been drawn to the attention of other right hon. and hon. Members.
  We have heard from both the RNIB and the hon. Lady about blind and partially sighted learners having to give up in despair. They throw up their hands and walk away from courses because they cannot secure access to relevant study materials in a format that is accessible to them.
  In a sense, the irony is that the various formats are invariably produced—not on a profit-making basis—by voluntary and charitable organisations. They have limited resources but they are extremely successful in producing the formats that are required.
  It is right to emphasise, as the hon. Lady has done, that no one is setting out to threaten copyright and the legitimate interests of authors, publishers and distributors. I am pleased that only just up the road from my constituency is the national recording centre of the Talking Newspaper Association, which is at Heathfield. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry), who has given me some details from the centre. It does a tremendous job, both locally and nationally. It transcribes on to tape the contents of 1,100 of the 1,400 regional and local newspapers that are produced. That is an amazing achievement in itself. It runs also a national service that records more than 200 newspapers and magazines on to cassettes and transcribes about 75 titles into electronic format.
  In a sense, it is a sort of sister organisation to talking books, and every bit as important for blind and partially sighted people. I can certainly say that from meeting them in my constituency. Talking to members of the Eastbourne Blind Society, I am always struck by how reliant they are on both talking books and talking newspapers. Their products are "read" by 230,000—nearly 0.25 million—blind and partially sighted people in the country. It is not just current affairs that they read, although hopefully they will all read avidly the reports of our debate that will no doubt appear in the national media. People with particular hobbies or interests can access specialist magazines through the service; people can also examine classified ads and pursue job opportunities of which they may otherwise be unaware.

  1197
  The Talking Newspaper Association of the United Kingdom makes a fair point about the fact that it gets no Government funding; it is a voluntary and charitable organisation. It says that it can only operate effectively with the co-operation of local and national newspapers, and is in the happy position of having agreements with all the local newspaper editors and publishers, as well as national titles. However, it says that there have been a couple of occasions when reservations have been expressed about the provision of the state-of-the-art electronic service. It says that
  "earlier this year, one publisher did suspend the provision of source material necessitating the temporary suspension of a number of titles."
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West is trying to tackle that problem, which is more widespread in other areas, in her Bill. The Talking Newspaper Association puts it graphically:
  "Were the Government to propose, for example, that all Jews and gays needed to obtain a licence in order to access books and information, there would—rightly so—be an outcry."
  I do not think that that analogy is over the top. Unbeknown to many people, nearly 0.25 million of our fellow citizens are effectively discriminated against, as I have described. I therefore commend the work of the Talking Newspaper Association.
  I shall say only a brief word about safeguards, as it is more appropriate to discuss them in Committee. The hon. Lady recognised that it is important to protect intellectual property of all types. The UK leads the world in many respects in intellectual property, and the Opposition support attempts to strengthen copyright and patent protection. The Bill addresses the problem of providing such protection; I shall not go into too much detail, but the one-for-one exception in clause 1 makes it clear that a conventional copy of a publication has to be obtained in parallel with the production of a version accessible to blind or partially sighted people. There are also detailed safeguards on multiple accessible copies for educational establishments with a legitimate interest in producing formats for visually impaired students; those establishments are not in the business of making a profit or trying to skim off profits from the publishers or authors.
  I am pleased that the Bill includes other safeguards. Had they not been included, we would have pressed for them. There may be scope for debate about their extent and whether they go too far but, again, that is a matter for Committee. We have heard stories from the RNIB and the hon. Lady about students who simply cannot obtain a complete book; they may be wrestling with a weekly reading list, but cannot get more than one chapter of a book at a time, which must be an extraordinary disincentive to pursuing a course in any subject. We have also heard about an advisory teacher for visually impaired children who simply could not get enough books in the right format to teach the children properly, which must be against the spirit of the original copyright legislation that the Bill seeks to amend.
  In conclusion, I reiterate our support for the Bill; we look forward to it reaching its next stage. Blind and partially sighted people have enough obstacles to overcome in life; let us at least remove this one.
  2.9 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) on introducing what I consider to be a model private Member's Bill. It is focused on a particular problem; it is relatively and properly limited in scope; it is, we now know, uncontroversial; and it implies effectively no additional burden on public expenditure. Those are all admirable qualities in a private Member's Bill. The fact that the Bill seeks to correct something which is so patently wrong and does that in a businesslike way is an additional virtue.
  I also welcome the fact that we have today had a brief but important opportunity to debate the Bill. That is of the essence of the parliamentary process, as it allows hon. Members and the House to indicate the extent of support—or, in some cases, the extent of opposition—to a Bill. The hon. Lady generously acknowledged that she had been assisted by hon. Members in all parts of the House. We now have the opportunity to debate the Bill, indicate our support for it and perhaps flag up one or two specifics, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has just done, which may need attention in Committee. Again, that is admirable.
  I confess that I am generally rather uneasy about legislation. In my previous incarnation, I made a modest career out of trying to protect the public at large from what I saw as unnecessary or even disadvantageous legislation, but in a case such as this, I believe that legislation is entirely justified, particularly where it seeks to assist any group in society whose members are disadvantaged through no fault of their own. That is an aim to which the House should pay more attention and on which it should spend more time than it does.
  The hon. Lady's speech reflected the fact that in cases such as this, there is nearly always a balance to be struck between the advantage properly being sought, and any risk of disadvantage to any other group that may have a legitimate claim. I acknowledge that the Bill seeks carefully to do that. As far as I know, none of the legitimate interest groups that could be affected has argued that the Bill should not proceed. The Committee stage will give an opportunity for such reservations to be made clear, if there are any. That is not necessarily a topic for Second Reading, but the Committee will be able to deal with it.
  May I register one or two slight reservations, and perhaps put down a marker for the Committee? I am always nervous when I see a reference to the powers of the Secretary of State, such as that in clause 1, with its rather odd format, under section 31B(12) on page 4, which seeks to give the Secretary of State powers by order to prohibit or to disapply. It goes on to state that any body would therefore not be entitled to a licence, and continues:
  "The Secretary of State shall only exercise the powers … if he is satisfied".
  I am not totally reassured by that, as I see nowhere in the Bill any provision for appeal.
  Unless I am misreading the Bill, it strikes me that all the powers go in only one direction—that is, that the Secretary of State can prohibit. The fact that the Bill states that the Secretary of State shall exercise the powers only if he is satisfied does not make me feel any easier. I would prefer to see some further mechanism for appeal or redress under the same section.

  1199
  Subsection (14) goes on to state that regulations or orders shall be subject to annulment. I would rather see the positive process, not the negative one, but that is a detail, however important.
  In the explanatory notes to the Bill, paragraph 44 states rather optimistically:
  "It is not expected that the provisions of this Bill will have any impact on public finance or manpower requirements. There may be minor workload implications for the Patent Office"
  Well, I hope that that will be the case. Having said that, however, simply because I wanted to draw attention to the point, this may be one of those fairly rare occasions when, even if there were more than minor work load implications, the cause is so worthy and admirable that we might all readily agree that expenditure should be undertaken.
  With those few words, I add my support to the Bill and wish it well in its further stages.
  2.15 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: May I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) on her good fortune? She has an opportunity that I, in my 14 years here, have never yet had. I am told that these experiences can be either frustrating or rewarding, and I very much hope that she will find her experience rewarding. It is sensible that we also congratulate the RNIB, which I am sure has done a great deal of work on the Bill. It does a huge amount of good in the community at large.
  Some private Members' Bills are exotic and some affect only a few people. I am clear, as I am sure other Members are, that this Bill is not exotic but very sensible, and it will affect the best part of 2 million people, who could most certainly benefit from its provisions. They are the sort of people who need whatever help we can give them. Help for those people currently depends on voluntary agreements, and clearly we should be grateful to those who have entered into those agreements. Having said that, although I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), am a reluctant legislator, on this occasion it seems sensible to consolidate those voluntary agreements in law.
  It would be foolish to suggest that there are no difficulties ahead for the Bill. There are some very technical matters to be dealt with, and there are legal issues that will exercise minds far greater and more powerful than mine. It is important to make sure that when the Bill goes into Committee, as I hope it will, the concessions that we want to make are not abused. I am sure that that point will be addressed in Committee. It is essential that we do not lose sight of the need to protect copyright owners in the general run of things, and I am sure that the need for safeguards will be borne in mind. Those are issues of detail, and it would be entirely wrong to debate them today.
  There really is a need for the Bill. The only figures for a complete year that I have seen suggest that about 5 per cent. of books published in a year become available to people who need such help. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West pointed out that there are those, particularly in schools, who are reluctant to act ahead of
  1200
  legislation. I accept the need for the Bill. It is a sensible Bill, and it appears to have the support of those who own copyrights. My mailbag has been silent on these matters, and I take that to mean that no real opposition has been stirred up. The Bill seems to be non-controversial. I congratulate the hon. Lady on her good fortune, and I wish her Bill well.
  2.18 pm
  Mr. David Heath: May I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) both on securing this opportunity and on introducing a Bill of such evident value? I also congratulate the RNIB, which I know has helped her in preparing the Bill.
  I speak on this matter in three capacities. First, in a personal capacity, I know what a difference the Bill will make to many people. Secondly, I speak in a professional capacity because, as some hon. Members will know, I practised as an optician for some years, so I recognise the difficulties that many partially sighted people face in everyday life. Thirdly, I speak in my capacity as the chairman of the recently constituted all-party group on eye care, which is a worthwhile venture. It would be incorrect of me to purport to speak for the group as a whole, but we have briefly discussed the Bill in our meetings, and I got a sense of very strong support for it from the membership and a wish for it to proceed.
  Blind and partially sighted people do not have a terribly good deal in this country, for all sorts of reasons. We do not pay adequate attention to the need for primary care in the first instance, and we do not pay sufficient attention to the acute phase in loss of sight and the possible interventions that can take place at hospital level. We certainly do not provide enough support in terms of the rehabilitation and equipment that partially sighted and blind people need in order to maintain their life following what is a very difficult event.
  Access to written material is a constant frustration, and is something that Members of Parliament probably do not address properly in our communications with our electorate. This Bill will go a long way to deal with one aspect of that. The difficulties of students in school and in college have already been mentioned. That is a real problem that is made worse by the otherwise wholly beneficial process of integration into mainstream schools and colleges, which do not, to the same extent, have specialist staff who know their way around the system and how to access it.
  This Bill will make a significant contribution to the well-being of blind and partially sighted people. I hope that the Government will be able to respond positively to it, and I hope that our contribution will be to make sure that it passes through the House without further delay.
  2.21 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I am delighted to be here today to contribute to this valuable debate about the problems encountered by visually impaired people when they cannot read material that is protected by copyright in the format in which it has been published.

  1201
  The Government recognise that this issue needs to be addressed; indeed, we consulted on a possible way forward only last year. We recognised then that a solution to these problems lies at least in part in a change to copyright law. Copyright gives rights to creators, which allow them to control the use of their copyright material, including by making copies. The material that we are talking about is wide-ranging, as several hon. Members have said. It could be a book of fiction, a newspaper, a school textbook or an instruction manual for household equipment. It could even be a map or information about a job. I recently received a letter from the National Centre for Tactile Diagrams, which is based at the University of Hertfordshire in my constituency, which helped me to appreciate the wide range of copyright material that visually impaired people may currently be unable to use because it is presented in a format that is inaccessible to them. In addition, that lack of access plays a part in the exclusion of blind and partially sighted people from the cultural, social and educational life of the country.
  In general, when copyright material has only been produced in a format that a visually impaired person cannot read or see, the copyright owner's permission must be sought before it can he put into an accessible format such as large print, Braille, audio tape or—when it is graphic material—a tactile representation. Many copyright owners give that permission, but there can be delays in getting it—sometimes very long delays—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) said. That is why we started looking at a new exception to copyright that would allow these alternative formats to be produced in some circumstances without infringing copyright, and therefore without the need to seek permission.
  An inability to access copyright material can give rise to problems for visually impaired people in many situations—in school, in the home and at work. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West gave several telling examples of the problems that disabled people currently face. As I have already mentioned, visual impairment could be one of the factors leading to social exclusion. A visually impaired person may not be able to study the necessary material to gain a qualification or to read the information that they need to take a full part in ordinary life, including in the workplace. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West on choosing this worthy subject for her private Member's Bill. I appreciate that it is the culmination of much hard work by her and by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. It also has a formidable degree of support outside the House, as she has detailed.
  Copyright law already contains a number of exceptions to copyright covering situations in which it would not always be reasonable or feasible to get copyright clearance. The balance in copyright law between the interests of the users of copyright material and of those who create it is extremely important, as several hon. Members have recognised in their contributions to this debate. Those—including visually impaired people—who cannot always do what they would like with copyright material can and do argue for exceptions to copyright. That is what we are considering in this debate. However, we must ensure that exceptions are fair to copyright owners as well as to users, so it is important to understand why we have copyright protection.
  1202
  In general, copyright underpins and enhances our creative industries, which play a key role in bringing us the information and the resources that we need to participate in and benefit from the knowledge economy. The Government, therefore, welcome the very positive contribution made by the creative industries to the economy and value very highly the individual contributions of many authors and composers. Copyright provides the mechanisms for these industries and creators to protect—and be rewarded for—their skill and investment in bringing us new products. Protecting creativity and providing the mechanisms for creativity to be rewarded are vital if the creative industries and authors are to continue being successful in producing high-quality material for the benefit of us all.
  Copyright protection remains crucial, and that is especially true where the very success of the information society has led to many people believing that the material that others have created can be copied freely. Such issues go well beyond the subject of this debate, but it is important to stress those points because some people here may think that there are easier solutions to the problems faced by visually impaired people than those contained in the Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West emphasised, the Bill quite rightly takes into account the very real needs and rights of copyright owners too.
  Moreover, I want to acknowledge the considerable efforts that have recently been made by the publishing sector and authors to listen and respond to the needs of visually impaired people. I know that some copyright owners believe that voluntary solutions to copyright problems could continue to develop to provide all the solutions that visually impaired people need. I want to encourage the dialogue to continue, but I do not believe that voluntary solutions will provide all that is needed to overcome difficulties with copyright clearances. That is why the Government were still working towards new exceptions to copyright in this area before this Bill was proposed.
  I am pleased, therefore, that my hon. Friend has brought this Bill before the House. Its intention is to deliver two distinct but complementary exceptions to copyright that, in principle, we can support. It provides a fair balance between the needs of visually impaired people and the interests of copyright owners. Visually impaired people and organisations working on their behalf will be able to act under the exceptions to provide alternative formats of copyright material that are needed to allow visually impaired people to read copyright material. However, copyright owners will have the ability to monitor what is happening to their material and obtain copyright royalties for this in circumstances where their interests might otherwise be prejudiced. That is an important balance and I know that it is one that the House will wish to maintain.
  I am delighted to confirm, therefore, that this worthwhile Bill has the Government's support. I am happy to learn that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and other hon. Members support the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman said, amendments might be necessary and the Committee will have to consider the detail of the exceptions that may be required at a later stage. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West said, the Bill is about access and opportunity for many visually impaired people and about

  1203
  enabling them to have the opportunities that many of us take for granted. I therefore look forward to the Bill being debated in detail at later stages.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  FOOD LABELLING BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [2 November], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  2.29 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: A few moments ago, a piece of paper was shoved in my face and I was told that I appeared to be the Member on the Front Bench responsible for saying something about the Bill. That was not something that I had expected. In 14 years, no one has let me anywhere near the Dispatch Box. The circumstances in which I suddenly find myself are fascinating. If I had the time, there is a great deal that I could usefully say about the Bill, but the difficulty in which I find myself—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 12 April.

  FIREARMS (REPLICA WEAPONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 21 June.

  SEX DISCRIMINATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 21 June.

  CONTROL OF FIREWORKS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 21 June.

  London Underground
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  2.31 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: In this short debate I want to review the current consultation on the public-private partnership for London Underground. I want to show that that consultation is inadequate and that that inadequacy will mean that London Underground will have to allow a second consultation period in due course.
  Moreover, I want to show that it was the incompetence of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions that led to that bungling. I believe that this latest example of the Minister's incompetence is yet another reason for him to resign. If a Transport Secretary cannot even organise a consultation process competently, what faith can the House have in his competence to turn round Britain's failing transport system?
  If time allows, I also want to bring new evidence to the House that, contrary to statements by the Secretary of State for Transport that this deal does not represent the privatisation of London Underground, it is now clear from detailed analysis of the legal documents linked to PPP that London Underground's key assets are indeed being transferred to the private sector in all meaningful senses. Therefore, on a key policy objective the Government have gone back on their commitments to the House.
  We are only just beginning to learn the full horror of the tube deal with which the Government wish to saddle Londoners; a deal that will not bring the transport improvements that we all so desperately want, and a deal that is so self-evidently such bad value for money for the taxpayer that the Government are afraid of publishing information to enable everyone to become aware of that fact.
  I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to your colleagues, for the opportunity to debate this key issue for Londoners and for the country. The Government have sought to deny Parliament the debate. The Transport Committee, in its recent report published on 7 March, concluded:
  "It is essential that the Government allows Members a debate and vote in the House of Commons on a substantive motion on the future of the London Underground and the PPP."
  However, the Government have refused such a debate. The all-party early-day motion 914 also calls for a debate on the consultation on PPP, yet the Government still refuse. What are they afraid of? I am particularly grateful to the Chair for allowing this debate, and only sad that it is merely an Adjournment debate on a Friday afternoon.
  What is happening in the consultation process? Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, London Underground Ltd. has a legal duty to consult the Mayor and Transport for London, apparently for 20 days. The Secretary of State for Transport said that that consultation period began on 7 February when he made his statement to the House. What has happened since then?
  Lawyers from Transport, for London, the legal team of Ken Livingstone and Bob Kiley, have since then been encamped in the so-called bid room based on the 11th floor of the Albany house offices of London Underground. Under the strictest rules of confidentiality,

  1205
  that team has crawled all over the legal agreements so far negotiated between London Underground and the Government and the three final bidders, the private sector infracos.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and I paid a visit to that bid room yesterday. We were prevented from reading most of the documentation, but we were able to take a look at the key agreement, schedule 1.9, more of which later. We were also able to talk to a key London Underground negotiator, Martin Callaghan, and the head of TFL's legal team, Stephen Powell. It is on the basis of information so gleaned, plus the excellent reports by the Transport Committee that I can make my case today.
  The first part of my case is that the current consultation process does not meet the legal obligations of London Underground to consult Transport for London. Why? The documents that TFL is being shown are incomplete; some of them contain serious omissions. Moreover, TFL's legal team is still waiting for documents that it has requested but which London Underground has so far failed to provide. The original consultation period was due to have been completed by 8 March, but when TFL threatened London Underground with legal action because it had failed to meet so many of its requests for documents, London Underground was forced to extend the consultation period to 22 March.
  Yet even now, only five business days away from the end of consultation, TFL is still awaiting documents. Are they crucial documents? Is TFL asking for unnecessary things? Who knows? However, as TFL is the body that this House has charged with the job of oversight of the final documents, surely it should be given the benefit of the doubt and receive enough time to look at them. That is the interpretation that I would expect a court to make. Unless and until TFL has completed full oversight of final documents, the statutory consultation process cannot be considered finished.
  If the Minister questions my interpretation, he should contact London Underground. I understand that it has already accepted in principle that a further round of consultation will have to take place, for the very reason that I allege: the documents currently being scrutinised by TFL are not complete. That begs a key question for this debate: why did the Transport Secretary trigger consultation on 7 February when the documents were clearly not ready for statutory consultation? Did he effectively mislead Parliament by triggering the consultation, or was it incompetence on his part?
  There is another piece of crucial evidence to consider: the letter from Sir Malcolm Bates, chairman of London Underground, to the Secretary of State, dated 6 February—the day before consultation was triggered. Yesterday, I saw for myself a copy of the letter in the bid room. I was not allowed to bring the letter out of the bid room, but I did manage to transcribe it word for word. I will shortly read the House relevant extracts from my notes. However, the key message of the Bates letter to the Secretary of State is this: "You are acting too hastily; wait—we are not ready." Yet the Secretary of State, who had already started spinning his intention to make a statement to the press, decided to go ahead, against the advice of the boss of London Underground, who was responsible for the negotiations.
  1206
  Sir Malcolm Bates's letter is entitled "Value for Money Assessment of the PPP". He writes that
  "the bid prices are not contractually committed"
  and goes on to state:
  "There are a number of areas where we know they will reduce, as a result of technical adjustments. There is also drafting to be finally settled, especially in periodic review."
  Anyone who knows anything about the agreement knows that the periodic review is crucial. The letter continues:
  "The only competitive leverage left at this stage is that the bidders do not know their individual positions against the Public Sector Comparator.
  For this reason, London Underground had decided that the published version of the Assessment Report should show the financial comparators in aggregate, not in detail. We would have intended to release the full figures only once the agreements were signed, towards the end of March."
  The letter also states:
  "I have been informed by your officials that you intend to publish the Ernst and Young Report in full, which will include the comparators for the individual competitions, despite my strong representations. I have told your officials that we think this will damage the public sector's interest during the remainder of the competition. "
  The letter says that it is felt that there is little alternative but to publish alongside the Ernst and Young report a full version of London Underground's report. Sir Malcolm says that he wanted the Secretary of State to be aware of the risks that follow. He concludes by saying:
  "Obviously we will do our best to mitigate any damage."
  Why did the Secretary of State jeopardise the negotiating position of the public sector? Why did he ignore those "strong representations"?
  We have on record some explanation given by the Secretary of State himself when he was questioned in the Select Committee on 6 March. I refer to the uncorrected evidence of the hearing, which is available on the Internet. He said:
  "I was very clear, and I think I gave a commitment to this Committee, that I would publish the Ernst and Young report. I took the view that there was nothing in the Ernst and Young report that would compromise the negotiations that Sir Malcolm Bates was involved in."
  We should note that that is in direct and complete contrast to what Sir Malcolm wrote. The Secretary of State then tried to suggest that the lack of finality in the contracts was due to the consultation process. That is a tempting argument, but of course he would say that because the documents were being consulted on. In any case, it is again in direct contrast to what Sir Malcolm wrote. His letter makes it clear that there were several issues in the contracts yet to be determined and completely unconnected with the consultation process.
  The Secretary of State's final defence in the Committee was that he had a duty to the House to report the Ernst and Young analysis. But in so doing, did he have to prejudice the competition in the PPP, which is designed to get better value for money? Did he have to trigger consultation on incomplete documents, so rendering it inadequate and incomplete, and thereby falling short of the statutory requirement?
  I contend that the Secretary of State's judgment was seriously flawed, Far from speeding up the process of the PPP and pushing ahead with the Government's plans for London Underground, he has, by his inactions, caused even

  1207
  more delays and confusion. The whole consultation process will have to be undertaken again. I have no confidence in a Minister who cannot even get such simple, basic judgments right. In my opinion he should go.
  Before I conclude on the consultation process, I want to share with the House and the public at large some of the more disturbing findings that have emerged from the work of the TFL legal team, especially in a document called schedule 1.9, which is part of a whole mountain of documents dealing with the PPP arbitrator—the regulator, as it were, for the PPP deal. In 1999, when the then Minister responsible, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), introduced in Standing Committee the concept of the PPP arbitrator, I told her that it would cause trouble, and it has. The negotiators have put into schedule 1.9 all the difficult issues that they could not resolve in the rest of the documentation, including equity rates of return, the extent of risk transfer and the process for terminating the contracts.
  Most significantly, much of schedule 1.9 has yet to be agreed. In other words, key parameters of the whole deal have yet to be finalised. How can Ernst and Young, London Underground or the Secretary of State have made any assessment of value for money when such key issues have not been finalised? It beggars belief. Worse still, what has been negotiated of the half-negotiated schedule 1.9 is extremely disturbing. We find that the risks of cost overruns have not been properly transferred to the infracos—they have been capped—so the public sector is not properly protected from them. Furthermore, the ability of the public sector to terminate contracts at a reasonable price is extremely limited. In normal circumstances, they will be almost impossible for TFL to get out of.
  The Select Committee picked up on that in paragraph 10 of its report, which bears rereading. It states:
  "We are also concerned that there is no Public Interest Termination clause in the contracts. Ernst and Young stated in their review for the Secretary of State that:
  'In our view, it would be a lower risk option for London Underground to have an express right to seek voluntary termination with an agreed mechanism in line with the Treasury Taskforce Guidance. In particular, the obligation on the PPP contractor to act reasonably and mitigate costs would improve the value for money of the termination and enhance London Underground's negotiating leverage throughout the contract.'"
  The Committee concludes:
  "The decision to proceed with an experimental contract structure without the inclusion of a Public Interest Termination clause is difficult to justify, does not follow Treasury Taskforce Guidance and seems likely to compromise further value for money."
  That is a damning indictment. The contracts will tie the hands of future democratically elected Governments; they will not be able to say, "This deal is bad value for money. It is not delivering what we want, and we want to end it in the public interest." That goes completely against the lessons learned from PPP and PFI elsewhere. It hands all the negotiating power to the infracos.
  I want to issue a challenge to the Minister. As London Underground yesterday felt able to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and me to read schedule 1.9 without signing a confidentiality agreement, will he publish the document to allow for public scrutiny, and if not, why not?
  1208
  There are even more serious reasons why the Government should do that. If the Minister will not publish the documents, I shall ask London Underground to let me enter that room and transcribe them, and we shall see how the public react to that.
  The Government are trying to avoid debate on this issue and to avoid publishing the documents because the PPP does not meet one of their key political objectives: not to privatise London Underground. The PPP as currently negotiated and under consultation—albeit inadequate consultation—amounts to the privatisation of London Underground's major assets. Despite Ministers' claims and protestations, which we shall no doubt hear repeated today, London's tube is being flogged off. One need only consider the definition of privatisation used by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the company retained by London Underground as its principal adviser on PPP:
  "The transfer of services and/or assets, either on a permanent or finite basis from state to private sector operation and/or ownership".
  This is how the Health and Safety Executive, an independent body, describes version 3.1 of the PPP on its website:
  "Under the terms of the PPP, London Underground's infrastructure, rolling stock and stations will be owned and improved by three PPP infrastructure companies."
  Those were not my words or those of the Select Committee.
  We find a further definition in the contract details. In the April 2000 asset transfer scheme, a legal agreement that sets out how the assets of the tube will go to the infracos, there is an important definition:
  "Where therefore an asset is referred to as being allocated to an Infraco, this means that the relevant Infraco is regarded as having ownership of the relevant asset under the terms of the PPP contract."
  Other parts of the contract show clearly that the private infracos will have ownership of all the assets for 30 years. Details of any handback to public sector ownership are sketchy, to say the least. The public sector's right to reacquire those assets is as yet theoretical. It is another Government objective gone wrong.
  This whole sorry saga is the most depressing I have had to watch unfold since I was first elected. It reminds me of the poll tax, in that political decisions at the very top of Government are being kept to in spite of all the evidence that they are wrong and all the experts demanding a total rethink, and despite analysis after analysis warning that this will be bad value for money and will create huge problems for London's underground system in the future.
  The current consultation period will in law have to be restarted before any final decision can be taken. I therefore implore the Government to stop this madness before they consign London to 30 years of an expensive, painful and crazy experiment.
  2.47 pm
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government very much welcome the opportunity to debate the future of London Underground. We would have preferred the debate to be conducted on a more rational and better-informed basis, but unfortunately the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has revealed only too clearly in his

  1209
  comments that he does not understand the process and has not fully understood the information to which he has had access.
  Mr. Edward Davey rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He will wait for a while and I may consider giving way later. Having made an extremely intemperate and, in my view, mean-spirited attack, he should listen for a while to the Government's response.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned his visit to the bid room. At no point did he acknowledge the fact that I personally arranged for that visit after he expressed concern that he had not had that opportunity.
  Mr. Davey rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I will give way in due course. I ask him to contain himself for a little while. He has made some extremely ill-judged and ill-tempered remarks and he should listen carefully to my factual response.
  I arranged for the hon. Gentleman to have access to the information and to visit the bid room. It was an exceptional arrangement and I should have thought he might at least acknowledge that.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the consultation process. He clearly does not understand that it is entirely in line with the procedures spelled out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. If I recall correctly, he served on the Standing Committee that considered that Bill and should therefore be familiar with it. Our actions are entirely consistent with the requirements of that Act. There is no question of the consultation being conducted in any way other than in strict conformity with the requirements of the legislation.
  The hon. Gentleman quoted a letter from Malcolm Bates, totally misunderstanding it and presenting it as an argument for delaying the process. It was nothing of the sort. In that letter, Malcolm Bates reasonably expressed concern that public disclosure of certain information, as part of the consultation exercise, might make it more difficult for London Underground to secure the best possible deal in the public sector's interest.
  The Secretary of State—because he believed strongly that public consultation was paramount and that it was right that full public consultation should take place—insisted that the full Ernst and Young report should be made available. Did the hon. Gentleman, who has criticised the Government for not ensuring adequate consultation, give the slightest credit to my right hon. Friend for that decision? On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman tried to turn things around, in an extraordinary distortion of the facts, to criticise the Secretary of State for personally seeking to ensure the widest possible consultation.
  The hon. Gentleman's argument that the process is a privatisation is based on a complete misrepresentation of the facts. He is fully aware that London Underground continues to remain wholly responsible for running the underground. As I shall explain in the course of my remarks, the maintenance of the infrastructure will be conducted by the three infrastructure companies, under the partnership. To enable that to happen, they must have
  1210
  a lease on those assets for a period of time, but that is part of a partnership that will generate the huge investment necessary to transform the underground. That is very different from privatisation—it is public-private partnership.
  The arguments have gone on too long. Londoners are increasingly impatient with politicians—often ill-informed politicians—talking about the underground but not actually delivering results. Londoners want to see action. The plans that London Transport has developed, and on which it is consulting the Mayor and Transport for London, are designed to deliver the improvements that we all want to see. They are designed to deliver a safe, reliable, modern, clean and integrated system—and to do so more quickly than any alternative.
  The debate about the PPP has sadly been characterised by a huge amount of misinformation—much more than the hon. Gentleman has given us this afternoon. It is nonsense to suggest that there would be no real improvements for 10 or 12 years—as we have frequently heard during the past few weeks. There is no basis for that claim. No alternative plan would deliver so much so soon. For example, work would start straight away to end the speed restrictions currently causing delays to passengers on the Jubilee and Piccadilly lines. Work would start straight away to tackle the maintenance backlog and improve the reliability of the system. Work would also start straight away on a massive capital investment programme to modernise the infrastructure, covering signalling systems, new trains and increased capacity.
  At the end of the third review period, that investment would result in a wholly transformed system and one of which Londoners would be justly proud. However, we need to be sure that the plans for the transformation of the underground are the right ones. No final decisions have yet been taken, but in making those decisions we must consider the issues very carefully. That includes considering the opinions of others. That is why a consultation process is under way.
  The Mayor and Transport for London have had access to all the information that they need. The suggestion that they have been denied access to information is not justified. London Transport has extended the consultation period in response to TFL's requests, yet rather than giving credit for that, the hon. Gentleman only makes political capital from it—a typical example of the misinformation and distortion that he has brought to this debate.
  London Transport has provided staff not only to help TFL and its advisers assimilate and understand all the information, but to help the hon. Gentleman and others who have visited the bid room. His remarks about the unhelpful attitude of London Underground are not justified.
  When the Mayor and TFL respond to the consultation, London Transport will consider their comments very carefully. Only then will a final decision be made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he would also welcome a public debate on the proposals. That is why everyone who is interested can see the financial reports that will inform his decisions. As I said, the Ernst and Young report has already been published, and London Underground has published its evaluation report in full. We are being as open as possible.

  1211
  The contracts are not yet finalised—of course, they cannot be until all the consultation responses have been considered. However, the Secretary of State has made it clear that if the contracts were to alter materially in a way that means they no longer represent good value for money, the plans will not proceed.
  There is some information that cannot be made public until this process has concluded, as we need to protect the public sector's ability to gain the best possible value for money. However, if the final decision is to proceed, the contracts would then be published in full and information would be fully available. Work to deliver a better tube could then begin by the summer.
  The plans would bring in new investment and expertise from the private sector, based on long-term commitments not just to provide the infrastructure but to maintain it and so guarantee an agreed standard of service. The contracts provide for the infrastructure companies to he paid according to those results, with incentives to optimise performance and penalties if standards fall as a result of the contractor's failure or inefficiency. That is in line with modern best-practice procurement—designed to ensure that we get value for money and that we get away from the sad experience of underground infrastructure contracts ending up late and seriously over budget time and again.
  I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not appreciated that the people of London fully understand the difference between the history of past investment—
  1212
  such as the Jubilee line, two years late with a 67 per cent. cost overrun—and the experience of public-private partnerships such as the docklands light railway extension to Lewisham, which was on budget, delivered early and highly successful. This issue is not about dogma; it is about what works. I saw a partnership of that kind work on the DLR and I believe that it would work on the tube.
  That is why the Government have made an unprecedented offer of substantial and sustained investment in the tube—£1 billion in each of the first eight years of the contracts—compared with an average of £320 million a year over the last decade. That is another point that was conveniently ignored by the hon. Gentleman in his tendentious speech. We make this offer because we are confident that these plans would deliver the results that passengers want—modern, reliable, attractive, clean and affordable tube travel.
  I am sure that the consultations will be worth while, but once they are complete, Londoners will expect us to stop arguing and start delivering a better underground for London.
  Mr. Davey rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): The Minister has sat down.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Hospital Stays (Benefit Claims)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and pensions (1) how many people in Scotland have been claiming benefits whilst staying in long stay hospitals in(a) each of the past five years and (b) the current financial year; and what the forecast is for the next three years; [41834]

  (2) what the total expenditure was on benefits for people in Scotland who stay in long stay hospitals in (a) each year of the past five years and (b) the current financial year; and what the forecast is for the next three years. [41835]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]The information is not available in the format requested.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proposals he has to clarify the conditions of entitlement for the lower rate mobility component of disability living allowance. [44433]

  Maria Eagle
  Regulations have today been laid before Parliament together with copies of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report on them and the Secretary of State's response to that report.

  The regulations make clear that for a severely disabled person to qualify for the lower rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance on the grounds that fear or anxiety prevents them from walking out of doors on unfamiliar routes without guidance or supervision from another person most of the time, the fear or anxiety must be a symptom of a mental disability. This clarification is needed to remove uncertainty and the possibility of misinterpretation of the qualifying conditions in these circumstances. The regulations do not otherwise alter the conditions for entitlement to the lower rate mobility component, and severely disabled people whose physical or mental disabilities alone mean that they cannot walk out of doors on unfamiliar routes without guidance or supervision from another person most of the time will continue to qualify.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much additional money, in total per year, would be paid to pensioners in North Norfolk if those not presently claiming the minimum income guarantee were to claim it. [43694]
  1252W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is unavailable.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many entitled non-recipients of the minimum income guarantee there are in(a) the North Norfolk constituency and (b) England. [43695]

  Maria Eagle
  Estimates of the number of pensioners who may be entitled to but have not claimed the Minimum Income Guarantee are not available below national level. National estimates are contained in the publication "Take Up of Income Related Benefits: Statistics for 1999–2000". A copy is held in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out for each Civil Service grade within his(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies the (i) total number of staff employed, number aged (A) 16 to 25, (B) 26 to 35, (C) 36 to 45, (D) 46 to 60 and (E) over the age of 60 years, number of registered disabled and (iv) number of ethnic minorities. [39153]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1072W.

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in his office. [41017]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 14 March 2002,Official Report, columns 1207–08W.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the extent of the gender pay gap amongst staff in his Office. [40942]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 956W.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 303, on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, what plans he has to consult on the Zimbabwe's attendance at the Commonwealth Games, following the outcome of the Zimbabwean election; and if he will report the outcome if his consultations to Parliament. [43829]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 682W.

DEFENCE

  Private Simon Jeans
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 1997 he has made representations to his Croatian counterpart regarding the killing of Private Simon Jeans in Split, Croatia, in September 1996. [43302]

  Mr. Ingram
  The case was raised at Ministerial level with the Croatian Defence Minister, during his visit to the UK in March 2000. This was in addition to regular dialogue between the British Embassy and Defence Staff in Zagreb and Split, and the Croatian authorities, throughout the course of the trial of those accused of killing Private Jeans.

  Colerne Airfield
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what long-term plans he has for Colerne Airfield; [43522]

  (2) what plans he has for the re-basing of 21 Signals Regiment from Azinghur Barracks at Colerne; [43515]

  (3) how many civilian staff are employed at Azinghur Barracks, Colerne; [43516]

  (4) if he will make a statement about the future of Colerne Airfield and Azinghur Barracks. [43523]

  Mr. Ingram
  An internal study into the future location of 21 Signal Regiment (AS), currently based at Azimghur Barracks, has been completed recently. The study concluded that in principle there were sound operational and financial reasons to support a move of the unit to Gamecock Barracks, Bramcote where it would be co-located with 30 Signal Regiment.

  Colerne Airfield is not part of this work and there are no plans for its closure. The two other units at Colerne—1001 Support Unit RAF and Bristol University Air Squadron—are also not part of this internal study, but as the hon. Member is aware, we are undertaking a separate review of University Air Squadron Flying.

  Further work is required before any decision to move 21 Signal Regiment could be finalised, and it would be premature therefore to make a statement about the future of Azimghur Barracks at this stage. The Ministry of Defence will, of course, be consulting with the Trade Unions and the 81 civilian staff who support 21 Signal Regiment in due course. I will write to the hon. Member once a final decision in made and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flights by Bristol University OTC there have been in each of the last five years from Colerne Airfield. [43520]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not held in the format requested. However, it is possible to provide the number of hours which Bristol University Air Squadron flew in each of the last four years from Colerne Airfield. The Tutor aircraft used by the University Air Squadron are also used by the No. 3 Air Cadet Air Experience Flight and the hours flown by them are also shown.
  1254W

  Financial Year

  University Air Squadron

  Air Experience Flight

  1998–99

  1,580

  2,825

  1999–2000

  1,668

  2,428

  2000–01

  1,551

  2,218

  2001–02*

  1,362

  1,832

  * to date

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of where Bristol University OTC will train if Colerne Airfield closes. [43521]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no plans for Colerne Airfield to close, so no assessment of alternative locations for Bristol University Air Squadron to train has been undertaken. A review of University Air Squadron flying is being undertaken, but this is not specific to the Bristol University Air Squadron and the outcome of the review will not be known until the end of April at the earliest.

  Harrier Aircraft
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of the Harrier GR7 upgrade; and if he will make a statement. [43634]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 March 2002,Official Report, columns 1166–67W.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Harrier GR7 will be upgraded to GR9 standard; and what the estimated completion date is of the upgrade programme. [43633]

  Mr. Ingram
  We currently plan to upgrade 68 Harrier GR7 aircraft to the GR9 standard with the work being completed during 2008.

  HMS Talent
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the operational status of HMS Talent is; and if she will be operational for the rest of the year. [43692]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Talent is currently at sea conducting operations and has been operational since September 2001. The submarine is scheduled to remain fully operational until the end of May this year before entering a Lay-up period prior to refit.

  NATO Central Europe Division
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has(a) made to and (b) received from his (i) Belgian, (ii) German and (iii) Dutch counterparts regarding the future of NATO's Multinational Central Europe division MND (C). [43637]

  Mr. Hoon
  In 2001, NATO's Military Committee agreed that the role of selected formations, including the Multinational Division (Central), must be addressed in the NATO Force Structure Review. We are discussing the future of this formation with our counterparts in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the UK contribution is to NATO's Multinational Central Europe division MND (C). [43636]
  1255W
  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom has 27 peace establishment posts on the staff of the Headquarters Multinational Division (Central) in Germany. In addition, the United Kingdom assigns a number of forces to the Multinational Division (Central), which may be called on for specific operations. These include an Air Defence Regiment, Combat Service Support and elements of the Support Helicopter Force.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Correspondence
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to letters from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, relating to case work involving(a) Ms R. Ensor, (b) Mr. Byers, (c) Mrs. Carney, (d) Mr. M. Dawber and (e) Ms Sue Jayes; and if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on responding to letters from hon. Members. [37636]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My hon. Friend has received a reply dated 26 February 2002.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her role is in authorising Insolvency Practitioners; and what representations she has received about changing this procedure. [42078]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under the provisions of Section 392 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the Secretary of State may directly authorise individuals to act as insolvency practitioners and 133 are so authorised. Section 391 of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides that the Secretary of State may also recognise bodies as able to authorise their members to act as insolvency practitioners.

  The regulation of insolvency practice was the subject of a review during 1997 and 1998. The report of the review committee was published in February 1999.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what training is provided to the staff responsible for the operation of the Insolvency Service hotline; and what the total training cost for the team has been since the hotline's introduction. [42073]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The hotline team currently comprises four Official Receiver trained staff with substantial experience of insolvency related matters. They do not require specific additional training.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings she has had since 2001 with representatives of the Insolvency Service and if she will publish the minutes of the meetings. [42082]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I regularly meet officials from The Insolvency Service. Under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information minutes of those meetings are not published.
  1256W
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to publicise to directors their insolvency liabilities; and how much this advertising has cost the Insolvency Service each year since 1997. [42066]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Insolvency Service produced a number of guidance leaflets regarding various insolvency related matters, which are available on its website, including a guide for directors which describes the various procedures in detail and informs directors what duties and responsibilities they have if their company is subject to insolvency procedures. The Insolvency Service has also ensured that the information provided by Companies House to the officers of newly formed companies contains details of their responsibilities whilst managing limited companies.

  In addition, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry successfully applies to have an unfit director disqualified from acting as a director, or accepts an undertaking not to act in that capacity, press releases are issued in local newspapers and trade journals relevant to the insolvent company. Details of the director's misconduct complained of in the application to disqualify are provided. Public reporting thus also assists greatly in the drive to increase the business community's awareness of the dangers of running a company whilst insolvent.

  Publicity costs have been £155,000 in 1999–00; £112,000 in 2000–01 and £66,000 in 2001–02 (11 months). Costs for the period prior to 1999 cannot be obtained without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives are in place to(a) monitor and (b) improve customer service standards in the Insolvency Service. [42081]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To monitor customer service standards The Insolvency Service has an audit process through which performance against its published service standards (set in accordance with Charter standards) is measured and monitored both locally and centrally within the Agency.

  To further enhance customer service standards The Insolvency Service has: a National Consultative User Group and a Central Accounting Unit User Group; user comment cards and a website pop-up questionnaire; a complaints process; a staff New Ideas Scheme and an e-business strategy.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to make proposals regarding the bankruptcy period for personal insolvency cases. [42056]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The White Paper "Opportunity for All in a World of Change: Insolvency—A Second Chance" published the Government's proposals for reforms to the law of personal insolvency in July 2001.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans her Department has to remove the bankruptcy fee payable to the Insolvency Service. [42057]
  1257W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are no plans to remove the fee payable in relation to the Official Receiver's administration of a debtor's estate in bankruptcy.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about the priority given to creditors of companies in administration under the Insolvency Act 2000. [42058]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have received no representations.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many insolvency petitions for(a) small and (b) medium enterprises were allocated to each Official Receiver's office in England and Wales in each year since 1997. [42060]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Statistics are not maintained distinguishing between small and medium sized enterprises.

  Oil and Gas Exploration Licences
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the development of Fallow Field oil and gas exploration licences. [42718]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK cannot afford to have petroleum discoveries or areas of the Continental Shelf lying fallow. We believe that petroleum licences should be in the hands of those companies that are committed to undertaking appropriate work to find, test and develop effectively the UK's petroleum resources in the shortest possible time span.

  The DTI has worked with the oil and gas industry in PILOT to establish a robust mechanism that will encourage companies holding fallow blocks or discoveries to decide within a reasonable time scale (15 months for fallow blocks and just over two years for fallow discoveries), whether to be active and move towards development or relinquish the licences on which they sit so that others have an opportunity to act.

  Officials in my Department have identified some 120 fallow discoveries and 160 fallow blocks on the UKCS where the current owners do not appear to be doing all that they can to generate activity. These fallow assets could encompass 250 undrilled structures and contain reserves equivalent to around 1.5 billion barrels of oil.

  The mechanism was launched on 5 March and we immediately wrote to each licensee that has been identified as holding fallow blocks and discoveries to initiate the first stage of the process.

  The performance of companies holding fallow assets will be reviewed every year to ensure that they remain focused on bringing forward activity.

  Motor Vehicle Insurance
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will direct the Office of Fair Trading to inquire into the use by insurance companies' approved repairer schemes of language which prevents customers choosing to use alternative local garages. [42655]
  1258W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 enable the Office of Fair Trading to act against businesses using standard terms in consumer contracts that cause consumer detriment including ambiguous or unintelligible terms. Any evidence to suggest such unfair contract terms should be passed directly to the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Exchange Direct plc
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to investigate Exchange Direct plc. [42668]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A winding up order was made against Exchange Direct plc on 23 January 2002 and the Official Receiver is now responsible for investigating the reasons for the company's failure and the conduct of its directors. The affairs of the company are also the subject of an investigation by police, and the Official Receiver will provide assistance as required.

  Personal Debt
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will announce the result of the consultation on fee charging debt advice. [42624]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) consulted on draft guidelines for debt management companies last year. The OFT announced the outcome of its consultation and published the final guidance on 4 December 2001. Breaches of the guidance by companies could lead to the loss of their consumer credit licence.

  Copies of the Guidelines are available from the OFT or from their website at: www.oft.gov.uk.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will announce the outcome of the consultation on excessive interest charged on personal debt. [42622]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]I published the results of our consultation on "Tackling loan sharks—and more!" on 15 February 2002. The consultation showed overwhelming support for proposals to clamp down on loan sharks and the other priorities identified.

  Copies of both the Consultation Paper and the Summary of Responses are available from the Libraries of the House or from the DTI website at: www2.dti.gov.uk/CACP/ca/policy/consumercredit/review.htm.

  Further details on specific proposals will be published over the course of next year.

  Mirror Group Newspapers
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions she has taken following the publication of the Companies Act Inspectors' report into Mirror Group Newspapers plc on 30 March 2001. [44031]
  1259W
  Ms Hewitt
  Independent inspectors were appointed under Companies Act powers to investigate and report on the affairs and membership of Mirror Group Newspapers plc. They were asked to look, in particular, at the flotation of Mirror Group Newspapers on 30 April 1991.

  Following receipt of the report, the DTI's Companies Investigation Branch sought legal advice on whether disqualification proceedings should be instigated under the Company Directors Disqualification Act against any of those involved.

  After careful consideration of advice from leading Counsel, officials have recommended, and I have agreed, not to institute disqualification proceedings.

  Important lessons have been learnt from the Mirror Group Newspapers affair and, as the inspectors themselves noted, a number of important changes were made prior to their final report. The report made a number of further recommendations which have all been passed for consideration to the different Departmental bodies and regulators that hold responsibility in these areas.

  As the inspectors suggested, the Company Law Review considered a number of issues and the Government will be announcing their response to these and the rest of the Review's recommendations in due course. I have recently announced the setting up of a group jointly with the Treasury and including other regulators to oversee and co-ordinate the response in the UK to auditing and accounting issues raised by the collapse of Enron. This work is also relevant to the concerns expressed by the inspectors on the independence of auditors. I have also announced an independent review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors in the UK. The review will report jointly to me and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Where particular recommendations are the prime responsibility of other Departments and regulatory authorities I am liaising with these other bodies and will further inform the House in due course.

  Arms Exports (Angola)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Department's policy is on granting export licences for arms to Angola; and if she will make a statement. [42523]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  We consider export licence applications to Angola against the following:

  (a) Whether the export is permitted under UN Sanctions. UN Security Council Resolution 864 (1993) imposed an arms embargo in relation to UNITA. The supply of arms and related material to Angola is prohibited except through named entry points provided by the Angolan Government. The UK interprets the scope of all such arms embargoes to cover goods and technology on Military List.

  (b) UK national policy. It is UK policy not to grant export licences for new military or dual-use equipment for those countries intervening in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Angola, Burundi,
  1260W

  Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe) where there is a clear risk that it would be used in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Ministerial statement HC 184 and 185, Date in force 9 February 2000).

  (c) If the application passes these stages, we then judge it against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. This includes assessing the proposed export against internal repression, internal conflict, external aggression concerns and risk of diversion (criteria 2, 3, 4 and 7).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Brussels on 28 February; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [40653]

  Angela Eagle
  I represented the United Kingdom (UK) at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council in Brussels on 28 February 2002.

  International Co-operation of the European Union against organised crime (an open debate):

  The Council held an open debate on the international co-operation of the European Union against organised crime. The debate focused on the need for enhanced external action, using the range of tools available including funding programmes and agreements based on Article 38 of the Treaty on European Union.

  A points:

  The A points were approved as in document PTS A 8 (6495/02) (a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House). These included adoption of the Council Decision setting up Eurojust and adoption of implementing rules under the Eurodac Regulation (2725/2000/EC).

  Draft Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence:

  A general approach was approved on a Presidency compromise text, subject to six Parliamentary scrutiny reserves (Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Ireland, Italy and the UK), consideration of the opinion which the European Parliament delivered in September 2001 and re-consultation of the European Parliament on the revised text. Two amendments were agreed at the Council itself: (a) to include the language on fundamental rights which is used in Article 1(3) of the European Arrest Warrant text; and (b) the drafting of a further ground for refusal in Article 6 relating to the ne bis in idem principle. I will provide the European Scrutiny Committee with the consolidated English text resulting from the Council when it is issued. I will also write to the Chairman of the Committee about the term "general approach".
  1261W
  Relations with the United States of America (USA):

  The Council endorsed a two-stage approach to drawing up an agreement with the USA on judicial co-operation in criminal matters, in accordance with the conclusions of the special JHA Council on 20 September 2001. The first stage will consist of continuing informal exploratory talks with the United States, and, in parallel, work within the Council on the scope and principles of an agreement or agreement. After this, a formal negotiating mandate would be adopted, if possible at the JHA Council on 25 April 2002. There was general agreement in the Council that particular attention would need to be given to human rights safeguards in relation to issues such as the death penalty and special courts and to data protection. There was also general agreement on the need for clarity about the areas in which an European Union (EU)/United States (US) agreement could add value to existing bilateral arrangements.

  Green Paper on criminal law protection of the financial interests of the Community and the establishment of a European Prosecutor: presentation by the Commission:

  Commissioner Schreyer presented the Commission's Green Paper to the Council. In a brief debate which followed, all but one of the speakers questioned the need for a European Public Prosecutor. A number of delegations pointed out that the decision to establish Eurojust had just been adopted and Eurojust should be given the chance to perform the role it had been given in relation to fraud against the Community budget.

  Proposal for a comprehensive plan to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings in the European Union:

  The Council approved the comprehensive action plan, which is based on the Commission's Communication on illegal immigration.

  Report on the introduction of the euro-Police co-operation (information point):

  The Council took note of a presentation by the Director of Europol on law enforcement work to protect the euro before and during the changeover period. The Director reported that recorded incidents of counterfeiting were low in number and sophistication.

  European Police College (CEPOL)—Provisional management solution:

  The Council endorsed a provisional management solution, whereby Denmark will temporarily host the secretariat of CEPOL pending a decision on the location of the permanent secretariat. This will facilitate implementation of this year's annual work programme.

  Amendments of the Europol Convention:

  There was broad agreement on the principle of amending the Europol Convention to allow Europol staff to participate in joint investigative teams in a support capacity and to authorise Europol to ask Member States to initiate investigations, in accordance with the conclusions of the Tampere European Council. The Article 36 Committee was asked to work on finalising the necessary amendments. Debate focused on the possibility of introducing a simplified procedure for
  1262W
  amending the Europol Convention. All delegations agreed on the need for a simplified procedure for amending the Europol Convention, but there was no consensus on the actual mechanism. The Presidency presented three options:

  (i) a protocol providing for future amendments to the Convention to be made by a simple decision of the Council;

  (ii) a variation of (i) limited to certain less sensitive articles; and

  (iii) replacement of the Europol Convention with a Council Decision.

  The first option raised constitutional difficulties for a number of Member States, and options (ii) and (iii) attracted most support. I indicated that the UK could accept any of the three options in principle, but we considered that option (iii) was the simplest and that option (ii) might prove difficult in practice. This was referred to the working group for further consideration.

  Setting up an Air Marshal system in the European Union:

  The Austrian Minister presented a paper describing national experience of air marshals and proposing that the EU should consider such a system. This received a cautious response. Together with a number of other Ministers, I noted that the Transport Council was considering this and other aviation security issues. It was agreed that the issue should be referred back to Coreper to consider whether it should be taken any further in the JHA area.

  Any Other Business:

  Austria reported that in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Schengen Convention, it intended to re-impose border controls during a visit by the Iranian President on 11–13 March 2002.

  Meeting with the candidate countries in the margins of the Council:

  Justice and Interior Ministers met with their counterparts from the candidate countries in the margins of the Council. A Joint Declaration on drugs was approved. The Candidate Countries also provided updates on their progress in improving border controls at their external borders.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost of his Department's website was in real terms in each of the last four years; and how many hits it received in each of those years. [36136]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information for the main Home Office website is shown in the table. Because members of the website team have not been employed exclusively on this work throughout the period, their costs have been excluded from this table.

  Information is not held centrally on websites that are managed independently of the main site.
  1263W

  Year

  Cost

  Number of page impressions

  1998–99

  Not separately identified

  Not available

  1999–2000

  £40,614

  9,066,894

  2000–01

  £58,170

  16,495,939

  2001–02

  £133,339

  7,969,832 (to 30/9/01)

  The Home Office website moved to a new server on 1 October 2001; reliable data are not yet available on the number of page impressions since that date.

  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) established a separate site in late 2000. It measures unique visitors to the site, not the number of hits or page impressions. There were 836,711 unique visitors to the IND site during the year 2001, the first full year of operation.

  With almost half of the homes in the United Kingdom now online* and public access on the rise, our website is an invaluable tool for disseminating important information to the public and in opening up new areas of knowledge about Home Office activity in general. It is a cost-effective vehicle that allows us to speak to many people at once and offers the option for anyone to give us their feedback.

  * Oftel January 2002

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been detained under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 since the 19 December 2001; and if he will make a statement. [41155]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Nine foreign nationals have so far been detained using powers in Part IV of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. Of those detained two have left the United Kingdom voluntarily; the other seven remain in detention.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign citizens have been detained under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [40576]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Nine foreign nationals have so far been detained using powers in Part IV of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. Of those detained two have left the United Kingdom voluntarily.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been held under suspicion of being a terrorist under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [41368]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 11 March 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 two have left the United Kingdom voluntarily; the other seven remain in detention.

  Protec
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Government security services are provided by Protec. [20158]
  1264W
  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.

  SDA Protec Ltd in the United Kingdom has carried out work across a number of Departments under arrangements approved by Government. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual commercial contracts.

  Departments are required to ensure that any security contractor is reputable and reliable. Where a contractor needs access to sensitive official information then specific security standards must be met, and an appropriate security clearance is required for any employees requiring access to this information. Such companies are periodically inspected by the security authorities to ensure that these obligations are being fulfilled. If the hon. Member has any specific concerns I would be prepared to discuss these in confidence.

  Police Legislation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Acts of Parliament have affected the police service since 1990; and if he will list them. [31982]

  Mr. Denham
  A list of all those statutes which make an explicit reference either to the police or to police authorities has, due to its length, been placed in the Library. Additional statutes relating to the criminal justice system have also been included. Other statutes may also affect the police service as they do a wide variety of other bodies and organisations, although their provisions do not deal specifically with policing or criminal justice issues. However, an investigation of all Acts of Parliament since 1990 to assess their possible effect on the police in this way is not possible without disproportionate cost.

  British Crime Survey
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will include road traffic injuries and fatalities in the British Crime Survey. [40546]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  This would not be appropriate. The British Crime Survey asks respondents about their experiences of, and views about, crime. This is a different matter to road traffic injuries and fatalities, which may or may not be the result of a criminal act, such as dangerous driving.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of drink related and disorderly crime there were reported in 1997 and each subsequent year in(a) Preston, (b) Blackburn, (c) Lancashire, (d) the North West of England, (e) Wales and (f) the UK. [40650]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of violent crime were reported in 1997 and each subsequent
  1265W
  year in (a) Preston, (b) Blackburn, (c) Lancashire,(d) the North West of England, (e) Wales and (f) the UK. [40666]

  Mr. Denham
  Details are given in the table. Details for Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership areas have been collected centrally since 1 April 1999.

  There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which expanded the offences covered, and placed a greater emphasis on counting crimes in terms of numbers of victims. Numbers of recorded crimes after this date are therefore not directly comparable with previous years. Over England and Wales as a whole, the change in counting rules caused an increase in total recorded violent crime of 83 per cent.

  It should be noted that recorded violent crime is subject to changes in reporting and recording. The 2001 British Crime Survey found that, over England and Wales as a whole, reporting to the police of violent offences in total rose from 37 per cent. in 1997 to 45 per cent. in the 2000 calendar year.

  The British Crime Survey has also shown that, in England and Wales as a whole, the number of violent crimes recorded in the survey decreased by 23 per cent. between the 1997 and 2000 calendar years, whereas violent crime recorded by the police increased by an estimated 14 per cent. Violent crime recorded by the police may therefore not necessarily be a reflection of real changes in the level of violent crime.

  Table 3: Police Officer Strength as at 30 September 2001 by police force area, rank and gender, and officers per 100,000 population

  England and Wales

  Full time equivalents1

  Male Ranks

  Police force

  Chief Constables

  Assistant Chief Constables

  Superintendents

  Chief Inspectors

  Inspectors

  Sergeants

  Constables

  Total Male Ranks

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  3

  23

  29

  135

  411

  1,971

  2,573

  Bedfordshire

  1

  2

  12

  9

  52

  124

  654

  854

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  2

  16

  10

  62

  182

  862

  1,135

  Cheshire

  1

  3

  13

  24

  95

  289

  1,241

  1,666

  Cleveland

  1

  1

  25

  1

  67

  180

  904

  1,179

  Cumbria

  1

  1

  9

  13

  44

  152

  664

  883

  Derbyshire

  1

  3

  17

  22

  87

  249

  1,179

  1,558

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  1

  30

  33

  130

  385

  1,865

  2,447

  Dorset

  0

  2

  14

  20

  54

  186

  846

  1,122

  Durham

  1

  2

  18

  19

  74

  199

  981

  1,294

  Essex

  1

  3

  23

  40

  122

  402

  1,861

  2,452

  Gloucestershire

  1

  2

  11

  14

  55

  154

  701

  937

  Greater Manchester

  1

  6

  72

  72

  315

  819

  4,446

  5,731

  Hampshire

  1

  3

  34

  35

  157

  479

  2,121

  2,830

  Hertfordshire

  1

  3

  19

  26

  89

  225

  1,118

  1,480

  Humberside

  1

  2

  23

  21

  101

  252

  1,243

  1,643

  Kent

  1

  4

  29

  33

  139

  432

  2,069

  2,707

  Lancashire

  0

  2

  28

  37

  150

  467

  2,019

  2,702

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  15

  18

  87

  239

  1,365

  1,726

  Lincolnshire

  1

  2

  9

  15

  61

  169

  751

  1,008

  London, City of3

  1

  2

  9

  12

  48

  100

  433

  605

  Merseyside

  1

  3

  39

  54

  154

  528

  2,645

  3,424

  Metropolitan Police2,3

  6

  23

  205

  355

  1,174

  3,669

  15,927

  21,359

  Norfolk

  1

  3

  14

  15

  76

  191

  902

  1,202

  Northamptonshire

  1

  2

  13

  7

  55

  148

  741

  967

  Northumbria

  1

  4

  35

  52

  169

  498

  2,486

  3,245

  North Yorkshire

  1

  3

  12

  13

  62

  206

  869

  1,166

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  3

  21

  24

  116

  323

  1,411

  1,899

  South Yorkshire

  1

  4

  35

  46

  168

  430

  1,919

  2,603

  Staffordshire

  1

  3

  18

  23

  92

  313

  1,265

  1,715

  Suffolk

  1

  I

  12

  14

  50

  151

  717

  946

  Surrey

  1

  2

  15

  20

  74

  248

  1,280

  1,640

  1266W
  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Recorded violent crime1: number of offences from 1997 to 12 months ending March 2001

  Area

  1997

  1998–992

  1999–20002

  2000–012

  Preston2

  —

  —

  1,705

  1,695

  Blackburn with Darwen=

  —

  —

  1,423

  1,996

  Lancashire

  5,550

  12,183

  11,615

  13,870

  North West of England

  46,224

  87,033

  93,029

  95,940

  Wales

  20,071

  34,770

  40,580

  40,822

  England and Wales

  347,064

  605,797

  703,105

  733,374

  1 Violent crime is comprised of violence against the person, sexual offences, and robbery.

  2 Year ending March.

  3 These figures are at Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level.

  —No data available.

  Police Numbers
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a breakdown of police officers by gender and rank for each police force in England and Wales. [40511]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested was published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin No. 23/01, "Police Service Strength, England and Wales, 30 September 2001" and can be found in Table 3. A copy of the Bulletin is in the Library.
  1267W

  Table 3: Police Officer Strength as at 30 September 2001 by police force area, rank and gender, and officers per 100,000 population

  England and Wales

  Full time equivalents1

  Male Ranks

  Police force

  Chief Constables

  Assistant Chief Constables

  Superintendents

  Chief Inspectors

  Inspectors

  Sergeants

  Constables

  Total Male Ranks

  Sussex

  0

  4

  29

  38

  145

  411

  1,707

  2,334

  Thames Valley

  1

  2

  46

  34

  179

  473

  2,320

  3,054

  Warwickshire

  1

  3

  13

  11

  42

  109

  602

  781

  West Mercia

  1

  2

  13

  29

  84

  279

  1,242

  1,649

  West Midlands

  1

  3

  58

  40

  257

  922

  4,484

  5,765

  West Yorkshire

  1

  5

  49

  59

  225

  590

  3,052

  3,981

  Wiltshire

  0

  2

  14

  15

  54

  160

  682

  927

  Dyfed-Powys

  1

  2

  12

  19

  49

  166

  681

  930

  Gwent

  1

  2

  10

  15

  55

  196

  818

  1,097

  North Wales

  1

  2

  13

  28

  67

  218

  914

  1,243

  South Wales

  1

  4

  26

  35

  151

  401

  2,095

  2,713

  Total of all 43 forces

  44

  134

  1,151

  1,449

  5,621

  16,722

  78,047

  103,169

  NCS

  1

  2

  18

  28

  80

  182

  767

  1,078

  NCIS

  1

  3

  5

  24

  26

  59

  128

  246

  Other Secondments4

  0

  7

  71

  49

  83

  133

  301

  644

  Total

  2

  12

  94

  101

  189

  374

  1,196

  1,968

  Total police officer strength

  46

  146

  1,245

  1,550

  5,810

  17,096

  79,243

  105,137

  Female Ranks

  Police force

  Chief Constables

  Assistant Chief Constables

  Superintendents

  Chief Inspectors

  Inspectors

  Sergeants

  Constables

  Total Male Ranks

  Avon and Somerset

  0

  0

  1

  6

  9

  34

  418

  468

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  3

  2

  5

  12

  174

  196

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  17

  194

  215

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  3

  1

  8

  37

  306

  355

  Cleveland

  0

  1

  0

  1

  5

  16

  233

  256

  Cumbria

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  11

  177

  191

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  3

  2

  1

  22

  266

  293

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  0

  1

  1

  11

  43

  469

  525

  Dorset

  1

  0

  0

  2

  5

  19

  212

  239

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  1

  7

  18

  281

  306

  Essex

  0

  0

  y

  3

  8

  45

  427

  486

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  18

  210

  231

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  4

  14

  31

  116

  1,141

  1,306

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  1

  4

  12

  78

  523

  618

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  1

  2

  11

  33

  316

  363

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  1

  8

  16

  323

  348

  Kent

  0

  0

  1

  7

  9

  56

  587

  666

  Lancashire

  1

  1

  3

  4

  15

  50

  511

  585

  Leicestershire

  0

  1

  2

  2

  3

  22

  306

  336

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  18

  154

  176

  London, City of3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  7

  83

  94

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  3

  3

  21

  64

  580

  671

  Metropolitan Police2–3

  0

  4

  13

  22

  71

  411

  3,495

  4,016

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  1

  3

  3

  23

  205

  234

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  18

  193

  213

  Northumbria

  0

  0

  4

  2

  12

  41

  590

  648

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  17

  204

  224

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  4

  4

  26

  340

  374

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  4

  1

  14

  68

  534

  620

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  1

  2

  5

  29

  367

  404

  Suffolk

  o

  1

  1

  1

  5

  12

  180

  199

  Surrey

  0

  0

  t

  2

  8

  45

  321

  378

  Sussex

  1

  0

  2

  3

  14

  54

  429

  503

  Thames Valley

  0

  2

  3

  4

  17

  62

  566

  654

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  5

  140

  149

  West Mercia

  0

  1

  3

  1

  10

  25

  305

  345

  West Midlands

  0

  1

  3

  5

  27

  129

  1,502

  1,667

  1268W 1269W

  Female Ranks

  Police force

  Chief Constables

  Assistant Chief Constables

  Superintendents

  Chief Inspectors

  Inspectors

  Sergeants

  Constables

  Total Male Ranks

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  4

  3

  17

  68

  786

  878

  Wiltshire

  1

  0

  1

  1

  3

  17

  203

  225

  Dyfed-Powys

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  17

  150

  168

  Gwent

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  10

  191

  207

  North Wales

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  23

  223

  248

  South Wales

  0

  0

  2

  2

  11

  38

  475

  528

  Total of all 43 forces

  4

  13

  78

  117

  413

  1,885

  19,289

  21,800

  NCS

  0

  0

  1

  3

  7

  17

  101

  129

  NCIS

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  21

  25

  Other Secondments4

  0

  0

  2

  7

  14

  27

  90

  139

  Total

  0

  0

  3

  10

  22

  47

  212

  294

  Total police officer strength

  4

  13

  81

  127

  435

  1,932

  19,502

  22,094

  Police Force

  Total Police Ranks

  Total officers per 100,000 population

  Total Constables

  Constables per 100,000 population

  Avon and Somerset

  3,040

  201.1

  2,389

  158.0

  Bedfordshire

  1,050

  185.6

  828

  146.4

  Cambridgeshire

  1,350

  184.8

  1,056

  144.7

  Cheshire

  2,021

  205.3

  1,547

  157.1

  Cleveland

  1,434

  257.6

  1,136

  204.1

  Cumbria

  1,075

  218.8

  840

  171.1

  Derbyshire

  1,851

  189.3

  1,445

  147.8

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,972

  187.3

  2,334

  147.1

  Dorset

  1,360

  194.8

  1,057

  151.4

  Durham

  1,600

  263.8

  1,262

  208.0

  Essex

  2,937

  180.3

  2,287

  140.4

  Gloucestershire

  1,169

  206.9

  911

  161.3

  Greater Manchester

  7,036

  272.1

  5,586

  216.0

  Hampshire

  3,449

  193.1

  2,644

  148.0

  Hertfordshire

  1,843

  175.4

  1,434

  136.5

  Humberside

  1,991

  226.0

  1,566

  177.8

  Kent

  3,367

  210.7

  2,656

  166.2

  Lancashire

  3,288

  230.0

  2,529

  176.9

  Leicestershire

  2,062

  219.6

  1,671

  178.0

  Lincolnshire

  1,184

  186.7

  905

  142.6

  London, City of3

  699

  —

  517

  —

  Merseyside

  4,095

  291.8

  3,225

  229.8

  Metropolitan Police2,3

  25,374

  353.5

  19,422

  270.4

  Norfolk

  1,436

  178.6

  1,107

  137.6

  Northamptonshire

  1,180

  188.5

  935

  149.3

  Northumbria

  3,893

  275.3

  3,075

  217.5

  North Yorkshire

  1,390

  184.3

  1,072

  142.2

  Nottinghamshire

  2,273

  220.4

  1,751

  169.8

  South Yorkshire

  3,223

  247.6

  2,453

  188.4

  Staffordshire

  2,119

  199.9

  1,632

  154.0

  Suffolk

  1,146

  168.5

  897

  132.0

  Surrey

  2,018

  186.7

  1,601

  148.1

  Sussex

  2,837

  186.3

  2,136

  140.3

  Thames Valley

  3,708

  174.3

  2,886

  135.6

  Warwickshire

  930

  182.3

  741

  145.4

  West Mercia

  1,994

  173.9

  1,546

  134.8

  West Midlands

  7,432

  283.8

  5,986

  228.6

  West Yorkshire

  4,859

  229.0

  3,838

  180.9

  Wiltshire

  1,152

  187.8

  885

  144.2

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,098

  227.5

  832

  172.3

  Gwent

  1,303

  233.9

  1,009

  181.0

  North Wales

  1,491

  225.8

  1,137

  172.2

  South Wales

  3,241

  260.2

  2,571

  206.3

  Total of all 43 forces

  124,969

  236.0

  97,337

  183.9

  NCS

  1,207

  868

  NCIS

  271

  149

  Other Secondments4

  783

  391

  Total

  2,261

  1,408

  Total police officer strength

  127,231

  240.3

  100,153

  182.4

  1 This and other tables contain full-time equivalent figures that have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Because of rounding, there may be an apparent discrepancy between totals and the sums of the constituent items.

  2 The Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners are counted as Chief Constables.

  3 Officers per 100,000 population for City of London and Metropolitan Police are combined.

  4 Secondments to Central Services and Inter-Force Units.

  External Consultants
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations have won new contracts with(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies in each year of the past five years; [38741]

  (2) which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations which previously held contracts with his Department (a) won new contracts at the culmination of the existing contracts and (b) won new contracts after a period of inactivity with his Department in each of the past five years; [38742]

  (3) if he will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by his Department from (a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date, indicating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [38743]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]The Home Department is unable to provide the level of detailed information sought on contracts and contract costs. Records are not held centrally and to collate and maintain a central register of contracts awarded across the Home Office and its Agencies would incur disproportionate costs.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Car Auctions
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the statutory regulations that are in place to ensure that a minor cannot purchase a vehicle at a car auction; and what plans he has to review these regulations. [36402]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no statutory regulations preventing a minor from purchasing a motor vehicle at auction although many auctioneers prevent minors from attending.

  Motor vehicles may be driven on private property by minors. Any vehicle driven on the road must be done so by the holder of an appropriate driving licence. The minimum age to drive a motor car is 17 years. Sixteen year olds are permitted to drive mopeds.

  In addition, legislation requires a vehicle to be properly licensed and registered. The annual licensing process incorporates a documentary check of a person's insurance cover and, where appropriate, the roadworthiness certificate also.

  Technical Support Contracts (Rail Safety)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the(a) title, (b) date of award, (c) length of contract, (d) cost, and (e) terms of reference of technical support framework agreements and research or other contracts awarded since (i) 1 May 1997 and (ii) 1 January 2001 by the Health and Safety Executive
  1272W
  relating to support of the work of the HMRI on (A) railway safety cases and (B) rail accident investigation. [38972]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information provided by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on their technical support and research contracts relating to railway safety cases and rail accident investigation has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Information about technical support contracts before January 2001 can only be provided at disproportionate costs.

  Rail Delays
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason(a) his Department and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority do not (i) hold centrally, (ii) collate, (iii) make publicly available and (iv) place in the Library the total weekly rail delays, in minutes, caused by (A) Railtrack and (B) train operating companies as held by Railtrack. [40273]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on train delays, week by week, is collected and managed by Railtrack and currently shared, as a commercial and operational matter, with the train operating companies. The SRA publishes the Public Performance Measure (PPM) which directly reports on the punctuality and reliability of trains.

  Rail Services (South-West)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will investigate the rail franchise situation in the South West and Wessex in order to seek to clarify the operating strategy; [41144]

  (2) if he will list the bidders for rail franchises in the South West and Wessex areas. [41472]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As part of its revised franchising programme, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) announced that it would be looking at the longer term benefits of combining franchises, in particular where two or more operators share access to a London terminal. Accordingly, it is considering combining the Great Western and Thames franchises in 2006. The SRA launched a consultation on its proposals, and the future of the Wessex franchise, on 12 March.

  The SRA has signed Heads of Terms with Stagecoach for a new South West Trains franchise of up to 20 years.

  Train Operating Companies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) which train operating companies have failed to fulfil their contractual commitments related to action plans; and what steps the Strategic Rail Authority has taken as a consequence; [40953]

  (2) which train operating companies have failed to fulfil their contractual commitments related to action plans; and what steps the Strategic Rail Authority has taken as a consequence. [40958]
  1273W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Failure to meet contractual commitments is a potential breach of the train operator's franchise agreement. All breaches of franchise agreements, and the remedial action taken, are listed in the Strategic Rail Authority's Annual Reports, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many new train sets have been ordered by train operating companies in England and Wales in(a) the last year and (b) the last three months. [41299]

  Mr. Spellar
  Between 1 March 2001 and 28 February 2002, orders were placed for 1,267 new vehicles for entry into revenue passenger services across the National Rail network. 143 of these have been ordered since 1 December 2001.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many train operating companies have less than two years of their franchise left. [41303]

  Mr. Spellar
  Five.

  Rolling Stock
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many new rolling stock vehicles(a) were ordered and (b) entered service on Britain's railways between 25 February 1999 and 31 December 2001; and if he will state the proportion of rolling stock that were new or refurbished as of (i) 25 February 1999, (ii) 31 December 2001 and (iii) the latest available date. [40961]

  Mr. Jamieson
  1,352 new vehicles were ordered between 25 February 1999 and 31 December 2001. 1,045 new vehicles entered service between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2001. Information on rolling stock refurbishments is not held centrally.

  Rail Summit (Targets)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the SRA reviews the delivery by train operating companies and other industry bodies of the commitments agreed to at the 1999 National Rail Summit. [41244]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Many of the issues arising from the National Rail Summits are now being taken forward through the Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan.

  Train Drivers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 814W, on driver training, how many of those new drivers that have been recruited, but are not being trained, are (a) working in the industry and (b) due to begin training; and how many drivers have subsequently left the industry over the same period. [41332]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is not available in the form requested. As of 5 January 2002, 10,542 drivers were working in the industry.

  London Underground
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what independent assessment he has carried out into the assumptions made by London Underground for the PPP business case. [41684]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Croydon Central (Geraint Davies), on 7 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1103–04W.

  Great Western Mainline
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason the Great Western Mainline was excluded from the SRA Strategic Plan. [41758]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Great Western Main Line is not excluded from the Plan. Proposed incremental improvements are set out on page 67. The SRA's approach to major infrastructure improvements, including relative priorities, is set out in section 5 of the Plan.

  Main Line Trains
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the ability of main line trains to operate on the sub-surface lines in London. [41746]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Studies were undertaken by both Railtrack and London Underground Limited in 1999 when they were discussing Railtrack's proposals for the sub-surface infrastructure company under the PPP. It was concluded that: such a proposal would provide no additional net capacity; it would give rise to substantial costs in restructuring infrastructure and rewriting contracts; and, the interworking of mainline and existing tube rolling stock would give rise to technical and operational difficulties. Railtrack's proposals were subsequently abandoned.

  Railway Electrification
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many miles of railway have been electrified in each of the past 15 years. [41764]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of electrified route kilometres open for traffic at the end of each year is as follows:

  Year

  Electrified route kilometres

  1986–87

  4,154

  1987–88

  4,207

  1988–89

  4,376

  1989–90

  4,546

  1990–91

  4,912

  1991–92

  4,886

  1992–93

  4,910

  1993–94

  4,968

  1994–95

  4,970

  1995–96

  5,163

  1996–97

  5,176

  1997–98

  5,166

  1275W

  Year

  Electrified route kilometres

  1998–99

  5,166

  1999–2000

  5,167

  2000–01

  5,167

  Greater Manchester Upgrade
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions why the upgrade in Greater Manchester has been excluded from the SRA Strategic Plan. [41760]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Page 98 of the Plan states:
  "The SRA, in partnership with Railtrack, GMPTE, Manchester International Airport and the Highways Agency, has completed the Greater Manchester Strategic Rail Study, which sets out a strategy for the development of the rail network in Greater Manchester over the next 20 years. The first key building block, the creation of a TransPennine Express franchise, is currently underway. The partners in the study are now considering how best to take forward longer term options."

  Railway Overcrowding
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how the Government's target for reducing overcrowding on the railways has changed since the publication of the 10-year plan. [41661]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The overcrowding target has not changed since the publication of the 10-year plan.

  Crossrail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason Crossrail was(a) included in the 10-year plan and (b) excluded from the SRA Strategic Plan. [41761]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A Crossrail link was included in the Government's 10-year plan given its potential for delivering increased peak capacity into London.

  Crossrail is also identified in the SRA's Strategic Plan as one of the major rail projects which are currently under development. Options for taking Crossrail forward are being developed by the SRA/Transport for London joint venture Cross London Rail Links Ltd.

  Public-Private Partnership
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in how many PPP agreements an accounting allowance for social cost benefit similar to that used by London Underground has been made. [41683]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The relevant guidance from the Office of Government Commerce and Her Majesty's Treasury explain that, where appropriate, the factors captured by this allowance should be allowed for when evaluating the value for money of PPP-type schemes.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what 1276W
  the estimated level of capital investment by NATS is for (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and what the figures were in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1999–2000. [41296]

  Mr. Spellar
  The level of capital investment by NATS for 2001–02 is £72.8 million and is estimated at £90.7 million for 2002–03. The figures for 1996–97 and 1999–00 are £56.5 million and £52.0 million respectively.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the anticipated investment by NATS over the next 10 years will come from the public sector. [41294]

  Mr. Spellar
  NATS' investment over the next decade will be in excess of £1 billion, all of which will be financed by the private sector. I also refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 807W.

  Rail Freight
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to increase the gauge of railways to take the larger piggyback containers. [41342]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no current plans. The Strategic Rail Authority's preliminary studies suggest that the cost of enhancement of rail freight routes to permit the passage of lorry semi-trailers on flat railway wagons would not represent value for money.

  Channel Tunnel Restrictions
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with the French Government regarding the SNCF Channel Tunnel restrictions. [42734]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers across Government are in frequent contact with the French authorities to press for urgent action to tackle the disruption to Channel Tunnel rail freight.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what impact the SNCF Channel Tunnel restrictions are having on congestion on United Kingdom roads. [42735]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the light of continued disruption to cross channel rail freight operations, more goods may have to be transported by road, so it is likely that road freight movements will marginally increase. There is no evidence to date that this is having any significant impact on congestion on UK roads.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what impact the SNCF Channel Tunnel restrictions are having on the United Kingdom economy. [42736]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government recognise that the disruption caused by would-be illegal immigrants is causing severe hardship to many businesses in this country who depend on reliable freight services through the Channel Tunnel.
  1277W
  We are pressing the French Government at the highest levels to ensure that sufficient policing resources are applied to address the problem so that normal freight services can resume as soon as possible.

  Motor Vehicles
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 6 March 2002, ref. 40023, on motor vehicles, if data are available for the Drylaw, Inch and Mayfield wards. [42768]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Motor vehicle data for Drylaw, Inch and Mayfield wards are available under the pre-1996 definition of Scottish wards only. The number of motor vehicles registered to keepers with addresses in the wards is shown in the table. The totals include vehicles registered to companies and other entities as well as to individuals. The volume data are for December 2000.

  Electoral Ward

  Number of Motor Vehicles

  Drylaw

  2,732

  Inch

  2,467

  Mayfield

  3,067

  Road Accidents (Fire Service)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what is the average response time for the fire services to reach an accident on(a) a motorway and (b) an A-road, in each of the last three years; [42782]

  (2) what the average length of time was which it took the fire services to complete all their official duties at an accident site on (a) an A-road and (b) a motorway in each of the last three years. [42784]

  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what duties the fire services have to carry out before an accident site can be cleared from (a) an A-road and(b) a motorway. [42783]

  Mr. Byers
  Under section 1(1) of the Fire Services Act 1947, it is the duty of the fire authority to make provision for fire-fighting purposes and, in particular, to secure for its area the services of a fire brigade and equipment to meet efficiently all normal requirements. Fire-fighting purposes is defined in the Act as "the purposes of the extinction of fires and the protection of life and property in case of fire". Under section 3(1)(e) of the Act the authority also has the power to use its brigade and equipment for purposes other than fire-fighting (which are commonly known as "special services"). Brigades attend road traffic accidents primarily for firefighting and rescue purposes. Operational procedures for dealing with road accidents are matters for fire authorities to determine locally in consultation with the relevant police authority.

  Press Office
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when Ian Jones was first informed of his suspension on full pay. [41995]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]Monday 4 March 2002.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposal to build a freight railway by Central Railway Ltd. [43086]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]I have written to the Chairman of Central Railway informing him of my response to his request for support for a hybrid Bill as a means of authorising the company's proposed freight railway.

  The Government have made clear that we are committed to rail freight growth as a key element of sustainable distribution. To that end we will wish to support, in principle, projects that offer value for money in both the economic and environmental benefits they can bring to the country.

  In considering Central Railway's request for early Government support for a Bill to promote its own project, I have taken into account a number of factors and listened to representations from many interested parties. In our view there is not enough evidence at the moment to enable the Government to support a hybrid Bill for Central Railway's project.

  With the help of consultants and with the co-operation of Central Railway, the SRA will therefore carry out a further detailed assessment in order to test key remaining areas of the proposals. This is an essential piece of work if the Government are to be able to take an informed decision about Central Railway's hybrid Bill. The SRA anticipates that work to be completed by September.

  Cleaner Vehicles Task Force
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish an updated Government response to the recommendations from the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force. [43879]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have today published an updated response detailing the actions that Government has taken in the last 12 months to advance the recommendations of the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force and to accelerate the take up of cleaner fuels and cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Copies have been placed in the Libraries in the House.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was of hotel
  1279W
  accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41054]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information is set out for the last three financial years, prior to that, the service was undertaken by a different provider and records are not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Financial year

  Spend £

  1998–99

  823,567

  1999–2000

  1,020,420

  2000–01

  1,223,926

  Unauthorised Absences
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many unauthorised absences there were in(a) state primary schools and (b) state secondary schools, broken down by each local education authority in England for each year since 1997. [42225]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number of half days missed due to unauthorised absences in(a) maintained primary schools and (b) maintained secondary schools by each local education authority in England since 1997 are shown in the table, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the contracts agreed by her Department with the five largest accountancy firms since May 1997; and what was the total value of contracts with each. [42099]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Appointments
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many appointments to public bodies have been made through her Department(a) from April 2000 to March 2001 and (b) since 31 March 2001; and how many of these were (i) men and (ii) women. [42160]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]The numbers of men and women appointed or re-appointed to non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the former Department for Education and Employment and this Department during the periods in question are as follows:

  Men

  Women

  April 2000 to March 2001

  86

  37

  April 2001 to March 2002

  16

  2

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many members her Department employs in its Regulatory Impact Unit; and if she will make a statement. [42936]
  1280W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department employs one full-time member of staff in its Regulatory Impact Unit, with line management support when necessary.

  It is the job of the Departmental Regulatory Impact Unit to establish and promote the principles of good regulation in the Department. The Unit works closely with the officials responsible for developing policies in the Department and the Regulatory Impact Unit within the Cabinet Office. It focuses on those regulations that impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector.

  In addition there are 11 members of staff who working in the Small Business Service on better regulation for small business across Government.

  Specialist Teachers
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many shortage-subject specialist teachers in primary schools were(a) PGCE primary trained and (b) PGCE secondary trained. [43418]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Standards Fund
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 27 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1293–96W, on the Standards Fund, what factors account for the difference between the allocations for the Standards Fund per pupil for Poole, Bournemouth and Dorset. [43567]

  Mr. Timms
  The Standards Fund is not allocated on a simple per pupil basis, but in relation to the specific priorities it is designed to support in each local education authority. Significant variances in the per pupil figures for Standards Fund are due to: grants where one authority is acting as a co-ordinator for others in its area; or grants allocated to particular types of school; and grants that are allocated to respond to needs, which may not be reflected equally in all authorities. The per pupil figure for each of these types of grants for Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth are shown in the following table:

  Main differences in Standards Fund per pupil

  Grant

  Dorset £ per pupil

  Poole £ per pupil

  Bournemouth £ per pupil

  Regional coordination

  LEA Music Services

  6

  0

  0

  Child Protection Co-ordinators

  0

  0

  2

  Allocated by specific types of school

  Specialist Schools

  18

  8

  17

  Small Schools Fund

  17

  2

  2

  Specific needs based initiatives

  Induction of Newly

  Qualified Teachers

  7

  11

  6

  Reducing Infant Class Sizes

  42

  21

  94

  Fresh Start

  0

  0

  110

  1281W

  Main differences in Standards Fund per pupil

  Grant

  Dorset £ per pupil

  Poole £ per pupil

  Bournemouth £ per pupil

  Information Management Strategy

  5

  3

  0

  Classrooms of the Future

  6

  3

  28

  School Laboratories

  4

  4

  0

  Total

  104

  54

  260

  For other Standards Fund grants the total per pupil distribution is: £244, £251 and £247 for Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth respectively. The smaller differences are due to variances in the level of free school meal eligibility and the balance between primary and secondary pupils.

  School Admissions (Racial Equality)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she will make available to schools on the implementation of Commission for Racial Equality guidance that admissions should reflect the ethnic make-up of the community. [43832]

  Mr. Timms
  The Commission for Racial Equality will be issuing guidance to schools on how to comply with the general and specific duties as set out in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of(a) which schools or categories of school are exempt from the Commission for Racial Equality guidance that school admissions should reflect the ethnic make-up of the community and (b) how the CRE guidance should be interpreted by admissions forums. [43831]

  Mr. Timms
  The guidance issued by the Commission for Racial Equality will apply to all maintained schools. It is the responsibility of individual admission authorities to ensure that their policies comply with all legislation, including the Race Relations Acts. Admission forums are advisory bodies and do not decide school admissions policies.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Accountancy Contracts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [34997]

  Dr. Howells
  The following contracts are those awarded over the stated time period:

  Date

  £

  Deloitte Touche

  March 1999

  227,000

  KPMG

  March 1999

  23,000

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  November 1999

  67,000

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  March 2000

  56,000

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  May 2001

  22,000

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  July 2001

  96,000

  1282W
  Deloitte Touche is one of five companies who have framework agreements with DCMS for consultancy support to Quinquennial Reviews of DCMS funded bodies. These are not contracts as such, as any review work would be competed between the five companies and lead to an individual contract. Use of the framework agreements resolves some contractual issues and simplifies the tendering process. To date Deloitte Touche have not won any of the competitively tendered contracts under their agreement. The work awarded to the companies has, in the majority of cases, been research or consultancy work rather than accountancy.

  Press Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff in his Department's press office have received(a) termination and (b) redundancy payments in each of the last four years. [41090]

  Dr. Howells
  None of my Department's press office staff have received termination or redundancy payments in the last four years.

  Design Champions
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will list the composition of the Ministerial Design Champions Group; and if she will make a statement; [41957]

  (2) if she will publish the terms of reference of the Ministerial Design Champions Group and its status in Government; and if she will make a statement. [41956]

  Dr. Howells
  The Ministerial Design Champions Group is an inter-departmental working group of Ministers chaired by my noble Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton on behalf of the Prime Minister. It comprises: Lord Falconer—Chair (DTLR; Baroness Blackstone (DCMS); Angela Eagle (Home Office); Elliot Morley (DEFRA); Brian Wilson (DTI); Malcolm Wicks (DWP); Andrew Smith (HM Treasury); Dr. Lewis Moonie (MOD); Baroness Ashton (DIES); Michael Wills (LCD); Lord Hunt (DOH); Denis MacShane (FCO); Chris Leslie (Cabinet Office), Mike Watson MSP (Scotland); Sue Essex AM (Wales); Dr. Sean Farren (NI); Sir Stuart Lipton (CABE).

  Each Ministerial Design Champion is expected to:

  (i) maintain a clear understanding of the extent and content of his/her Department's capital programme, including buildings and infrastructure; and the design implications of that programme in relation to the Government's wider objectives such as promotion of health, prevention of crime, urban regeneration and improvement of the environment;

  (ii) personally sponsor at least two projects within his/her Departmental remit in order to ensure his/her understanding of the issues and to drive home the message by example to other project sponsors and programme managers;

  (iii) oversee a departmental action plan to improve design quality across his/her department and sponsored bodies, ensuring that procedures encourage the

  1283W
  achievement of high design quality and that sufficient resources are allocated to the production of the plan and the delivery of its conclusions;

  (iv) encourage a commitment to Better Public Buildings by all Ministers, officials and others who have influence over building works under his/her Department's authority; and

  (v) ensure that high quality design is part of an efficient and effective procurement process, under HM Treasury's Achieving Excellence initiative and DETR's Rethinking Construction initiative.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when the Ministerial Design Champions Group will next meet; and if she will make a statement; [41959]

  (2) when the Ministerial Design Champions Group last met; and if she will make a statement. [41954]

  Dr. Howells
  The Ministerial Design Champions Group last met on 17 January 2002; it will next meet on 22 May 2002.

  Public Appointments
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many appointments to public bodies have been made through her Department(a) from April 2000 to March 2001 and (b) since 31 March 2001; and how many of these were (i) men and (ii) women. [42162]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]The number of men and women appointed, or re-appointed, by Ministers in this Department to bodies sponsored by this Department during the periods in question is as follows:

  Period

  Men Appointed

  Women appointed

  1.4.00–31.3.01

  101

  52

  1.4.01–28.2.02

  102

  53

  This includes appointments to bodies sponsored by my Department where my role is to advise on appointments made by the Prime Minister or, through him, by Her Majesty The Queen. It does not include appointments made to former Home Office public bodies before the Machinery of Government changes in June 2001.

  National Gallery/National Portrait Gallery
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on the joint review of the National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery. [44336]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts has today published the second stage report of the joint review of the National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery.
  1284W
  The report underlines the value of both galleries and the contribution they make to this country's cultural life. Both galleries have achieved a great deal in the last few years and have risen to the challenges set by government and themselves.

  The report also finds the need for a closer, more strategic relationship between the galleries and the Department.

  A copy of the report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Solicitors
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints his Department has received about the conduct and quality of solicitors' performance in each of the last 10 years. [42176]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Complaints made to the Lord Chancellor's Department about solicitors can come up in many different contexts and no information is kept centrally about the number that relate to quality, conduct or any other matters. Concerns raised in correspondence are monitored. The Lord Chancellor's Department is not responsible for handling formal complaints against solicitors. This is the responsibility of the Law Society and its complaints-handling wing, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he is taking to measure the performance of and quality of service offered by solicitors. [42175]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The legal profession is self-regulating. The conduct of solicitors is a matter for their professional body, the Law Society. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) is a separate organisation, set up by the Law Society, to handle complaints against its solicitors.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department Ministers, among others, are sent the OSS monthly digest of performance.

  The OSS is subject to independent scrutiny by the Legal Services Ombudsman, Ms Ann Abraham. The Ombudsman, who is a lay person, may consider complaints about the decisions reached by the OSS and also has the power to investigate the original complaint. The Ombudsman is required to make an annual report to the Lord Chancellor on the discharge of her functions during the year to which the report relates. In her report the Ombudsman will also bring to the attention of the Lord Chancellor any wider concerns she has about the nature and level of complaints against members of the legal profession. A copy of this report is laid before each House of Parliament.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Broxbourne of 4 September, 5 October, 2 November and 29 November relating to correspondence from the East Anglian Region of the National Farmers Union. [20954]

  (2) when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 4 September, 5 October, 2 November, 29 November 2001 and 2 January 2002 relating to correspondence from the East Anglian region of the National Farmers Union. [26354]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answers 6 December 2001 and 14 January 2002]A reply was sent on 10 January to the hon. Member.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Environment Council on 4 March; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [40946]

  Margaret Beckett
  I represented the UK at Environment Council on 4 March, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, and the Minister for the Environment in the Welsh Assembly Government, Sue Essex. This was the first Environment Council of the Spanish Presidency. A Council decision on ratification of the Kyoto Protocol was agreed; the UK voted in favour. Four sets of Council Conclusions were adopted. Council also held a public debate exploring key aspects of a recently adopted Commission proposal for a directive establishing a regime for environmental liability.

  The agreement of the Council decision on ratification of the Kyoto Protocol will enable the Community and member states to ratify the Protocol in time for it to enter into force before the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in August, subject to sufficient ratifications by other signatories. A legal base requiring a qualified majority (Article 175(1) of the Treaty) was agreed for the decision; at the UK's request a recital was added making clear that the legal base chosen for this decision should not be taken as a precedent for future decisions on burden-sharing. A declaration was also agreed noting Council's intention to agree future burden-sharing decisions by consensus. Council also adopted Conclusions reacting to the US climate change plan. These included a call upon Parties to the UN framework Convention on Climate Change—including the US—to live up to their responsibilities under the Convention, and a confirmation of the EU's willingness to continue dialogue through the EU-US High Level Group.

  In preparation for WSSD, Council Conclusions were adopted setting out the EU's priorities including poverty eradication, access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and ways of giving special attention to Africa. Council reaffirmed the Gothenburg
  1286W
  commitment to reach the UN target for official development assistance of 0.7 per cent of GDP and called for integration of sustainable development in bilateral and multilateral co-operation agreements. Council welcomed the Commission communication "Towards a Global Partnership for Sustainable Development" and its proposals for the components of a Global Deal at the Summit. The Conclusions identified EU actions in the run up to Johannesburg and beyond including the early ratification of several international environmental agreements. The Conclusions also stressed the need for integration and coherence of internal and external policies to ensure that the EU's economic, social and environmental objectives were mutually supportive and that the EU effectively contributed to sustainable development at all levels. The global dimension should be regularly addressed as part of the overall Sustainable Development package at Spring meetings of the European Council.

  Council also agreed Conclusions on the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, to be submitted to the Barcelona European Council. The Conclusions took note of the Commission's synthesis report for 2002 and stressed the need to reflect environmental issues more extensively and to treat the three dimensions of sustainable development in a more balanced way. Council called on the Commission to put in place a system of Sustainability Impact Assessment as soon as possible and emphasised the importance of the EU becoming a highly eco-efficient economy.

  Council Conclusions were adopted setting out the EU negotiating position for the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, taking place in the Hague between 7–19 April. The Conclusions stressed the need for early ratification by the Community and member states of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the International Treaty on Plan Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Council also supported the preparation of an action plan for capacity-building for access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing. The Conclusions also called for increased co-ordination between international organisations and conventions, including the World Intellectual Property Organisation Inter-Governmental Committee, and the United Nations Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

  In the public debate on the proposed environmental liability regime, principal concerns expressed by other member states were the generous extent of the defences available to polluters, the potential burden on member states if polluters failed to act, and the scope of the directive. Several member states thought that there was a need to consider whether there was a gap in the proposed regime concerning damage caused by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Beyond this, member states were evenly divided on whether the scope should be extended and on the need for a common framework for insurance. I underlined the complex nature of the proposal and the need to take on board the views of stakeholders. I argued that we would need careful examination of the associated costs and benefits of any proposed change to its scope, the defences or insurance arrangements.
  1287W
  The Spanish Presidency gave progress reports on a proposed directive establishing a Community greenhouse gas trading scheme; amendments to Directive 94/62/EC, concerning recycling and recovery targets for packaging and packaging waste; and amendments to Directive 96/82/EC, on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (SEVESO II). The Commission presented proposals allowing Community implementation and ratification of the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety. The Commission also updated Council on progress on chemicals legislation, a proposed directive on recycling of batteries and accumulators, and a proposed White Paper on integrated product policy.

  Under Any Other Business, Spain reported on the outcome of a recent seminar considering the incorporation of gender perspectives into EU environmental policy-making. Austria reported on an international conference held in November 2001 on the role of the precautionary principle in chemicals policy. Germany invited Ministers to consider the environmental implications of the proposed airport noise directive currently under discussion in Transport Council. My right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Environment, noted that two recent studies had suggested a connection between transport and asthma in children. Contributory causes appeared to be ozone, particulates and nitrogen oxides. The Commission welcomed the dissemination of the research, and noted that it would shortly publish a Communication on children's health and the environment.

  Technetium-99
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Environment Agency's proposal in respect of technetium-99 discharges; what process she has established to consider representations on the proposal; and when she expects to take a decision in respect of the proposal. [40495]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]In 1998, in the light of international concern about discharges of technetium-99 from BNFL's Sellafield site, Ministers requested that the Agency carry out a review of discharges of this radionuclide on a "fast track". In February 2000, the Agency published its "Scope and Methodology Document", describing its plans for the re-examination of radioactive discharge authorisations at Sellafield, including technetium-99, and sought public comment. In November 2000 the Agency published its "Explanatory Document" setting out its analysis of the situation concerning technetium-99 discharges, abatement technologies and a range of future approaches that might be taken. Public consultation on this document finished on 5 March 2001. The Agency took into account the responses that it had received and, in September 2001, published its proposed decisions on the future regulation of technetium-99 discharges. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Health will give a decision on this shortly.

  Rural Work Force
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion 1288W
  of those employed in agriculture are classified as having another form of paid employment; and if she will make a statement. [42905]

  Mr. Boateng
  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 Malcolm Bruce, dated 15 March 2002

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the proportion of those employed in agriculture who have another form of paid employment. (42905)

  Of the 402,000 people shown by the Labour Force Survey to be employed in agriculture, 8 per cent had a job in another industrial sector also. The attached table shows details of the make up of this groups of people.

  Proportion of people employed in agriculture1 who have another job in a different industry; United Kingdom; autumn (September to November) 2001; not seasonally adjusted

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  All persons whose main job is in agriculture of which:

  383

  100.0

  those with a second job, in a different industry

  13

  3.3

  All persons with a second job in agriculuture of which:

  24

  100.0

  those whose main job is in a different industry Total employed in agriculture, either as their main or second

  420

  100.0

  job of which:

  those with another job, in a different industry

  32

  8.0

  1 People employed in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 1992 Division A: Agriculture, hunting and forestry.

  Source ONS Labour Force Survey

TREASURY

  Accountancy and Consultancy Costs
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost to his Department has been of services provided by(a) Arthur Andersen and (b) Accenture and Andersen Consulting for (i) accountancy services, (ii) consultancy work and (iii) other work in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [32103]

  Ruth Kelly
  The cost to the Treasury for consultancy services provided by Arthur Andersen was £80,000 in 2000 and £64,625 in 2001, and for Andersen Consulting £30,252 in 2000. Aside from inward secondees, no other services have been received from these firms in the last four years.

  Afghan Heroin
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what actions HM Customs and Excise are taking to increase the proportion of Afghan heroin seized; and how many tonnes of Afghan heroin have been seized by Customs and Excise in each of the past 10 years. [40389]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs work closely with other agencies in the UK and overseas to disrupt the supply of heroin to the UK market, the vast majority of which
  1289W
  originates in Afghanistan. Statistics relating to the annual amounts of heroin seized by Customs are published on a routine basis in their annual departmental reports, but these are not disaggregated by their country of origin.

  Running Costs (Government)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of the total running costs of central Government and their agencies for each year sine May 1997 to the latest date for which information is available. [40832]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]Table 5.1 of PESA 2001–02 (Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, Cm 5101) and similar tables in previous PESAs give outturn data department by department for administration costs (running costs before 2000–01) since 1986–87, the first year for which there is published data.

  Terrorism (Costs)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total direct and indirect cost to the UK of actions taken by the UK arising from the attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001. [41874]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Funds have been approved by Parliament in the normal way in Supplementary Estimates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave details of additional public spending arising from attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001 in his Pre-Budget Report Statement to Parliament on 27 November 2001.

  Gladwyn's Wood
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions his Department has had with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions concerning the future of Gladwyn's Wood, Denham, Buckinghamshire, with reference to its contiguity with Broadspring Wood, owned by the Highways Agency; [43783]

  (2) if Gladwyns Wood, Denham, Buckinghamshire, is now in the ownership of HM Customs and Excise; and what plans his Department has for the wood. [43781]

  Mr. Boateng
  None. Gladwyn Wood is not in the ownership of HM Customs and Excise.

  Approved Mileage Allowance Payments
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the entitlement of service company workers and others to tax relief and exemption under the Approved Mileage Allowance Payments scheme. [44415]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Draft legislation is being published today which will ensure that from 6 April 2002, people who work through intermediaries, such as service companies, and who fall within the "intermediaries legislation", will be entitled to the same relief and exemption under the new Approved Mileage Allowance Payments scheme as employees. Copies of the draft legislation are available in the Libraries of the House.

HEALTH

  Physiotherapy
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to improve physiotherapy services(a) in London and (b) in general. [39029]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan sets out targets to provide 6,500 more therapists and other health professionals and 4,450 more therapists and other key health professional training places by 2004. Further plans to increase the number of physiotherapists working in the NHS by 59 per cent., from 15,600 in 2000 to 24,800 in 2009, were announced in the follow-up document to the NHS Plan,Investment and reform for NHS staff—taking forward the NHS Plan, (published 15 February 2001).

  Between 1999 and 2001 the number of qualified physiotherapists in England increased by 1,140 (from 15,070 in 1999 to 16,210 in 2001). Of these the number working in the London regional office area increased by 90.

  Between 1999–2000 and 2000–01 the number of physiotherapy training commissions increased by 127 (9 per cent.) and further increases are planned.

  In September 2001, as signalled in Meeting the Challenge: A Strategy for the Allied Health Professions (AHPs), 10 Workforce Development Confederations (WDC's) began working with 13 Higher Education Institutions in a first wave of modernising pre-registration education and training for the allied health professions, starting with Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, Radiography, Podiatry and Speech & Language Therapy education. These first wave courses will be established from the 2002–03 academic year and will feature wider entry gates to professional training, more part-time courses, the possibility of stepping on and off programmes, and more opportunities for shared learning. Several HEIs in England offer accelerated pre-registration courses in physiotherapy for existing graduates.

  Individual health authorities are also responsible for assessing the broad health care needs of their population, and securing a range of hospital and community health services such as physiotherapy services to meet those needs. Decisions about the health care provision and the use of resources are best taken at local level because it is there that people's needs are best known and services can be tailored accordingly.

  Orthodontists (Mid Essex Hospital Trust)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) part-time and (b) full-time orthodontists there are in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area. [38355]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]There are fewer than five full or part-time orthodontists in the Mid Essex NHS Trust area. Exact figures cannot be provided as for data protection purposes national figures are collated on the basis that individuals will not be identified, and figures are sufficiently small to risk disclosure of information about an individual.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to increase the numbers of people training as pharmacists; and if he will make a statement; [41221]

  (2) what discussions he has had with companies about the training of pharmacists; and if he will make a statement. [41222]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]There has been a significant increase in pharmacy student intakes over recent years, with 27 per cent. more new students starting their training in 2000 than in 1993. This points to a significant medium-term growth in the pharmacy work force, despite the change to a 4-year undergraduate course in 1997. Full figures are not yet available from the Pharmaceutical Society for 2001 as returns are still awaited from two schools of pharmacy. Work force modelling undertaken by the Department suggests that there will be a 12 per cent. increase in the pharmacy work force across the National Health Service and private sector between 1998 and 2003.

  The Department has regular contact with a range of organisations with an interest in pharmacy, to discuss training issues.

  NHS Staff (Assaults)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures he uses to monitor the NHS zero tolerance campaign on assaults on NHS staff. [40802]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 March 2002]The National Health Service's zero tolerance zone campaign to tackle violence against NHS staff is monitored using data collected from all NHS trusts and health authorities to a common definition issued in Health Service Circular 1999/229: "Working Together, Securing a Quality Workforce for the NHS: Managing Violence, Accidents and Sickness Absence in the NHS", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Figures on reported violent incidents in 2000–01 are currently being analysed by the Department and will form the baseline for measuring progress against the Government's national improvement targets.

  Radiographers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list vacancy rates and full role calculations for radiographer posts by hospital trust. [42287]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Health Costs (Road Accidents)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to take to recover health service charges from uninsured drivers. [43314]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 March 2002]It is already possible for National Health Service costs to be recovered from the Motor Insurers' Bureau in cases where the driver is uninsured for accidents that occur on or after 5 April 1999.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 1292W
  (1) what his reasons are for the extent of the proposed increase in threshold for the upper limit that can be charged to insurance companies for the costs of health care for people injured in road accidents; [43312]

  (2) for what reasons he withdrew the regulations to increase the threshold for the upper limit that can be charged to insurance companies for the costs of health care for people injured in road accidents; [43311]

  (3) how many hospital charges exceeded £30,000 in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [43313]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]Regulations were introduced on 28 January 2002 that increased the tariff and ceiling of charges for the recovery of National Health Services costs following road traffic accidents. The tariff was increased from a flat rate of £354 to £402 for treatment without admission and from a daily rate of £435 to £494 for treatment with admission. The ceiling of charges in any one case was increased from £10,000 to £30,000. The regulations were revoked on 7 February 2002 following representations from and on behalf of the insurance industry that they were not given adequate warning of the intended increases.

  The increase in the ceiling of charges in any one case was proposed in the light of operational experience. Although the new scheme was intended to recover the full cost of treatment in the relevant cases a threshold had always existed but had failed to keep pace with the rising cost of medical treatment. Our data for the year from 1 February 2001 to 31 January 2002 show that 1,237 patients received treatment following a road traffic accident which cost in excess of £10,000 with 248 of these costing in excess of £30,000.

  We will shortly be consulting on revised proposals for increasing the tariff and ceiling of charges.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has had with the Automobile Association on increases in the threshold for the upper limit that can be charged to insurance companies for the costs of health care for people injured in road accidents. [43564]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health will shortly be consulting on proposals for increasing the tariff and ceiling of charges for the recovery of National Health Service costs following a road traffic accident. The Automobile Association will be included in the consultation.

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the medical complaints which provide entitlements to free prescriptions; and if he will make a statement. [43641]
  1293W
  Ms Blears
  The medical conditions conferring exemption from prescription charges are:

  (1) permanent fistula (including caecostomy, colostomy, laryngostomy, or ileostomy) requiring continuous surgical dressing or an appliance;

  (2) the following disorders:

  —forms of hypoadrenalism (including Addison's disease) for which specific substitution therapy is essential;

  —diabetes insipidus and other forms of hypopituitarism;

  —diabetes mellitus—except where treatment is by diet alone;

  —hypoparathyroidism;

  —myasthenia gravis; and

  —myxoedema;

  (3) epilepsy requiring continuous anti-convulsive therapy;

  (4) a continuing physical disability which prevents the patient from leaving his residence without the help of another person.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will exempt sufferers of cystic fibrosis from paying prescription charges; and if he will make a statement. [43642]

  Ms Blears
  Our policy is to give priority to helping people who may have difficulty in paying charges, rather than extending the exemption arrangements to people with other medical conditions, including cystic fibrosis.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of(a) the sufficiency of the territorial and temporal jurisdiction of the human rights court established in Indonesia to investigate alleged abuses in East Timor, (b) the likely impact of the Indonesian constitutional prohibition on retroactive prosecutions, (c) the experience, expertise and independence of the judges and lawyers appointed to the court, (d) the arrangements for the protection of victims and witnesses and (e) the level of co-operation on legal matters between the Indonesian and East Timorese authorities; and what plans he has to monitor the trials. [36928]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  (a) The question of the territorial and temporal jurisdiction of Indonesia's ad hoc human rights tribunals is a matter for the President of Indonesia to determine. The UK considers that their mandate should encompass all crimes against humanity perpetrated in East Timor before, during and after the Referendum of 1999. We will continue to raise our concerns about the jurisdictional limitations of the Tribunal with the Indonesian authorities, working closely with our partners in the EU.

  (b) The question of retroactive prosecutions will be for the Tribunal to determine.

  (c) The judges and prosecutors appointed to the Tribunal are professional lawyers. We welcome their appointment.
  1294W
  (d) There is currently no provision for victim/witness protection under Indonesian law. However, it is expected that this will be included in forthcoming legislation.

  (e) The Indonesian Government and representatives from the UN Transitional Administration to East Timor (UNTAET) and the East Timorese leadership meet regularly to discuss a range of bilateral issues. They met most recently on 25 February.

  Relocation expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in his Department. [41020]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  If staff are permanently transferred within the UK in the interests of the FCO, they are helped with additional travel costs or the costs of moving home only if their home is no longer within normal commuting distance.

  Litigation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases(a) his Department and (b) its agencies have defended in (i) industrial tribunals and (ii) the courts in each year since 1997; how many were concluded in their favour; and what the total cost to his Department of litigation was in each year. [41113]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Cases defended by the FCO in Industrial Employment Tribunals:

  1998: four cases defended, three decided in FCO's favour;

  1999: three cases defended; all decided in FCO's favour;

  2000: two cases defended; one case fully, one case partially in FCO's favour; total cost £16,811;

  2001: five cases defended; two in FCO's favour*; total cost £100,461;

  2002: one case defended; one in FCO's favour; total cost £1,373.

  * Two cases from 2001 are still awaiting a decision. The information available on cases brought in courts other than Industrial/Employment Tribunals, on all cases prior to 1998, and cost information prior to 2000, can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 208W, on Zimbabwe what estimate his Department has made of the number of British citizens owed public sector pensions in relation to service in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe who are resident in the United Kingdom and whose pension payments have been suspended. [41867]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not hold a record of British Citizens resident in the UK who are former public sector employees of the Rhodesian authorities and entitled to pension payments in respect of their service. Nor does it hold a record of those pensioners whose pension payments have been delayed or suspended by the Zimbabwean authorities.

  Deena Gilbey
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government have taken to assist Deena Gilbey in her attempt to stay in the USA with her children. [41947]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government have worked tirelessly on behalf of Mrs. Gilbey and the other British family members of victims of the 11 September atrocities. The British Embassy in Washington has worked with the White House, the State Department and Congress to ensure the fair and sympathetic treatment of British family members whose immigration or residency status in the US may have been affected by the terrorist attacks. The British Ambassador in Washington raised these cases with the Chair of the US Senate Judiciary Committee on 9 October 2001. Following this, the US Congress passed, and President Bush signed, anti-terrorism legislation (the Patriots Bill) that allows all British family members affected by 11 September to continue living and working in the US.

  The US Immigration and Naturalisation Service have assured Mrs. Gilbey that does not face deportation.

  The British Consulate General in New York remains in close touch with Mrs. Gilbey, and continues to monitor the situation closely, to ensure that she and others in a similar position do not have to suffer any further.

  Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to be put on trial; and if he will make a statement. [42681]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are in contact with the Pakistani authorities about Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. We understand that they have not completed their investigations or made a decision about trial proceedings. We will continue to monitor this case closely.

  Angola
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the Angolan Government concerning restrictions on freedom of expression; and if he will make a statement; [42524]

  (2) if representations are being made to the Angolan Government against their continued military offensive against UNITA; and if he will make a statement on what is being done by the international community to achieve new momentum in the peace process; [42519]

  (3) what the British Government have done to show their condemnation of human rights abuses by (a) the UNITA rebel movement and (b) the ruling MPLA Government in Angola; and if he will make a statement. [42520]

  Mr. MacShane
  Following the death of Jonas Savimbi, the UK joined the EU partners in issuing a declaration urging both parties to put an end to the conflict in Angola. The Prime Minister has written to 1296W
  President dos Santos to encourage him to take steps to begin a process of national reconciliation and to address Angola's very serious humanitarian situation.

  Her Majesty's Government believe that freedom of expression is essential to a functioning democracy. It is important for the improvement of human rights in Angola. The UK makes regular representations to the Government of Angola, bilaterally and through the EU, urging them to address human rights and humanitarian issues in Angola. We condemn human rights abuses by UNITA. UK support for sanctions against UNITA is a strong signal that their behaviour has been unacceptable.

  The next opportunity for HMG to discuss Angola's human rights record will be the visit of Foreign Minister Miranda to the UK at the end of March, when he will meet the Foreign Secretary, Baroness Amos and the International Development Secretary. The International Development Secretary is also visiting Angola from 2–4 April.

  Burma
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the authorities in Burma regarding the situation of Aung San Suu Kyi. [42404]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Ministerial contact with the Burmese authorities is limited by the EU Common Position. However an FCO official visited Rangoon from 27 February-1 March where he met both Aung San Suu Kyi and members of the Burmese Government. The Burmese Government are aware of our view that all restrictions on ASSK should be removed. An EU Troika mission is visiting Rangoon from 13–15 March to gauge the latest developments and explain EU policy.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2002, ref 39187, on non-governmental organisations, what information he collates on the funding of non-governmental organisations by his Department, with particular reference to those operating on a regional level; and if he will make a statement. [42540]

  Mr. Straw
  The FCO does not keep information centrally about the funding of NGOs and nor do FCO Commands keep that information broken down on a regional basis. It would be difficult to arrive at a precise answer because the FCO could be said to "fund" NGOs in a great variety of ways—some are contracted to provide specific services in relation to projects funded by Command Programme Budgets and specific Programme funds (e.g. Human Rights Project Fund), others may well receive financial support to attend conferences etc as guests of HMG. In some cases posts overseas may use local budgets to pay, for example, for accommodation of NGO visitors on official business.

  UK Citizens (France)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom citizens are held(a) on remand and (b) in custody following convictions within France. [42716]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are currently 65 British citizens held on remand in France and 105 British citizens who have been convicted and are serving prison sentences in France.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom lorry drivers are held(a) on remand and (b) in prison following conviction in France. [42717]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are currently 26 British lorry drivers held on remand in prison in France and 19 British lorry drivers who have been convicted and are serving prison sentences in France.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Governments of(a) Poland, (b) Hungary, (c) the Czech Republic and (d) Slovenia on EU enlargement. [42721]

  Peter Hain
  Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have regular discussions with candidate countries about their accession to the EU. As part of this dialogue I visited Hungary in September 2001 and the Czech Republic and Slovenia in January and will visit Warsaw later this month.

  Public Appointments
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many appointments to public bodies have been made through his Department(a) from April 2000 to March 2001 and (b) since 31 March 2001; and how many of these were (i) men and (ii) women. [42163]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]The number of men and women appointed, or re-appointed, by Ministers in this Department to bodies sponsored by this Department during the periods in question is as follows:

  Period

  Men appointed

  Women appointed

  1.4.00–31.3.01

  21

  6

  1.4.01–28.2.02

  22

  91

  United Nations
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many full-time equivalent staff are employed at the United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations. [43553]

  Mr. MacShane
  There are 48 UK-based staff and 18.75 LE staff.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to 1298W
  his answer of 21 November 2001, Official Report, column 332W, on the Freedom of Information Act 2000, on what dates the steering group of senior officials has met since August 2000. [43478]

  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO's steering group of senior officials met on 13 September and 6 December 2001. It will next meet on 20 March.

  In addition officials at working group level continue to meet regularly to review progress.

  India and Pakistan (Nuclear Programmes)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is regarding(a) exports to nuclear and nuclear-related end users in India and Pakistan and (b) contacts with India and Pakistan relating to their nuclear programmes. [44337]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As the then Foreign Office Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) made clear on 10 July 1998,Official Report, column 687, many countries including the UK have in place strict controls on the export of nuclear-related goods to India and Pakistan. The UK also exercises caution over contacts between personnel from the British nuclear industry and their Indian and Pakistani counterparts. Current tensions between India and Pakistan demonstrate the need for both countries to exercise restraint.

  The events of 11 September highlighted the fact that some terrorist groups will use any means to achieve their ends. We know that Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network have shown an interest in developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. To ensure that such ambitions are not realised, we are encouraging all countries, including India and Pakistan, to take all steps necessary to ensure the better physical protection of their nuclear assets. We will be encouraging both countries to consider measures which contribute to the safety and security of their nuclear programmes.

  Bearing these factors in mind, and consistent with our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we have revised our policy as follows:—

  we will continue to deny all export licence applications (ELAs) for items listed on the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) Dual-Use List to nuclear and nuclear related end users in India and Pakistan. We will consider all applications for other items assessed as licensable, including those licensable under the WMD end use control, with particular vigilance in making licensing decisions on a case by case basis. Licences may be issued if there are no end use concerns. Consistent with our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, licences may also be issued in exceptional cases where the Government is satisfied that the proposed exports will contribute to the physical protection or security of civil or military nuclear facilities or assets in India and Pakistan;

  we will continue to discourage contacts by UK nuclear scientists or those working in the UK nuclear industry with their counterparts from, or personnel who we know are likely to work in, nuclear or nuclear related organisations in India or

  1299W
  Pakistan. We will also discourage visits by such counterparts and personnel to UK nuclear facilities. However, this will not apply where such contacts would contribute to the safety and security of India and Pakistan's nuclear programmes, or further the UK's non-proliferation objectives, consistent with our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

  Since carrying out their nuclear tests in 1998, neither India nor Pakistan have demonstrated sufficient commitment to meet their obligations to reduce nuclear
  1300W
  tensions set down in UNSCR 1172. We are now encouraging both countries to engage in a bilateral dialogue on nuclear confidence building measures.

  US Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether US anti-personnel mines have been(a) transited, (b) stockpiled and (c) maintained on British Indian Ocean Territory during the conduct of operations in Afghanistan. [43524]

  Mr. MacShane
  No.

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

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [H.L.]
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Clement-Jones.)
Lord Naseby: My Lords, the office of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was notified that I wished to make a brief intervention at this point, and I clarified with the Clerk that it was in order. I am also very conscious from your Lordships that it is very unusual to intervene at this stage. I do so only because I wish to put on record my grave disquiet at the change of date, from 8th March, which had been the published date for the whole of February, to today. I was in New Zealand at a family wedding, hence my absence at Report stage. I arrived back on Saturday, 2nd March, double-checked my Whip, and then made arrangements to see the Forestry Commission on 15th March, today, in Herefordshire. I place on record my apologies to the Forestry Commission for not being in Herefordshire today.
Why was it changed so late? My understanding is that it is because of the Liberal Party conference. The question therefore arises, does the Bill's promoter take so little interest in his party that he did not know it was happening? Did he forget about it, or was he simply disorganised, as he has been over so much of this Bill? The question also arises why the Government colluded on this change of date. In my opinion, parliamentary business should not be subservient to any party political convenience.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Clause 4 [Advertising: exclusions]:
Lord Nasebymoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 13, leave out ", or is contained in, a communication"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are at Third Reading and I have no wish to prolong today's proceedings, or to take time that might be better spent on less detailed aspects of the Bill than this amendment addresses. As an aside, it is interesting to observe that, although I was not here, noble Lords sat rather longer on Report than they did in Committee, when one or two noble Lords suggested that I spoke at too great a length. None the less, this amendment has a serious purpose.
On many occasions during our consideration of the Bill in Committee and on Report, the noble Lord the promoter and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord
1044
Filkin, resisted amendments however justified in our eyes and reasonable they may have been, and despite the fact that one occasionally sensed their own sympathetic attitude towards those amendments. The grounds on which they have resisted have invariably been that the amendments risked creating loopholes in the Bill. The result is that we now have a Bill that is far more complex than it need be; and yet it still leaves substantial issues regarding offences in the hands of the courts. We are also still left with a Bill that contains inconsistencies in approach. That is a general observation which Amendment No. 1 is intended to highlight.
Elsewhere, such as in the Explanatory Notes originally published with the government Bill in the previous Parliament, and in remarks in debates in this House, noble Lords supporting this Bill have stated that they have no intention of prohibiting advertising and promotion within the trade so long as it is confined within the trade. Indeed, as the Explanatory Notes state about subsection (1)(a) of Clause 4:
"As the sale of tobacco products to adults is lawful, appropriate commercial communications arc not prohibited. So long as these communications do not reach the wider public they will be excluded from the ban".
Currently, however, this subsection permits an advertisement within the trade only if it is a communication or is contained in a communication.
We have been told by the noble Lords that, in the Bill, the word advertisement is to be construed as having its natural and plain meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines an "advertisement" as,
"A notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service or event, or publicising a job vacancy".
I trust that I am also to understand from the noble Lords that "a communication" is to have its natural meaning. The same dictionary says that "a communication" is,
"a letter or message containing information or news".
It is certainly clear to me, and I think to all noble Lords, most especially from the current wording of this subsection, that an advertisement may sometimes be a communication, but is not always such. Advertisements within the tobacco trade, as within any other trade, may be advertisements pure and simple, as we all understand an advertisement to be. Examples would be advertisements within the premises of a wholesaler, within the premises of a cash-and-carry, or at a trade conference, annual meeting or other event to which entry is confined only to those in the tobacco trade.
Thus I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, can understand the purpose of my amendment. It is to remove the present restriction on a tobacco advertisement within the tobacco trade as having to be a communication or be contained in a communication confined within the tobacco trade. Should he feel that my amendment is not necessary and tell me that the present exclusion laid out in Clause 4(1)(a) does embrace advertisements of the type I have mentioned, within trade premises, not only would I find that

1045
puzzling, it would cause me to ask him to think yet again about precisely what is meant by the word "advertisement" in the Bill.
With your Lordships' permission, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 2. Throughout our consideration of the Bill we have had assurances—or, more appropriately, assertions have been made—about the Bill's proportionality and compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998. Those are not the views of many other independent authorities. I take the view, even on a layman's reading, that subsection (1)(b) of Clause 4 is bound, at some early date after coming into force, to be challenged in the courts on human rights grounds. The purpose of the amendment is to close off that possibility.
It is clearly an infringement of the right of privacy with regard to private correspondence to prevent a person receiving correspondence which they have requested, whether that request is to receive something now or later. It is arguably also an infringement of the right of freedom of expression. By the noble Lord's and the Government's interpretation of the word "particular" in subsection (1)(b), the Bill effectively prohibits a request and any reply to it which goes beyond the immediate. As the Explanatory Notes to the Government's original Bill state,
"A request for information cannot be considered as a request for further information in the future".
I understand that the noble Lord and the Minister claim to justify what is a clear infringement of human rights as being a measure necessary for public health. That in itself is highly arguable. But let us assume for the moment that that is correct. The next necessary test is proportionality. So we must ask: could the objective be achieved by less far-reaching and intrusive measures? In this instance it clearly can be. If individuals wish to receive communications from a tobacco supplier and confirm that wish, along with confirmation that their age is over 18— or, if the noble Lord wishes, over 21—and are able to withdraw that wish at any time they choose, they should be permitted to receive a communication.
I ask noble Lords to consider those requirements in the context of the ease with which requests for access to websites can be made and how those websites might be accessed quite unintentionally with the result that the tobacco advertisements which they so fiercely wish to restrict within the trade, and only to persons who make a request under the terms of Clause (4)(1)(b), reach a much wider public.
I ask noble Lords again to consider the plight of mail order traders. Mail order is a particularly important activity for most specialist tobacconists. They are likely to find their businesses decimated as a result of Clause (4)(1)(b), which prohibits them from initiating communications with their registered existing, let alone potential, customers. My amendment does not permit direct marketing activities of the kind prohibited by Clause 9; it simply permits an adult person to receive what he or she expressly wishes to receive. Should he or she want to withdraw that request, they can do so.
1046
The noble Lord and the Minister should not hang their hats on the argument that by communicating with existing smokers those smokers are encouraged to keep smoking. Nor should they put their reliance on a somewhat spurious questionnaire showing that the majority of smokers wish to give up smoking. There are already more ex-smokers in this country than there are smokers. I believe that if noble Lords continue to resist this sensible amendment to this subsection, they should then prepare themselves for arguing their case inevitably through the courts. I beg to move.
11.15 a.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Naseby, raised the issue of communications to the trade in Committee. One of the amendments they proposed would have meant that advertisements would be excluded if they were aimed at the trade irrespective of the means by which the communication is made available. The argument put forward was that a trade magazine may be made available to the trade via retail outlets and in these cases may be seen by members of the public.
Clause 4 sets out the exceptions to the advertising ban set out in Clauses 2 and 3. Clause 4(1)(a) deals with communications between those engaged in the sale of tobacco products. The purpose of this clause is to ensure that commercial publications aimed at the trade are not prohibited. Clause 4(1)(a) provides that no offence will be committed if a tobacco advertisement is contained in a communication made for the purposes of the trade and directed solely at those engaged in the trade as specified in Clause 4(2). Clause 4(3) provides that advertising where tobacco products are offered for sale is allowed as long as it is in accordance with regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, Clause 4(4) provides that the regulations may define the meaning of "place" to make clear the limit of permissible advertising.
In the first amendment the noble Lord has suggested that the whole phrase relating to a communication is removed from the exclusion in Clause 4(1)(a) so that any advertisement which is made in the course of a business which is part of the tobacco trade and aimed at those identified in Clause 4(2) is excluded. The term "communication" is defined in the dictionary as any transmission, exchange or conveying of information. This includes electronic and paper communications. Therefore, the exclusion would apply, provided the conditions were satisfied, to such things as trade journals and magazines, mailshots from tobacco companies to those responsible for purchasing tobacco products as well as to their equivalents in the management structure and those above, including directors, whether by letter, fax or e-mail and handouts at trade exhibitions. This list is not exhaustive and the paragraph does not specify the means by which the communication is to be made if this exception is to be satisfied.
The issue here is to ensure that advertisements made by the trade for the trade are exempted. They could be stand-alone advertisements or equally they could be contained in a trade magazine. The wording in the Bill

1047
provides for flexibility in the method used to pass on the advertisements. Any communication must, however, be directed solely at people engaged in the trade as per Clause 4(2). It would not matter if a curious member of the public picked up and read a trade journal in a library provided the journal was directed solely at the trade.
As drafted, the Bill makes clear exactly what is allowed. If, as the noble Lord suggests, the phrase,
"or is contained in, a communication",
is removed, the clause would become less clear and could possibly be interpreted so as to disallow communications between manufacturers and retailers which contain a tobacco advertisement. I therefore ask noble Lords to reject that amendment.
On the second amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, raised two fundamental issues about necessity and proportionality. Before I go into detail, I shall address those issues. We have raised the issue of necessity several times in our debates on the Bill; it goes hack to the nature of the product. I shall not detain the House by repeating some of the arguments that we have previously considered in that respect but we well know that a highly addictive substance is involved and that it kills a high proportion of those who use it.
Since we last met, the Royal College of Physicians has brought out a very interesting report reviewing the response of governments and politicians to the scientific evidence, which started becoming clear from the 1950s onwards and was made most clear in 1962 by the Royal College of Physicians. It is a very good report. Politicians do not always come out well from it, with a number of honourable exceptions, such as Lord Hailsham and Enoch Powell, who were early advocates for action. I shall quote one sentence from the preface, which was written by Professor Sir George Alberti, the president of the royal college. He wrote:
"The humble cigarette is responsible for a dozen times more deaths in the UK in the past 40 years than British casualties from World War II—over 5 million".
That is the issue of necessity.
On proportionality, I shall not detain the House by discussing at great length the issue of displacement. We know that when an industry is prohibited from promoting its products in one way, it is bound to try to use all other possible means to do so. The ban on television advertising led to a very considerable expansion in sports sponsorship for tobacco products. Although we do not want to make too much of Amendment No. 2, we do not support it because it involves the danger of significant displacement.
Amendment No. 2 would remove the reference to a particular request, which means that an individual has to put in a request on each occasion before he or she receives information, and replace that with a condition that the individual has to provide in writing one request and then receive information until that request is withdrawn in writing.
The amendment would mean that tobacco companies could create databases and send out promotional material to people who had requested
1048
information in the past but may no longer wish to do so. The Bill intends to ban all direct marketing except where an individual has contacted a company asking for information about a tobacco product or products. We think that it is right to require that the individual contacts the company first, and that he or she does so on each occasion. That will ensure that the smoker genuinely wishes to receive the material. That will avoid the situation in which he or she wanted information in the past but no longer does so.
As noble Lords will know, a survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics last year found that just over 70 per cent of smokers said that they would like to give up. Many of them in the past will have asked for promotional information about tobacco products. It is wrong that those people—and, indeed, ex-smokers—should be bombarded with pro-smoking material unless they specifically requested it on each occasion.
I must emphasise that Clause 4(1)(b) does not involve an infringement of liberty. The Bill is not trying to stop companies and promoters providing information to people who have asked for it. It will not stop the exchange of information when it is clear that the recipient wanted it. Rather, it will put in place a safeguard for all those who may have wanted information in the past but who are now in a different position. It is a justified measure to help people to stop smoking and to improve their chances of good health.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I have very little to add to the Minister's comments on Amendment No. 1. The amendment would not clarify the clause's purpose at all. The clause's provisions are clearly designed to ensure that communications are solely directed at the tobacco trade. It would not be helpful or clarify the purpose of the exemption to remove the words,
"or is contained in, a communication".
As an exemption, it is important for the clause's construction to be entirely clear.
Amendment No. 2 covers similar ground to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on Report; namely, whether it is acceptable to allow direct mail to continue after the passage of the Bill. My response to this amendment is exactly the same as it was to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale—I am firmly opposed to allowing that. The amendment would make it possible for a tobacco company to create a database—or to buy one—and continue to operate direct mail schemes as if the Bill had never been brought into force. If a smoker or non-smoker had at any time in their life requested any information about tobacco products, they would—or could—be inundated with direct mail from tobacco companies. An advertising ban drives down consumption only if it is comprehensive. The amendment would destroy any hope that the legislation had of being comprehensive. It would allow tobacco companies to continue to market their products to smokers, or to people who claim to be.

1049
Research carried out by Strathclyde University last year demonstrated that many children and teenagers currently participate in direct mail and voucher tobacco promotions. It is only to be expected that if the amendment were to be accepted that state of affairs would continue.
Quite apart from that consideration, the legislation is as much about helping smokers to quit as it is about dissuading people from starting. The amendment would allow tobacco companies to target smokers with advertising that is designed to weaken the desire that the majority of smokers have to quit. I therefore urge the noble Lord in the strongest possible terms to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, on Amendment No. 1, the Minister said that the list is not exhaustive—I referred to cash-and-carries, trade conferences, annual meetings and so on. I imagine that the inference from that is that when detailed regulations are produced, there will be some discussions with those in the trade to ensure that nothing is caught inadvertently that should not be caught.
I understand the problem of ensuring that the trade can carry on trade communications without opening up those communications to the greater public. I have no wish to open those communications up to the greater public. I understand what the Minister said and I shall not press the amendment.
On Amendment No. 2, I suspect that we shall have to disagree. My contention is that even if the figures from the survey are correct—it found that 70 per cent want to give up and 30 per cent do not—those 30 per cent are still adults and if they wish to receive regular communications from tobacco companies, they should not be put in the position of having to renew their interest on each occasion when they want to communicate with their supplier. We are dealing with adults. Noble Lords will know that we have the right to stop receiving direct mail and faxes—several of us have taken such action in the past in relation to other areas about which we do not wish to receive communications.
On the views of the promoter of the Bill—
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. When the noble Lord asked whether we should consult on the regulations, I gave him, in good faith, a fairly clear and strong nod. I have since been advised that there are no regulations relating to the clause. I should like to withdraw my nod.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, sadly, I suspect that that means that the matter will end up in the courts, and the only beneficiaries will be the legal profession. It is sad that the Government and the promoter of the Bill were not willing to understand the true mechanics of the trade. In a sense, the promoter is the one who should be pilloried for that. In Committee, he said that he had not approached the trade because his feelings about the Bill were so dogmatic.
1050
On Amendment No. 2, the promoter of the Bill discussed young people and teenagers receiving promotional material. That is a complete red herring. I made it clear from the start that an age dimension could be imposed—that could be set at 18 or 21. I sense that the promoter does not really listen to the detailed elements of our amendments. I do not accuse the Minister of that; he does listen. But I believe that we must disagree.
I believe that this represents an imposition on individual human rights—in particular, on those who are regular smokers. I see nothing wrong about their receiving regular communications, but we have more pressing issues. I have made the point succinctly. It does not find acceptance from the promoter—that does not surprise me—but neither does it find acceptance from the Government. Therefore, at this stage I shall not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
11.30 a.m.
Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"COMPENSATION
(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make a scheme for the making of payments to persons in respect of income and non-income losses incurred by them as a result of ceasing to carry on their businesses by reason of the enactment, or coming into force, of section 2 in so far as a person is guilty of an offence if a tobacco advertisement is, or is contained in, a communication made to an individual otherwise than as permitted by section 4(1)(b).
(2) A scheme shall, in particular, specify—

(a) the description or descriptions of income losses and the description or descriptions of non-income losses in respect of which payments are to be made, and

(b) the description or descriptions of businesses in respect of which payments are to be made,

but need not provide for the making of payments in respect of all income losses or all non-income losses or (as the case may be) in respect of all businesses.
(3) A scheme shall also, in particular—

(a) specify the basis or bases of valuation for determining losses,

(b) specify the amounts of the payments to be made or the basis or bases on which such amounts are to be calculated.

(c) provide for the procedure to be followed (including the time within which claims must be made and the provision of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims,

(d) provide a suitable mechanism for appeal and resolution in the case of dispute as to a person's entitlement to payments under the scheme and the amount of such payments.

(4) Before making a scheme under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to him to be likely to be entitled to payments under such a scheme and such organisations as appear to him to represent such persons.
(5) In this section—
"income losses" means losses of income, and
"non-income losses" means losses other than income losses.".

1051
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Naseby for mentioning the mail order trade on the last group of amendments. My amendment has a rather strange history. Over the past few years, I have had a regular Tuesday morning occupation; that of weeding—I believe that that is the only word for it—through a great stack of statutory instruments before discussing them in the Joint Committee that same afternoon. On Tuesday last week, I came across an affirmative order which provided for compensation for loss of business due to the coming into force of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000. Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, may be interested to know that the Government did notify that to the Commission. I am jumping ahead of myself by several amendments, but he might bear that in mind.
"Aha", I thought to myself, "as all my amendments in the Committee and Report stages of the Bill regarding the mail order trade specialist tobacco companies have come to nought"—for reasons, incidentally, which I must concede to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, are, indeed, correct—"I shall see what his and the Government's reaction is to compensating the people they will inevitably put out of business". In doing so, I once again declare my interest in mail order in general, although not in specialist tobacco firms.
I start with the thought that Ministers in both Houses have said that they do not intend that the Bill should put anyone out of business. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out several times in the course of our proceedings, there is one very limited group that will, alas, fall into that category. As a breed, they are few and far between—only some 380, I believe, throughout England and Wales. They are often far distant from their customers. None the less, their customers rely on them and the mail order service they provide.
Successful mail order trading, as I know well, trading as I do principally by mail order in my own business, is largely dependent upon maintaining a list of names and addresses of customers and people who have expressed an interest in purchasing. One does not wait for those people to come back with a new inquiry to which one responds, which, of course, is legal under the Bill; one contacts them periodically with offers and recommendations by way of a catalogue or price list—perhaps a leaflet, brochure or magazine. The Bill prohibits such operations by virtue of Clause 4(1)(b), which does not permit the supplier to initiate any communication with his customers and potential customers using his mailing list, even though the people on the list—another point raised by my noble friend—have specifically asked to be included on that list.
The objective of the Bill, we have been told, and as I have said already, is not to damage a trader's business or put traders out of business. Almost every specialist tobacconist in this country engages in mail order trading. Some are mail order traders exclusively and do not have shop premises. For almost all others, mail order is a significant part of their business. The reason for that is simple. The description of a "specialist
1052
tobacconist", and his very definition as laid down in Clause 6, is someone for whom cigars, snuff, pipe tobacco and smoking accessories account for more than half his sales. Some of those for whom mail order represents the major part of their trade will not survive under the terms of the Bill. Many others will be significantly damaged financially.
It may seem from the Bill, and from what has been said about websites, that for the mail order trader a website might provide a satisfactory alternative to mail order operations using printed material and the post. That is not so; a website does not permit the trader to initiate contact with a customer. It is also wrong to presume that every customer has Internet and website access.
My amendment does not introduce the term "mail order" into the Bill; nor does it mention specialist tobacconists. It focuses on the provisions of the Bill which prohibit mail order trading by specialist tobacconists. While it does not say so—that, of course, would be covered by the detail of the scheme that the amendment provides for, made ultimately, one hopes, by the Minister—the amendment is not intended to provide compensation to any person other than someone who had been, on a date specified in the order, an existing mail order trader.
As I said, the amendment is lifted from the order under the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 and follows it almost word for word. The Government must make a scheme, which, incidentally, has to be brought into effect by affirmative instrument, provided for under Amendment No. 5. That scheme will specify descriptions of the businesses in respect of which payments are to be made and of their income and non-income losses. Obviously, consultation will be needed and the scheme needs to specify the basis, or bases, of valuation for determining losses. That is left to the Minister operating the scheme.
I believe that I have said enough to explain the purpose of, and the reasons for, my amendment, except perhaps to add that it is a good Conservative principle to look after the small man. We are talking about the small man. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I support the amendment. If we are to pass legislation to bankrupt small traders, we should feel guilty about it and should do something about protecting their future.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and congratulate him on the excellent case he has made. As one who took part in every stage of the fur farming Bill, I can confirm the accuracy and the parallels he draws with the unfortunate fur farmers. After all, we are not talking about well-to-do international companies but small people. As the noble Lord said, these are just the type of people who need to be protected.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his courtesy in giving the

1053
Government advance notice of his intention to table the amendment. It is a thoughtful amendment but, as I indicated earlier, the Government do not support it.
The amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to set up a scheme to compensate businesses which cease trading allegedly because they are unable to send advertisements to people other than as a result of a particular request for information about a tobacco product.
As I hope the House knows, the Bill is not intended or designed to put small traders out of business. Its purpose is to control the advertising and promotion of tobacco products, not the sale and use of tobacco products, which will still be legal.
I accept very much that the noble Lord has genuine concerns about the Bill's possible effects on specialist mail order businesses. Earlier, I used the word "allegedly" in relation to losses advisedly because I believe that the proposed scheme is unnecessary as well as unworkable. If a tobacco business ceases trading owing to a loss of custom, how can anyone calculate how much of that loss is due to restrictions on advertising and how much is due to any other reasons, such as a customer deciding to buy elsewhere or to give up using tobacco products for some other reason? It would not be possible to say that the cessation of business was the result of the provisions in the Bill.
I shall repeat what was said previously about the implications of the Bill for business. Specialist tobacconists will be allowed to list their businesses and to take box advertisements for their businesses in publications such as Yellow Pages. They can do that but they may not use those listings to promote and advertise tobacco products. Anyone wanting to contact a mail order business can do so by accessing those listings. We know that tobacco products are highly addictive and that most users would like to give up. It would not be right to allow unsolicited promotions to continue. However, through Yellow Pages or other means, it will be possible for people to contact specialist tobacconists.
We are all sorry when a trader goes out of business. However, for many years the use of tobacco products in the United Kingdom has been falling and the policy of successive governments, for health reasons, has been to discourage people from using those products. I respectfully suggest that such businesses have been aware of the risk of declining trade and many have sought opportunities to diversify their operations. Therefore I ask the House not to insert the new clause after Clause 6 and also to oppose the consequential amendment to Clause 19.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the fur farming regulations. I do not believe that that situation is comparable; nor is the legislation on the sale or possession of hand guns, which also dealt with compensation, comparable. Both of those referred to an activity that became illegal in its entirety, rather than having impediments placed on the form of its advertising. The sale or use of tobacco products will
1054
continue to be legal and tobacco businesses will still be able to communicate with people who want to buy their products.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I understand the intent behind the amendments. It is clear from what noble Lords have said and from the correspondence that I have received that there is a genuine concern among people running mail order tobacco businesses, especially specialist tobacconists, that they will be prevented from carrying out their business in the future. I fully understand why those businesses, many of which rely on mail order to survive, may be worried by this legislation.
However, I agree with the Minister that this amendment, for a large part, simply is not necessary. The issue is whether a mail order catalogue, as we would currently recognise it, constitutes a tobacco advertisement. My view of the current drafting is that it does not. A catalogue is a display of tobacco advertising. It consists of a price list and possibly, at most, a picture of a packet of cigars or pipe tobacco. That is different from direct mail advertising which covers a particular brand. Direct mail advertising is covered in the legislation and mail order catalogues are not. Of course, the exact format of what is displayed and in what form would have to comply with any regulations that were laid under Clause 8. If there are such regulations it is expected that they would be laid in such a way as to cement the status quo and to prevent any exploitation of loopholes.
My main conclusion is that in those circumstances there is simply no need to legislate to compensate mail order businesses for loss of business. I should take this opportunity to remind noble Lords, without apology, that the whole point of the legislation is to reduce the quantity of tobacco consumed in the United Kingdom. We want fewer people to smoke. Therefore, if this legislation is to be effective, all sellers of tobacco will probably see a reduction in the amount of tobacco that they sell. If that happens, we should not discuss compensation, but realise that the Bill has been effective. Specialist tobacconists, among others, have had due notice of legislation of this kind.
I believe that for the most part, the circumstances with which this amendment seeks to deal will not arise. It reflects a set of circumstances in which mail order companies will not be affected by the passage of this legislation and, therefore, there is no need for compensation.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I did not see either of the noble Lords nod when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made his helpful remarks about the extent to which mail order catalogues constitute advertisements. If either of them would nod now, in agreement with what he has just said, my life would be made much easier. While they are thinking about whether or not to nod, perhaps I may turn to noble Lords on the Cross Benches. I am grateful for the brief support of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Of course, the amendment is

1055
unworkable. It was not meant to be workable; it was meant to get a reaction. I still have not had a reaction from the Minister. Am I to receive one?
11.45 a.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, there is little that the Government can usefully add to what we have said. It seems to us unlikely that a specialist tobacconist will go out of business as a result of this Bill, for the reasons that I have given. It would still be perfectly possible for such specialist tobacconists to advertise their presence, if not their products, in publications like Yellow Pages. It will be perfectly possible for those who want to use them, as they are at liberty to do, to can contact them. Therefore, we do not believe that it is likely that specialist tobacconists will go out of business. As the response to the amendment suggested, even if some went out of business, it would be impossible to identify why they had done so.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I conceded that the scheme is unworkable. I was trying to elicit from the Minister whether he agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. A simple yes or no is required.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I apologise for having made a vow never to nod in the Chamber and for having carried it through. The answer to the question is yes.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, therefore, I am very grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the Minister. I have great pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Prohibition of sponsorship]:
Lord Nasebymoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 35, at end insert—
"(2A) No offence is committed under subsection (1) if—

(a) the business referred to in subsection (2) is part of the tobacco trade, or

(b) the sponsorship agreement is 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 (2B),

in their capacity as such persons.
(2B) A person falls within this subsection if—

(a) he is responsible for making decisions on behalf of the business referred to in subsection (2A)(a) 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."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I do not intend to repeat the points that I made in my earlier amendment concerning what I
1056
understood to be the principle of this Bill, that it should permit advertising and promotion that is confined within the tobacco trade and does not reach the wider public. It does that at Clause 9. The noble Lords claim that it does that at Clause 4, but as I explained earlier, that does not quite meet the mark. It certainly does not do so at Clause 10, as I believe it should, hence my amendment.
The amendment seeks to permit sponsorship agreements for the purposes of the trade and where such sponsorships are confined to persons within the trade. There are many such existing sponsorships of trade awards and competitions, trade and trade association events, such as conferences, annual meetings and the like. There are no grounds for such sponsorship to be prohibited and none has been put forward. Indeed, in Committee I was encouraged by the sympathetic reaction on the part of the Minister to a similar amendment.
On the other hand, when invited to express the same sympathy by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, failed to appreciate the point that was being made. I hope that on this occasion I will have fulsome support from both the Minister and the noble Lord. To that end I have also incorporated the much expanded definition applying to persons in the tobacco trade, which was inserted on Report.
Whenever elsewhere in the Bill there have been pleas for greater clarity—I refer to the amendment agreed to on Report—we have been told that that would risk creating loopholes. With this amendment I do not seek clarity of an existing provision of this clause, nor do I seek to create a loophole. I merely seek a provision in this clause that accords with what is claimed to be a general principle of the Bill which mirrors provisions in two other clauses and which is of real practical significance within the trade. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, an interesting fact is that whenever, during our long debates on this Bill, any noble Lord has tried to seek clarity, with the sole exception of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, who has had two marked successes and my noble friend Lord Lucas, who is not in his place, we have been told that we are creating loopholes. The whole point of this amendment is to close loopholes. That should be acceptable to the House.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, before responding to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, on Clause 10, it may be helpful and for the avoidance of doubt on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, if, rather than dealing just in nods and monosyllables, I put the whole context forward. I was responding to whether or not a mail order catalogue is an advertisement under the meaning of the Act, to which the answer is yes, unless it is just a price list; in which case the answer is no. I hope that avoids any misunderstanding, if not necessarily being the answer for which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, hoped.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the Minister as he is referring to the last

1057
amendment. It would have been extremely helpful to the House, and indeed to me, if he had made that statement on the last amendment rather than on this amendment. My attitude would most certainly have been different and I would have had no hesitation in dividing the House. Now that opportunity is past. I know the Minister did not mean any parliamentary trickery; it was an accident. But I protest.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, perhaps I might add to that. I am of the same opinion. I was of the impression after the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, finished, that a catalogue, which could include illustrations as well as a price list but which encompassed products from different companies and was not just the product list of one company, would be acceptable because that is not advertising a specific product in competition with another; not that it was limited to a typed-out price list. I admit that I too was misled.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, the Minister puts the House in some difficulty. My noble friend moved an amendment which was responded to by both the Minister and the promoter of the Bill. He asked the Minister, speaking on behalf of the whole of the Government, for clarification of his response. The clarification was that a mail order catalogue was entirely acceptable. I cannot believe that the Minister does not understand the difference between a catalogue and a price list.
We are now in a position where the House may have chosen to divide—I sense my noble friend would have sought the views of the House and if he had I would certainly have supported him—if the response had been a price list. Now we are in a situation where we are dealing with my amendment, which has nothing to do with Amendment No. 3, and we need guidance as to how to proceed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am not sure whether or not I would have supported the amendment. That is totally immaterial. The point is that the House has been, quite inadvertently and with the best will in the world, deprived of an opportunity of dividing on an amendment that my noble friend moved earlier. We are masters of our own procedure. We have the benefit of the Chairman of Committees in the Chair. If the House as a whole wishes my noble friend to press his amendment, it has the power to allow him to do so. It would be exceptional; but this is a mistake made in good faith.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was under the impression that this House normally tries to behave according to the Companion. From my little knowledge, we are so far away from what we are advised to do that we ought to stop. I would have loved the noble Lord to divide the House; I would have loved to defeat his amendment. But time has passed and I hope that, speaking for myself because I have no authority, we
1058
simply stick to our rules. That is the way we have always done business and I should not like to be a party to a Motion not to stick to our rules.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I can do no more—I grant it is not sufficient—than offer my apologies to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for inadvertently denying him the opportunity to divide the House.
Clause 10 creates an offence in relation to a sponsorship agreement if the purpose or the effect of the sponsorship agreement is to promote a tobacco product in the United Kingdom.
The amendment seeks to exclude from the ban on sponsorship those sponsorship agreements which are for the tobacco trade as defined in (2A)(a).
During Committee we had a useful exchange on sponsorship and other types of business activities. One of the points that was raised was in-company sponsorship agreements in the trade and within the trade associations such as the National Association of Cigarette Machine Operators. It was argued that just as advertising within the tobacco trade and the giving away of product coupons for the purposes of the tobacco trade to persons in the trade should be and is permitted by the Bill, so should it be the case with sponsorship agreements.
My noble friend Lord Hunt wrote to the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, in connection with this debate on 21st February. A copy of his letter has been placed in the Library. His letter made clear, and I wish to reiterate today, that sponsorship which is designed to promote a tobacco product, or has that effect, is banned. It applies to both the sponsor and the recipient. The contribution made by the sponsor must be made in the course of a business. There is no intention to catch the private individual who uses his own money to sponsor an event or an activity so as to promote smoking.
Sponsorship is permissible if it promotes only a company name and not a product. Therefore commercial dealings between companies are allowed and companies can publicise their company name. It is possible under the Bill for a tobacco company to give money to support an event or an activity so long as the company's products are not given any promotion in return. Tobacco companies can, if they wish, support a musical or theatrical production and be acknowledged for so doing so long as that acknowledgement mentions only the name of the company and not any of its products, and does not involve any special treatment of the tobacco company over and above other sponsors, the purpose or effect of which was the promotion of tobacco products.
The Bill is not intended to create barriers to trade in tobacco products and for this purpose the Bill contains Clauses 4 and 9. As amended on Report, those clauses make clear what is meant by the trade so as not to interfere with normal business dealings. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised examples such as handing out cigars at the end of a meal and having an Imperial Tobacco box at Wimbledon. In both those cases the individual circumstances would need to be

1059
considered. But so long as the purpose or effect is not to promote a tobacco product, there is no question that they would be banned.
That is not to say that any paid-for event would be permissible under the Bill, nor should it be. This amendment would allow a tobacco company to sponsor a golf tournament or a polo match and promote its products so long as those invited were buyers of tobacco products.
That would, I believe, take the exclusions granted under Clauses 4 and 9 too far. Both clauses are designed to ensure that only specific individuals may be targeted with promotional materials and gifts. A more general exclusion on brand promotions which could cover anything from a local sports hall being funded for the use of buyers to a national rugby tournament or food exhibition, targeting buyers, would take the exclusion too far and would, in many cases, be difficult to keep self-contained. I ask the House to reject this amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, explained, the purpose of this amendment is to extend to sponsorship agreements the exemption for members of the tobacco trade which already exists in Clauses 4 and 9. While I understand the motives behind Amendment No. 4, I do not agree that it is necessary or indeed desirable.
The exclusions given for members of the tobacco trade in Clauses 4 and 9 are given because advertising within the tobacco trade, solely aimed at other members of the trade, is intended to persuade, for example, shopkeepers to stock a specific brand, not to smoke that brand. The same can be said for free distribution within the trade. They can be to reward the reaching of targets, to reward successful staff and so forth; they are generally not done to persuade members of the public to smoke a specific brand.
The same cannot be said of a sponsorship agreement. As we heard on Report, we are not talking about a hospitality tent at Henley or Wimbledon, which is not strictly speaking a sponsorship agreement; it is a different type of commercial transaction. Nor are we talking about distributing free cigars, as the Minister described, at the end of a corporate meal, or indeed to parliamentary pipe and cigar clubs. Those are free distributions and as such are covered under Clause 9. If they are done solely within the tobacco industry, they will not be covered by the legislation as currently drafted.
We are not even talking about a sponsored event when it is sponsored in the name of the tobacco company producing the cigarettes rather than the brand of tobacco produced. That generally does not have the intention or the effect of promoting a tobacco product. So it will not be prohibited.
I admit that I struggled somewhat to think what kind of event would be facilitated by this amendment to the Bill. Perhaps it might be a kind of "all England tobacconists snooker tournament", where all the participants and the spectators are members of the tobacco industry, as defined in the rest of the
1060
amendment. As I have already said, if there were to be a, say, Gallaher all England tobacconists snooker tournament, there would be no problem. It would be allowed to take place even without the amendment. If, however, Gallaher wanted to associate the event with, for example, the Benson & Hedges brand, the amendment would be needed. No doubt the supporters of the amendment would say that that would be done in order to make Benson & Fledges an attractive brand to the snooker-playing tobacconist. They would then stock more Benson & Hedges. I must admit that it is highly unlikely that that event would ever take place. However, even if it did, it would not be desirable to allow it under the terms of this legislation.
It is inevitable that any such event would be heavily publicised outside as well as inside the tobacco trade. It would be an extremely newsworthy event.
Noon
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is it so unreasonable to expect a tobacco snooker team when, for example, we have a House of Lords croquet team?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am sure that one could devise all kinds of nice ways of doing this, but it would be perfectly possible to have the tobacco company put its name to the event as opposed to the actual brand. As I have explained, one would then be home and free in terms of the existing legislation.
It is inevitable that, even if that was not the intention, such an event would serve to promote the use of particular brands outside the tobacco industry. I am convinced that for the legislation to be effective it must be as comprehensive as possible. Each exemption must be fully justified and must not jeopardise the overall point of the Bill. I do not believe that this exception has met these tests: first, because it is very unlikely to happen; and, secondly, because, even if it did, it would not be helpful for the reasons that I have explained. I therefore most strongly urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, bearing in mind what happened on the previous amendment, I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm the noble Lord's interpretation of the Bill as it stands. I understood the promoter of the Bill to be saying that the existing provisions of the Bill are such that sponsorship agreements are for the purposes of the trade and the trade alone where such sponsorships are confined to persons within the trade and that as long as they are just in the company name they are permissible. Is that also the Government's interpretation?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am advised that the answer is "yes".
Lord Naseby: My Lords, in the light of that reassurance, I am as delighted as was my noble friend on the previous amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1061
Clause 19 [Regulations]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Transitional provisions: sponsorship]:
Lord Nasebymoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 11, line 2, leave out "of a description so specified"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was originally grouped with Amendment No. 7, but is now to be de-grouped. I make that clear because the amendments deal with two different issues. The amendment is really an offer to help the Government. It seeks to delete the final five words of Clause 20(1). By that means it endeavours to remove the possibility of discrimination as between sponsorship agreements of different descriptions. The Minister still has the ability to make regulations permitting the continuation of all tobacco sponsorship agreements that comply with the regulations up to a date that he may determine, but no later than 1st October 2006.
The amendment was one of the available alternatives. One could have tabled an amendment to leave out Clause 20 altogether. The amalgamated date is dealt with in Amendment No. 7 which has now been de-grouped. At this stage, I move the amendment to see what reaction I get from the promoter of the Bill and from the Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I have learnt to be wary of the attempts of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, to help the Government. I urge the House to treat the amendment with a degree of caution.
Perhaps I may say by way of introduction that the background is that one of the key ways in which tobacco companies raise their profile is through sponsorship of national and international events. All noble Lords would recognise that certain sports have benefited enormously from tobacco company sponsorship. Any move to remove that overnight could be potentially detrimental to a number of sports.
The White Paper, Smoking Kills, which was published in December 1998, stated that regulations on tobacco advertising would allow extra time to phase out tobacco sponsorship of sports and other events. The Government's view is that sponsorship of sport can best be sustained by sport itself establishing proper commercial links with business. The role of government within this process is to listen to the concerns of the sports involved and to look with them at ways of diversifying their funding base.
The specific question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is whether it is right to differentiate between one sport and another in relation to the amount of time that they are allowed under the provision. When the matter was discussed within the White Paper and in the Bill which the Government introduced in the previous parliamentary Session in another place, the Government's position was that they recognised that some global sporting events are under particular pressures. Undoubtedly the picture is varied. Some
1062
global events have little dependence on tobacco sponsorship. Others, however, are greatly dependent on it. Where they have, the Government are advocating that those events should look to other sources of funding, but they recognise that that may not be possible immediately.
Clause 20 provides the power for secondary legislation to cover transitional arrangements for sponsorship. Those regulations will be subject to consultation, at which stage the Government, if the Bill was enacted, would hear the views of the various sports representative bodies. The expectation is that, subject to consultation, most sponsorship of sporting events will end by July 2003. Global sporting events would have until September 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.
I cannot prejudge the outcome of any consultation. That obviously rests on whether the Bill is successful in its passage through another place, assuming that it is successful in this House. Therefore, I cannot indicate the Government's position on which sports might qualify for the longer transitional period. But, subject to any persuasive arguments in the consultation, the Government intend to implement broadly this long-standing policy of distinguishing between global and non-global events.
For that reason, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, would inhibit the Government's ability to do that. Therefore, I cannot recommend that the sponsor of the Bill or the House accepts the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lord, before the Minister sits down, can he explain why two different dates have been chosen?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the general intent is to remove tobacco sponsorship of sports as quickly as possible. But it is accepted that some sports, particularly global sports, may be especially dependent on tobacco sponsorship. In those circumstances, it seemed right to the Government that those particular sports should be allowed a limited extension to the limit.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister for clarification. Did I hear him say that that applied to team global sports—only team sports?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, I did not mean that at all. A sport is a sport is a sport.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, despite the temptation laid in my path by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, I do not intend to add a great deal to what I said at Report. Of course, we on these Benches have considerable sympathy with the idea of a level playing field, if that is the right expression, as regards sponsorship of sports by tobacco brands. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wisely said on Report,
"90 per cent of a loaf is better than no bread at all".—[Official Report, 1/3/02; col. 1733.]

1063
My firm intention is to see the Bill into effect, if at all possible. Perhaps may remind the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that I cited a famous Conservative, R A Butler, about the art of the possible. I hope that that gives him some comfort.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I imagine that your Lordships will be disappointed that the Minister was not able to specify which are those global sports. It comes to mind that pigeon racing must be a global sport by any dimension. I imagine that that is on the record.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Of course, such matters will be the subject of consultation when any regulations are produced. I have no doubt that if the global sport of pigeon carrying makes a proposal, it will be given earnest consideration by the Government.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I hasten to correct the Minister, it is not pigeon carrying, it is pigeon racing. Given the part of the country from which he comes and he being a man of the people, I should have thought that he might have understood a little about pigeon racing, but clearly he does not.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I come from Birmingham and we do not do a lot of that there.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I expect that the Minister will receive many letters in forthcoming weeks from the pigeon fanciers of Birmingham. Indeed, I encourage all of them to write to him to correct him.
The purpose of the amendment was to help the Government and to try to find out which way they are moving. What they are really saying is that they have got themselves on a hook with Formula 1—we all know why they are on that £1 million hook. I do not need to expand on that, but I know that there is continuing embarrassment about it on the Government Benches. The amendment provides an opportunity to go down one route to solve that problem, but at present the Minister has kicked it into the long grass saying that it will be for future regulation.
We are approaching another amendment under which we can really home in on the matter. This amendment is rather wider and leaves discretion to the Government; the next one is slightly different. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Geddesmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 11, line 3, leave out "2006" and insert "2003"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall try to tread on another patch of grass and see how long it is. Your Lordships will be well aware that Clause 10 bans all sponsorship but Clause 20 then gives a loophole to
1064
sponsorship of certain sports. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just expanded on that in response to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Naseby.
During earlier consideration of the Bill, the Minister indicated what were the Government's intentions in respect of the directive that was annulled in October 2000. On Report, he said of the criteria that were likely to apply under the annulled directive that they,
"give a general view of the kind of definitions that are likely to be used".—[Official Report, 1/3/02; col. 1732.]
My noble friend Lord Naseby has just mentioned one or two exceptions and I intend to mention some more shortly.
As the Minister has just said, the Government's intentions are absolutely clear. The largely unspoken purpose of Clause 20 is well known: it is principally to accommodate the wishes of Formula 1 motor racing. Other noble Lords may well expand on that point shortly. Clause 20 as drafted should not stand part of the Bill. I was interested that, perhaps against his own inclination, the noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones, said on the subject at Report:
"the quicker that we move on to the other stages of this Bill, without too much comment, the better".
At that stage, my nose started to twitch. It twitched even more fiercely when the noble Lord, Lord Preston, then said, as already quoted today:
"90 per cent of a loaf is better than no bread".—[Official Report, 1/3/02; col. 1733.]
What concerns me is why there should be no bread. Something is in the background here that I do not like; hence my amendment.
There is no acceptable or good reason for laying down one set of rules for Formula 1 and other, much more restrictive terms for other sports. There should not be discrimination. If Formula 1 is to be given further time to reduce the level of its tobacco sponsorship—perhaps as much as another four and a half years—other sports should be allowed the same. Or, as my amendment suggests, if those other tobacco sponsorships are to come to an end in 2003, so should tobacco sponsorship of Formula 1.
Briefly, as I understand it—the Minister may want to comment on this—sponsorship funding of sports events and activities other than Formula 1 must be declared to the Department of Health each year. Under the voluntary agreement that continues to regulate such sports sponsorship funding, the formula limits total annual expenditure and that total expenditure is declared to the Department of Health. The approximate annual total for such, may I call it other, tobacco sponsorship is £10 million per annum. That compares with—again, I am using general figures—approximately £300 million per annum for tobacco sponsorship of Formula 1. So Formula 1 receives £300 million, and the total for all other sports—65 of them, according to a list I have recently received—is £10 million.
Such sports are far from rich and each one has had to be approved by what is now the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Much of the sponsorship

1065
for those 65 sports has been for grass roots activities and sports of low profile unattractive to other potential sponsors.
I shall certainly not waste the House's time by listing all 65, but they include such activities as angling and athletics. Those are surely global, are they not? They also include bowls, curling—full marks to the Scottish team who recently won a gold medal at the Winter Olympics—Rugby League, greyhound racing, horse racing, motorcycle scrambling, motor racing, and, of course, pigeon racing, which my noble friend Lord Naseby mentioned. They include sailing—again a sport at which we excelled in the Olympics in Sydney—speedway, 10-pin bowling and windsurfing. I could go on, but I shall not waste the time of the House.
Those sports need sponsorship. Many of them are small and it is likely that they rely on tobacco sponsorship for 100 per cent of their sponsorship. The discrimination between sports and events enabled by Clause 20 must he removed. It is neither fair nor just. There should be only one date on which all sponsorship agreements come to an end. Everyone in the House would probably agree—and I am trying to help the noble Lords on the Government Front Bench—that the date should be as soon as possible. However, we understand that 2003 is, perhaps, the earliest practical date. If it must be longer, so be it, as long as the date is common to all.
I shall make things clear. I worded the amendment deliberately, so that it would fall into line with what I understand the Government want, but there must be parity. If the Minister can give the House a categorical assurance today that a later date will be common to all, I shall be more than happy to withdraw my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the concept of the amendment that the date on which all sponsorship agreements end should be the same. I do so because, when the Bill—or its successor, if there is one—is notified to the Commission, it will raise the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Geddes. One need look only at Section 8 of the Danish legislation, which was approved by the Commission and is now in force. It uses the date 2003, as it happens.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, out of a sense of fairness, we should have what has been referred to as a level playing field—in other words, a common date—although cross-country sports may not think of it as such, for they do not want a level playing field.
I was interested to hear that curling was sponsored by the tobacco companies. I watched some of it and had no idea that tobacco sponsorship was involved. I suspect that the danger of such sponsorship for many small sports is somewhat overrated. I f anything, it ought to be the other way round: it ought to be the high-profile events, where the sponsorship is splashed over everything, that should stop it first, and the smaller ones, at which sponsorship is not so apparent, that should be allowed to continue it until whenever it is.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Geddes made a powerful case. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain spoke about much the same things on Report, in the context of a slightly different amendment.
After Report, there was much talk about loaves of bread, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but taken up enthusiastically by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I am unclear as to why the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as the promoter of the Bill, feels the need to compromise what seemed to me to be the strong principles on which he and other Liberal Democrat Members felt that the clause should not be in the Bill. Perhaps, he will explain that to us.
Can the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, say why he felt the need to include the clause and why his Private Member's Bill does not reflect the matters that he feels ought to be in it, on grounds of principle? If it is because the Government told the noble Lord that such a provision was important, the Minister might say why the manifest health benefits that lie behind the Bill—as has been impressed on the House at every stage of its progress—can be dropped because of the impact of this minor transitional provision. I am confused by the position adopted by the promoter of the Bill and by the position of the Government. I hope that they will be explained.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, made an excellent case for treating all sports equally. If he finds the Minister's reply unsatisfactory—we shall wait and see what it is—I suggest that he should consider pressing the amendment to a Division, if only to find out which way the political parties that have not been in receipt of Ecclestonian largesse, so to speak, jump and which Division Lobby they pass through.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was worried about losing the Bill. He will be aware of course that, if a new date is inserted today, the other place can reinstate the original date if they so choose. The Bill need not be lost.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I hope that the promoter of the Bill will address the questions raised by my noble friend on the Front Bench. I have always viewed the Liberal Party as a party of honour and assume that it would want to see fairness for all sports. I cannot comprehend why one sport should be treated one way and all the others treated differently.
I shall not add to what my noble friend Lord Geddes said, but we should consider the scale of that sport, Formula 1. I have some knowledge of Formula 1; Silverstone was adjacent to my former constituency. I imagine that several of your Lordships have been to Silverstone—I have been a regular member—and will have noticed that at the moment, there is no tobacco sponsorship there because of a voluntary agreement that there should not be.
Even to take part in that sport, one must put down a bond of 48 million dollars. There are only 11 teams, and the average team budget for the current year is

1067
198 million dollars. Although many people enjoy going to motor sport, the cost of going is hardly at the financial level of the average punter. Entry fees for Grand Prix events are well in excess of £150 a day, and the total sponsorship for Formula 1 for this year, covering all sorts of products and services, is estimated at £2 billion. At most, tobacco sponsorship is only 15 per cent—perhaps only 10 per cent—of that. By contrast, for all other sports, the estimated amount for the last year for which I could get figures—1999–2000—was only £9 million.
It is all very well for the Government to say that there is a task force to give advice; that does not supply money. The Government know what the problem is. All the other 59 sports to which my noble friend referred will be cut off from the tiny amount of tobacco sponsorship that they receive. That is discrimination. I hope that it is not happening because of Bernie Ecclestone's £1 million contribution, but no other reason has been put forward. That is not fair, and I cannot believe that anyone in your Lordships' House believes that there should be such unfair discrimination. I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Lucas: The people who go to this sport are white, southern, middle-class and male, and, therefore, it should not have any time given to it by the new Labour Government. This was a shoddy deal, done in the days when it was relatively expensive to buy the Government. It seems that £150,000 will buy them now, whereas, a few years ago, it took £1 million.
I hope that the Liberal Democrats will be happy to be rid of that deal, so that we can, at least, send a message to the other end that we need a bit of cleanliness. So much has been said in all parts of the House about the desirability of moving fast and effectively to end tobacco advertising, and I hope that we can get rid of that deal and press the amendment to a Division.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend has almost taken the words out of my mouth. I was going to give a little history. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Naseby has read Andrew Rawnsley's uncontested account of all this in Servants of the People: The Inside Story of New Labour.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that I have read it—several times. It does not make pretty reading. I hope that the promoter of the Bill has read it, and I want an assurance that he has read it, when he replies.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in that case, I am even more amazed that my noble friend is still confused. The facts are most definitely there.
Irrespective of Formula 1—it is, of course, a Formula 1 amendment—the Government's actions have been more than a little surprising. In May 1997 the then Secretary of State announced that all forms of tobacco advertising, including sponsorship, would be banned. The position was already confusing because
1068
before the election the shadow Minister for sport had ensured that sponsorship would not be included in the proposed advertising ban.
I am told in Andrew Rawnsley's account that there was a meeting with a certain well known person in No. 10, after which the right honourable Mr Blair instructed the Secretary of State for Health to find a compromise to accommodate a special concession for tobacco sponsorship for Formula 1. Furthermore, in November, one of the health Ministers went to Brussels for a normal meeting and argued from a very lone position for an exemption for Formula 1, supporting voluntary restraint which had earlier been rejected outright by the Government. If any Government have ever been in a mess, surely to God they are on this one. My noble friend is quite right.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it has been an extremely interesting debate until around the polemics of Andrew Rawnsley. I have not read the book myself. I should like to point out some of the chronology which needs to be gone through to understand why the Government reached their decision. I return to the White Paper, Smoking Kills, published in 1998, which said:
"Genuinely global sporting events which are currently dependent on very high levels of tobacco sponsorship may find it particularly difficult to adjust to alternative sponsorship. Global sports events with a high dependence on tobacco sponsorship will be given more time if they need it".
A 1998 EU directive provided that most tobacco sponsorship should end by 30th July 2003, but that:
"Existing sponsorship of events or activities organised at world level [could be authorised] for a further period of three years ending not later than 1st October 2006".
The draft regulations that were developed in relation to that directive stated 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 contact for which the financial consideration is in excess of £2.5 million per annum".
That is the basis of government policy which we intend, in broad intent, should the Bill pass through this House and the other place.
However, I want to stress again that that is subject to consultation and it is not my position here to prejudge the outcome of that consultation and indicate which sports might qualify for the longer transitional period. It is the Government's view that there is a justification for a longer period of time being given to those sports, in the circumstances that I have described.
I now turn to the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, concerning the position of those sports which would not come under that category—
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Before he turns to the second point of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, perhaps I may refer to the first point. Can the Minister say whether any country in the world bans advertising on Formula 1 racing on its territory? I know that there are not

1069
Formula 1 meetings all over the world, but I have been told that there are some countries that place big white diamonds over the tobacco advertising on the cars. Is that or is that not a fact?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not in a position to provide the information to the noble Baroness but I believe that she should not focus on Formula 1. The whole point of the definition that was used in the original directive was not Formula 1. It was a more general description of how one would define global events.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what other sports are covered by the definition?
A noble Lord: Pigeon racing!
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, not pigeon racing. It is not possible for me to give a long list of sports which might or might not fall within that definition. However, one of the sports that comes to mind might be world championship snooker. I know that the darts authorities believe that they have a case. However, the point is this. No decision has been made. It will be subject to consultation. What the clause before us gives to the Government, if it is passed, is the ability to differentiate. The Government's position is that they believe that there is justification in such differentiation.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, of course I accept that smaller sports that would not fall within that definition have been concerned about the impact of the provision on them. That is why the task force was set up, in order to help the sports affected find alternative—
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend for the sake of clarification. I believe that we are a little bit at cross purposes. I had understood the transition arrangements to apply only to sports which already had tobacco sponsorship. Have I misunderstood the position? That is what I thought it meant; that they had some tobacco sponsorship and they were not going to be told, "Get rid of it this minute". Those of us who devote our lives to pigeon carrying are very upset that the noble Lord is taking such a deprecatory view of pigeon carriers, but we do not have any tobacco sponsorship. Therefore, I do not see how we fall under the provisions. The serious point is that it has to be a transitional arrangement for those who are involved already.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I also raised pigeon racing and a number of other sports. All the sports that I mentioned have tobacco sponsorship—many times 100 per cent tobacco sponsorship.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I have stated already, surely the point is that there will be consultation on the arrangement.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has outlined what I understand to be the situation—that there must be an existing agreement. Therefore, if there is an existing agreement, I cannot believe that the Minister has not come to the House today with a list of what the existing agreements are, rather than speculating on what might or might not happen in the future. That is not the point. What are the existing agreements which might end in 2003 or some later date? In particular, what existing agreements of a global nature, other than just Formula 1 motor racing, are to be given an extension to 2006?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord completely misses the point. This is an enabling clause to allow for differentiation between different sports activities. The question of how that differentiation will be made will come as a result of the consultation. To be helpful to the House, what I sought to do was to go back to some of the principles that were enunciated by the Government when the original Bill went through the other place.
I refer my noble friend Lord Peston back to the 1998 EU directive. That provides for an extension for a further period of three years, ending not later than 1st October 2006, provided that the sums devoted to sponsorship decreased over the transitional period and that measures were taken to reduce the visibility of advertising at the events concerned.
The point is that they relate back to the original directive which was struck down as a result of legal action. In quoting from the directive, what I was seeking to do was to give the House a general indication of the Government's thinking; but not so far as to say that the consultation itself will not be an exercise in which sports can put forward their views, whichever sports they are. The Government will then make their mind up as a result of those consultation procedures.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, it has been a most interesting debate. I was particularly struck by the encyclopaedic description given by the noble Lord, Geddes, of possible sports which could be covered by the clause. I was also particularly struck by the contribution of the noble Lord, Naseby, playing soft cop/hard cop all in the space of this morning! We on these Benches are of course highly principled, but I am a little suspicious of his motives in being so nice about us in respect of the amendment.
Of course I have read Servants of the People and I am sure that Andrew Rawnsley will appreciate the publicity in the course of the debate. However, I do not know that it adds anything to what we already knew.
As I explained on earlier occasions, I sympathise greatly with many of the sentiments expressed in the debate but I am afraid that I am completely unembarrassed and on these Benches we are completely unembarrassable about the fact that we want to see the Bill go forward in its current state. A Private Member must make a judgment as to whether a Bill will or will not succeed in the course of its passage through both Houses. At an early stage of the Bill,

1071
I made the judgment that if the Bill were to succeed the clause would have to appear in its current form. That is what I call "good risk management". I very much hope that noble Lords will take my advice to see the Bill go through unamended in its current form.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Clement-Jones, might more accurately describe what he just said as sacrificing his own principles. I find it quite extraordinary that someone from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench should say what he has just said.
Be that as it may, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Hunt, on an incredible job of trying to defend the indefensible. It was not without interest that, other than a specific intervention from his noble friend Lord Peston, he received no support whatever from his Back Benches. Members of your Lordships' House can read into that whatever they like.
The noble Lord—
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am close to being out of order, but I am worried about the implication here. I am not at all concerned about the Liberal Democrats but I am concerned about the implication that those of us who have not spoken are lacking in principle or that, if the noble Lord divides the House, those of us who vote with the noble Lord, Clement-Jones, will be lacking in principle. I found that beyond the level to which the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, usually goes. I have always regarded him as one of the best Members of our House and I hope that he is not implying that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and, by association, myself are lacking in principle on this matter. That would be going a little too far.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. To him personally perhaps I may apologise. My opening remarks were entirely addressed to the promoter of the Bill. They had nothing whatever to do with my later remarks about the lack of support that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has had from his own Back Benches. That had nothing to do with principle; I was talking about support.
The Minister has trotted out the Government's policy. None of us was surprised to hear it because we have heard it before. However, he made an interesting comment to, I believe, my noble friend Lady O'Cathain:
"Don't concentrate on Formula 1".
That is what the debate is all about.
There is one answer that the Minister has not given, and the one answer that the promoter of the Bill has not given, and it relates to the business of global and non-global. Frankly, it is window-dressing. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right and I thank him for his remarks—it is not often I speak so strongly. However, it is window-dressing.
1072
I have heard nothing today, nothing on Report and nothing in Committee to explain why the Government—and it is the Government and not so much the promoter of the Bill—are moving away from fair play and parity. That is appalling and I want to test the opinion of the House.
12.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monson, L.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Naseby, L. [Teller]

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Erroll, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Geddes, L.[Teller]

Reay, L.

Lucas, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Harrison, L.

Addington, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hayman, B.

Amos, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B

Andrews, B.

Hooson, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Attlee, E.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bach, L.

Hoyle, L.

Barker, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brett, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Brookman, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Carter, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]

Listowel, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dholakia, L.

McNally, L.

Dubs, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Elder, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mitchell, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Ezra, L.

Newby, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Northover, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Faulkner of Worcester, L. [Teller]

Paul, L.

Peston, L.

Filkin, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Freeman, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gale, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Geraint, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Razzall, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Redesdale, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rennard, L.

Greaves, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Greengross, B.

Rooker, L.

Grenfell, L.

Roper, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

1073

Simon, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Walmsley, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Watson of Richmond, L

Taverne, L.

Weatherill, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Whitaker, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Wigoder, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Wilkins, B.

Thornton, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tope, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.55 p.m.
Clause 21 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Commencement, short title and extent]:
Lord Campbell of Allowaymoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 11, line 23, at end insert "subject to the approval of the European Commission to which this Act shall have been notified prior to commencement"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment at a rather inauspicious hour on a Friday in the unfortunate position of knowing that, whether it is good, bad, requisite or indifferent, it will not be accepted by the promoter of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. However, lying behind the amendment is a matter of principle on which I have entertained constructive discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. Although we disagree, at least we see and understand each other's point of view. This is going to be a matter not for dispute between the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and myself, because his mind is closed—that was put on the record this morning—while the Government's mind is not. Thus, if the House will bear with me, perhaps I may explain the position as I see it.
The amendment seeks to alter the commencement clause. It goes to the jurisdiction of our courts and reflects the mandatory obligation under supra-national European Union procedures to notify and obtain the approval of the European Commission before enforcement of the penal provisions in our courts. Sufficient time must elapse before Royal Assent to enable the Commission to decide whether to grant approval such as would be afforded by this amendment, which I suggest is essential.
No doubt to the relief of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the amendment in no way impugns the general intention of the Bill, which is to protect public health, or the machinery of implementation on which already we have had more than a sufficiency of debate; rather it is a procedural safeguard against the enforcement of penalties imposed on conviction, as acknowledged on Report by the Government. Without the amendment, then Clause 22 covering commencement will be manifestly defective. As yet the Bill has not been ratified as a proposal for an Act of the European Communities under the mandatory procedures. The general intention is supported, but the machinery of implementation is not and the Bill is a
1074
matter for the approval of the European Commission, subject to judicial determination by our courts and the ECHR. All enterprises and individuals who have a direct or indirect interest in tobacco products throughout the European Union—whether as cultivators of the crops, manufacturers, distributors, sponsors, advertisers, mail order concerns and so on—have an entitlement to know that domestic legislation has been approved by the Commission.
The Commission and member states, three months after notification, are entitled to comment upon proposals for a draft Act, to make representations and to raise objections.
I take no credit for this concept. It is the brainchild of my noble friend Lord Northesk, adopted by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, and it was spoken to by both my noble friends during the passage of the Bill. My noble friend's amendment, Amendment No. 10, does not seek to carry the broad concept as it is limited to electronic means.
The way in which the regime works—I say this in a thin House for the sake of the record so that it may be considered as an objective assessment—is apparent from the documents that I have received from our Senior Assistant Librarian and which have been shown to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. It is illustrated by the Danish legislation. The position is that the proposal for an Act prohibiting tobacco and so on should be notified to the Commission as a draft of the Act in accordance with the mandatory procedures. Three months is then allowed for the Commission and member states to comment on the proposals. If there is no response within three months, then, as in the case of the Danish Bill—a copy of which is in the Library—automatically it is approved. And so the Danish Bill was enacted on 7th June 2001.
This is important because the whole concept of the Commission is the uniformity of application. I am utterly convinced—indeed, I have a letter from the Commission which states so categorically—that this Bill is subject to notification. So it will have to be notified, and the Commission will seek a kind of conformity as between this Bill and the Danish and Dutch procedures.
It is for that reason that I shall explain the position of the Dutch. They are working on the proposal for a draft, which has been notified, and they have now reached the second consideration of amendments to their draft. The Bill is in preparation but has not been published. It has not yet been approved.
If any noble Lords were interested, they would see from the Danish Bill, which is now an Act, that what is acceptable to the Commission as a total ban on advertising, sponsorship and distribution is dependent on the savings clauses, the form of which engender proportionality. Acceptable as such, and already accepted by the European Commission, it is a short Act of nine sections contained in a page and three-quarters of A4 paper. It is indeed an illustration of the manner in which the Commission, when it considers a Bill from this country which has to be notified, will approach and possibly assimilate the position.

1075
In the context of sponsoring, I have referred already to a section of the Danish Bill. Let us take one example. It is very unlikely, in granting approval, that the Commission will approve 2006 having approved 2003 for the Danish legislation. I mention that only because the whole concept of the European Commission operation is to achieve a measure of conformity. If the Government intend to prepare a draft of another Act, notify it and seek approval, at least a kind of precedent exists. But the devil is in the detail of the savings clauses which affect proportionality.
In case there is any question of whether or not the Bill is notifiable, if noble Lords look at the first page of the document in the Library they will see a footnote to the proposals for an Act prohibiting tobacco advertising which states that the draft of the Act has been notified in accordance with the mandatory regulations. Further on, they will see the Act in substantially the same form and again the footnote that the draft of the Act has been notified in accordance 'with the mandatory regulations.
I know that this is rather boring, but if one is trying to make a case that this Bill has to be notified, it must be an intelligent case on the record.
It is common ground from the letters received from the European directorate about enterprise generally, the single market, implementation, legislation for consumer goods, notification and infringement that this Bill has to be notified. A copy of such a letter has been sent with my documents to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin—with whom, as I say, I have had amicable discussions—and that is on the record. The letters state in terms that, according to the services of the Commission, United Kingdom and Scottish advertising and promotion Bills are notifiable under the directive.
This Bill—I am coming to the end; I apologise for being so boring—is likely to fail on a single objection in another place and make its way to gather dust in the archives somewhere in the Victoria Tower unless it is retrieved and introduced as a government Bill. But, in any event, from the letters held by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and from the documents to which I have referred, the Commission would maintain that the amended Bill has to be notified.
The argument that I am addressing to your Lordships and asking the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to consider, is not the kind of argument that should be addressed to magistrates at the preliminary hearing of a conviction under this Act which goes to the jurisdiction of the courts. In other words, this is a "nettle" which, at government level at this time, has to be addressed. So long as it is addressed one way or another, that is in a sense all that matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, knows, if a matter such as this—analogous but not the same—is addressed by government and the Government get it wrong, the courts will get it right. But it cannot be ignored on the basis: "We are having no amendment whatever to the Bill, full-stop"—no consideration, nothing—"We are going to have this Bill as it stands".
1076
That is the height of arrogance. If the Government propose to take up the Bill, time for notification, and the approval of the European Commission, must be afforded before Royal Assent.
Finally, what will the Commission do in granting approval? I assume that because I am not dealing with what it would do or the court would do if the Government decline to notify. That is quite another ball-game. I am assuming notification by the Government. Before granting approval, the Commission would, first, seek a form of conformity with domestic legislation along the lines of the Danish and Dutch legislation, in particular in context with the exclusion clauses. Secondly, it would entertain the economic and employment sectors, such as, for example, the Greek tobacco crop. Thirdly, it may well consider matters arising in this Chamber as to whether the enforcement decisions are prescribed by law as proportionate or are a legislative overkill. Lastly, it may consider whether the criminal offences as drafted are drafted with requisite provision.
The hope is that in the light of debate on the Bill—not only today but throughout its passage—the Government may consider substantial amendments to simplify and clarify the drafting, in line perhaps with the Danish and Dutch legislation as approved by the European Commission. My last hope is that a new clause will be added, with especially severe, onerous penalties, triable only on indictment, to criminalise distribution to children, by gift or otherwise, of any tobacco product. These matters, which would remove any hint of confusion, have not been discussed at the JCHR, of which I am a member, or with anyone other than the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and my noble friends Lord Northesk and Lord Skelmersdale. I beg to move.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my Amendment No. 10 has been grouped with this amendment at my request. Clearly, my noble friend is able to produce a lawyer's argument, which I am totally ill-equipped to do. I am grateful to him for explaining the background, which cuts down considerably what I should otherwise have had to say.
The House will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to repeat the remarks that I made on Report—by which I still stand—save to reiterate that notification is not a narrow procedural point. In conversation outside the Chamber—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will allow me to reveal this to your Lordships—he described the matter as "fundamental". Notification is an issue relevant to much legislation. So what the Government think in this case has importance way beyond the Bill. That is, no doubt, why Ministers consulted widely within government.
On Report, I referred—somewhat argumentatively, I admit—to a letter I had received from the Minister regarding notification. In his reply to me, he merely repeated, in slightly different words, the contents of that letter. He did not answer my charge that the letter was wrong in several material respects.

1077
During the debate the noble Lord said that the technical standards directive applied to information society services. It does not. It applies much more widely. For example, it applies to newspapers and periodicals, as manufactured products. The directive refers to technical regulation, but within the meaning of the directive that embraces laws, regulations or administrative provisions prohibiting the manufacture, importation, marketing or use of a product.
We all know that the Bill prohibits the advertising of tobacco. By doing so, it lays down requirements as to the content of publications which may be lawfully published or distributed in the United Kingdom. Those requirements must, and do, have implications for the internal market in which there is to be free movement of goods and services without barriers to trade.
Information society services happen to have provided a focus for the issue of notification. It is with this much narrower point that I am chiefly concerned in my amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, stated why the Government believed that the Bill did not contain notifiable rules on information society services. First, he claimed that the provisions of the Bill amount to "non-specific" rules on information society services.
It is true that, for a rule or regulation to be notifiable under the directive, it must be "specifically" aimed at an information society service. I beg to differ. It is quite clear that various provisions of the Bill do specifically relate to information society services.
First, Clause 4(3) includes in the prohibition of tobacco advertising the transmission of advertisements in electronic form, participating in so doing and providing the means for transmission—that is, the very services provided by an Internet service provider. For the avoidance of any doubt, Clause 21 states that "publishing" includes:
"publishing by any electronic means, for example by means of the internet".
Secondly, Clause 4(3), by enabling Ministers to introduce regulations permitting tobacco advertisements on websites, clearly indicates that the general prohibition on advertising covers websites. Lastly, under Clause 4(1)(c), Internet versions of certain publications are excluded—again indicating that other Internet publications are included in the general ban.
I see that the Minister has just arrived in the Chamber. I should have been sorry had he still not been in his place. I am about to refer to one of his successful amendments in Clause 4, concerning in-flight magazines. He was good enough to say in my absence that I agreed with it. Unfortunately, I think that, between us, we have made the situation even worse. It will make the matter more, rather than less, notifiable. In short, it is specifically and expressly contemplated in the terms of the Bill that it is applicable to the Internet. Therefore, the Government cannot argue that it is not specifically aimed at information society services.
1078
Although the original government Bill may have exempted advertising on websites while giving Ministers powers to make regulations governing them, the Bill that is now before the House clearly bans all forms of tobacco advertising by means of information society services. That is made clear by the fact that the Bill contains specific exclusions to the ban.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, argued that a critical element of the definition of information society services in the directive is lacking, in that none of the provisions in the Bill regulates such services provided at the individual request of the recipient.
The Government go on to say that, because of Clause 4(1)(b), which excludes from the Bill any tobacco advertisement which is, or is contained in, a communication made in reply to a particular request by an individual for information about a tobacco product, the provisions of the Bill fall outside the scope of the directive. That must be a nonsense. I accept that for a service to fall within the directive's definition of an information society service, and therefore to be notifiable, it must be a service supplied at the individual request of the recipient. Therefore, there has to be an interactive element to information society services, unlike television and wireless. The difference is that, with information society services, the recipient actively requests particular information online as opposed simply to turning on a television set and receiving whatever is being transmitted at that particular time.
The absurdity of the Government's argument that such services are excluded from the Bill, and therefore that the Bill is not notifiable by virtue of Clause 4(1)(b), can be illustrated very easily. In doing so, I accept that an argument could be made if the accessing of a website were intentional, but Internet life is not that simple. What if someone looks for Barclays, the bank, but unintentionally—through a search-engine such as Yahoo or Google—brings up not the bank's site but one of more than 150 sites that advertise and sell tobacco products, most at discounted prices? The recipient of a possible advertisement on any one of those sites has made no particular request for information on a tobacco product. Nevertheless, the advertisement which he accesses would amount to an offence under Clause 2(3). It is quite clear that, in that case, the prohibition in Clause 2(3) is a rule on information society services and is notifiable. That is only one example, but I have given another, regarding newspapers, under Clause 4. I have a whole raft of other examples, some of which I have used and others which I have not, but it would not serve the interests of the House to go into them now.
In summary, it is clear that Clause 2(3) will operate as a rule on information society services by banning the advertising of tobacco products. As such, the Bill most definitely is notifiable. I support my noble friend Lord Campbell.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I intervene only briefly on these two amendments, both of which I support, and do so only to advise the House. Noble Lords who were in the Chamber on Report, on 1st March, may recall

1079
that, in col. 1735, I advised the Minister that, being dissatisfied at previous replies from the Government, I was one of seven signatories to a letter from your Lordships' House to the European Commission inquiring as to the need for notification of this Bill. Unfortunately, the reply—dated 27th February, two days before Report—did not reach us by 1st March. I was therefore unable to advise the House of it. I can, however, do so now. It is an extremely brief letter which is addressed to all seven of the signatories. It thanks us for our letter of the 13th and states:
"concerning the United Kingdom Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill … According to the services of the Commission, the bill is notifiable under Directive 98/34/EC … The services of the Commission intend to inform the United Kingdom authorities that the draft bill should in its view be notified under that Directive".
I ask the Minister whether he will now confirm that the United Kingdom authorities have been so advised by the Commission, and what is their response.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I, too, support the thrust and purpose of both these amendments. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, stated that he had.
"learned more about the Technical Standards Directive than I ever wanted to".—[Official Report, 01/03/02; col. 1736.]
Although it is not for me to make recommendations to the noble Lord about what he should be interested in, I am none the less intrigued and a little surprised by that. As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has pointed out, the directive is not only relevant to this Bill but is capable of very wide application. I should have thought that, as promoter of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would wish to take acute interest in a matter which, given the content of the letter referred to by my noble friends Lord Geddes and Lord Campbell, would appear to have the effect of rendering the Bill utterly unworkable.
I repeat a point that I made on Report. If the notification procedure is not complied with, proceedings on a subsequently enacted Bill could be struck down in their entirety by the court. I make no complaint about that. However, I have been struck throughout our deliberations on the Bill by the way in which, almost meekly, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has clung to the Government's shirttails. Words along lines of, "The Minister has given a very full reply on these amendments and I agree with him wholeheartedly", or some similar formulation, have trilled from his lips at regular if not persistent intervals. My point is this. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Liberal Democrats are perhaps the most "European" of our political parties. Nevertheless, I cannot help but feel that their grasp of the notification procedure has been exposed in our debates as strangely and uncharacteristically insular—almost, as it were, un-European. Put another way, one might have anticipated that the Liberal Democrat Benches might wish to show themselves as being up to speed on this issue if only to lend credibility to their European credentials.
1080
On the substance of the issue, your Lordships are only too well aware that it has had an elephantine gestation period. I refer your Lordships to a Written Answer that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on 2nd May 2001. In response to my query on whether the technical standards directive applied to the Government's Bill, the Minister unequivocally stated:
"No, because its provisions are not notifiable under the Technical Standards Directive, as amended".[Official Report, 02/05/01; col. WA89.]
I have two beefs about that. First—a relatively small point—the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, conceded on Report that,
"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".[Official Report, 01/03/02; col. 1736.]
To that extent, the Government—contrary to the impression conveyed by the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—now acknowledge that at least some of the Bill's provisions are indeed notifiable.
Secondly, and of much greater significance, we are now informed by no less an authority than the Commission itself that the whole Bill is indeed notifiable. What I find extraordinary about all this is that, so far as I am aware, the relevant directives were negotiated and accepted by the current Government. It is not unreasonable to suppose, therefore, that they did so in full knowledge of what their implication might be for our legislation process. However, perhaps I may be forgiven an impression that has grown on me in the past year or so—that Ministers in various departments are singularly uninformed about the procedure. Scrutiny of the subject in the coin ext of this Bill, as I think my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale might agree, has had about it the quality of wading through treacle. In current circumstances, I do wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will be prepared to exhibit the same degree of conviction as he displayed on Report in his insistence that,
"Because we are not in doubt on this matter there have not been discussions with the European Commission".[Official Report, 01/03/02; col. 1735.]
To echo the thrust of my noble friend Lord Geddes, do the Government, or even the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, now believe that there might be some merit in seeking discussion with the Commission on this matter? I also wonder to what extent the Government believe that their management of this issue can be held up as a beacon of the delivery of their aim of,
"being at the heart of the EU influencing the direction".
There is of course some spurious pleasure in being proved correct, at least from the Commission's perspective, and I take some delight in that. I look forward to hearing from the Government how they now intend to resolve the matter.

1081
I conclude with a thought that has been an abiding image in my mind in the past few days. Pace the late Spike Milligan, there may well have been a few sore heads shuffling round Whitehall and Westminster muttering, "What are we going to do now?"
Lord Naseby: My Lords, as one of the other seven signatories to the letter to the Commission, I need not re-emphasise the importance of the response. I merely ask the Bill's promoter—whose party is, I believe, and as has been said, pro-European—why he did not check on the notification procedures? That should be normal practice for anyone promoting a Bill with a European dimension. Is this once again evidence of the fact that he has not really put much effort into the Bill and has just accepted what the Government say on this issue? If he has done something separately, your Lordships will hear what he has done.
So far as concerns the Government, I too should like to know exactly what they will do now. The position is quite clear. The Commission states:
"The services of the Commission intend to inform the United Kingdom authorities that the draft bill should in its view be notified under that Directive".
I hope that the Minister will have a specific and clear answer to that which has been fully cleared by his officials before he issues it.
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I shall speak briefly as there is little of substance to add to the forceful points made by my noble friends. I have learnt much about European legislation from the careful expositions given by my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Skelmersdale. That point was first raised by my noble friend Lord Northesk.
What puzzles me is that normally when an issue of compliance with European rules is raised, it is my experience—not just from working in the Department of Health but over a long period in Whitehall—that there is considerable risk aversion in Whitehall. The natural reaction is to check with Brussels what is required because the consequences of not checking are difficult to live with, as my noble friends pointed out. Non-compliance—if, indeed, compliance is required—would make the Bill unworkable.
I do not think that anyone in this Chamber wishes to pass a Bill that is unworkable. I find it puzzling that the normal caution that is used in relation to European matters in terms of what requires clearance, permission and so on, has not been followed. I shall be interested to hear why the Government have taken what appears to be a consistently dogmatic line; namely, that it is none of Brussels' business, until a recent softening at the margins in relation to the regulations which will be made under one of the clauses of the Bill.
I believe that powerful points have been made. I do not believe that we need these amendments as it seems to me that if the Government had done the right thing and had notified Brussels, or at least had cleared the
1082
fact that no notification was required from Brussels, we would not need to consider them now. It is a shame that we are forced to do so at this stage in our proceedings.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. This is an important issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, indicated. I acknowledge the vigour of the challenge of the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Campbell of Alloway. There is nothing wrong with that whatever. However, I am afraid that I shall not depart at all from the clarity and firmness of the Government on Report. It has been our view throughout, based on strong advice, that the Bill is not notifiable. That is still our view in the light of further consideration of the challenges posed by the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Directive 98/34/EC, as amended by 98/48/EC, to which I shall refer as the technical standards directive, requires a member state to communicate to the Commission the content of any draft technical regulation it intends to adopt. In that context "technical regulation" can cover both UK primary and secondary legislation. Broadly speaking, its purpose is to give the Commission and member states the opportunity to object where action in one country might impede the functioning of the internal market. A technical regulation includes specifications which lay down the characteristics required of a product such as levels of quality, performance, safety or dimensions, including the requirements applicable to the product as regards the name under which the product is sold, its terminology, symbols, testing and test methods, packaging, marketing, labelling and conformity assessment procedures.
The directive, as amended, also applies to general requirements specifically aimed at information society services defined as any service normally provided for remuneration at a distance by electronic means at the individual request of a recipient of services. 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 the provisions of the Bill are not notifiable.
In general terms, the provisions amount to non-specific rules; that is, they are not specific to information society services 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. The effect of Clause 4(1)(b) is that information provided at the individual request of the recipient is outwith the scope of the Bill.
As to notification more generally, the substantive provisions of the Bill concerning the advertising and promotion of tobacco products in our view are not notifiable primarily because they do not affect the characteristics of the products themselves—tobacco products. We have said throughout that regulations in relation to brand-shared goods to be made under Clause 11 may be notifiable and, if so, would be

1083
notified at the appropriate time. However, Clause 11 is itself enabling and does not of itself impose an obligation in respect of a product or service and is, therefore, not notifiable.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, also raised the issue of newspapers. We have, of course, considered newspapers. We still maintain the view that the Bill is not notifiable. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on Report related to information society services. The reply addressed that; it did not say that the technical standards directive applied only to information society services.
As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, inquired, we are also aware that the European Commission has indicated that in its opinion the Bill is notifiable and has so written to us. We are pursuing discussions with it. However, the Commission's view, while clearly to be respected, is not conclusive. It remains our view that the Bill is not notifiable.
It is not appropriate to have detailed debate on the legal arguments, partly because of their complexity and the time that would take. I hope I have made clear how the Government have arrived at their decision. As I have said, we shall discuss the Commission's view with it. If, contrary to our expectations, it persuades us that we have overlooked any aspect of the argument, we shall, of course, take that into account.
Reference was made to Denmark and the Netherlands. We are aware that they have notified their Bills. That in itself is not conclusive. Ireland has not notified its Bill. It is for each member state to make its own decisions on whether or not to draft legislation. One could easily envisage circumstances in which one member state's Bill was clearly notifiable but another's was not, depending on the content of that legislation.
For those reasons it is the Government's firm view that the Bill is not notifiable. Therefore, we oppose these two amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this has been an interesting and technical debate. I have rarely heard complexity of argument such as we have had outside a barrister's chambers. I recognise the importance that the proponents of the amendments attach to the need to notify under the technical standards directive.
I have little of substance to add to what the Minister said. The Government have received robust advice on the matter. Some of the regulations arising out of the directive will probably be notifiable under the directive in due time. However, that is difficult to say until we see the regulations. I agree with the Minister that the enabling powers contained in this legislation do not have to be notified at this stage. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it will make for a much more sensible decision-making process if what is notified to the Commission is the detail; that is, the regulations relating to what will actually happen in practice on the ground rather than simply the enabling powers in the primary legislation.
1084
When, as part of the regulation-making process, the Commission is notified, it can then evaluate the proposals based on what they are rather than what they may or may not be. I can only echo what the Minister said regarding the information services aspect of the Bill. These restrictions on advertising are not specific to information services. The Bill treats all types of tobacco advertising the same regardless of the way in which it is distributed. Alternatively, they may simply be enabling powers to which the same argument applies as for the enabling powers in Clauses 9 and 10.
The Commission gave its view that the Bill is notifiable but the fact remains that even if the Commission has examined the whole Bill, that clashes with the advice that the Government have had—that the Bill does not need to be notified. The Commission is not the final arbiter in this case—the matter may well be challenged on other grounds. It will be for the courts to decide who is right.
In addition, as we all know, the Commission has previously been wrong in this area. Noble Lords will remember that one reason why it has taken the UK so long to legislate in this area is that the Government were waiting for the Commission to legislate on a Europe-wide level. In the end, however, the courts found that the EU did not have the competence to legislate on tobacco advertising, other than in relation to that which crosses national borders. The original directive was annulled by the European Court of Justice. The Commission is entitled to its view but it is not infallible and it may well have got it wrong in this case.
Even if the Government's current advice is wrong and the Bill is notifiable, it is perfectly possible to notify beyond the Bill's passage through this House in any event. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Government have had robust advice. He will appreciate that we on these Benches have had no sight of that advice. He is the promoter of the Bill and his role is to safeguard its purity, if I may use that word. Has he seen that robust advice and, having considered it, concluded that it is robust?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am satisfied that the advice that the Government received is robust.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, that is all very well but it does not conclude anything. The noble Lord said that he was satisfied that the Government's advice was correct. Heavens. The Government have been wrong time and again on matters of compliance and conformity with EC law, and so has the Commission.
I do not pretend that there is not an argument. I have laid the relevant Bills in the Library—they are of exactly the same mould as this Bill. The opinion is that the Danish, Dutch and Scottish Bills are

1085
notifiable, and they have been notified. Nobody has yet sought to explain exactly why, if those Bills, which are from a similar mould and have an identical purpose, were notifiable, this Bill—which is of a similar mould but has far more complex drafting—is not. We just have to accept that the Government will not move. It is like driving a donkey over a bridge.
What are we to do? Where are we going to go from here? This is not a personal complaint. I can see various outcomes. One is that the Government will do nothing and nobody will do anything. Someone will land up in the Basingstoke magistrates' court and all of this will have to be argued as a question of jurisdiction.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that he has heard nothing like our arguments other than in barristers' chambers. In my chambers, we certainly do not talk all that much law; we do that in court. If this speech is any use to some young advocate in the Basingstoke magistrates' court, good luck to him. The mind boggles at being sent as a young man—one is a young man when one is sent to a magistrates court; I have done that in the past—to have to argue a case such as this. The Government have had a sort of decent approach in this regard—I use the word "decent" in a broad sense. Would they seek the opinion of the European Court? Would they mount a proceeding to determine a declaration in the Chancery Division? Will the Government take an initiative in this regard rather than leave it to Bloggins in three years' time in the Uxbridge magistrates' court?
The matter has to be taken. The argument that I have deployed is not patently false. It is arguable at all events—I do not say that I am right; that would be hubris in the extreme, and I seldom am. It is arguable. Are not the Government going to take the point, treat it seriously and do something about it?
If the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, could give me—totally without commitment—some comfort that the Government would do something about the matter, I should be grateful and I should certainly not divide the House. But if I am left with nothing, I shall divide the House and lose as a matter of principle.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I have listened with growing amazement to the arguments from the Opposition Bench.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that we are out of order. We are at Third Reading.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I was speaking before the noble Lord had sat down.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I should emphasise what I said previously. The Government's firm view is that the opinion and advice that we currently have are that the Bill is not notifiable. I have also signalled—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, heard me
1086
signal it—the fact that we are in continuing discussions with the European Commission. I also said—this is on the record—that if anything brought us to change our mind, we should act. But if we are not so persuaded, we shall not change our position. I hope that that is helpful—it is as helpful as I can be.
Lord Campbell of AUoway: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. That is certainly helpful, and it is the most that he can do—or give—in the position in which he finds himself. I accept his offer without commitment, although it is an offer that has an element of commitment. In those circumstances I prefer to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes—
Noble Lords: Order.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 11, line 25, 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, although my amendment is grouped with that of my noble friend, I must make a protest. I want the Bill to succeed; we all want it to succeed. I want to see in my lifetime the reduction of 3,000 deaths a year from smoking, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, at Second Reading at col. 1706 of the Official Report of 2nd November 2001. My noble friend on the Front Bench said it all: the Government are gambling with people's lives. I cannot let that go without a protest. I beg to move.
1.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 89.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Biffen, L.

Monson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Naseby, L. [Teller]

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Noakes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Geddes, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L

Glentoran, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

1087

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Addington, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Ahmed, L.

Listowel, E.

Andrews, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L

Archer of Sandwell, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Attlee, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bach, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Barker, B.

McNally, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Blackwell, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Bradshaw, L.

Mitchell, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Carter, L.

Newby, L.

Christopher, L.

Northover, B.

Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Clinton-Davis, L.

Peston, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Crawlev, B.

Puttnam, L.

Dubs, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Elder, L.

Razzall, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rea, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L. [Teller]

Redesdale, L.

Rennard, L.

Filkin, L.

Richard, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gale, B.

Rooker, L.

Geraint, L.

Roper, L.

Gilbert, L.

Russell, E.

Goldsmith, L,

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Goodhart, L.

Simon, V.

Greaves, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Greengross, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grenfell, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thornton, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Tope, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hayman, B.

Uddin, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hooson, L.

Walmsley, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Hoyle, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Whitaker, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Wilkins, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
1.59 p.m.
Lord Monsonmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 11, line 27, at end insert—
"() In the event that medical evidence emerges that tobacco is substantially less harmful to users than cannabis, the Secretary of State shall by order provide that the provisions of this Act shall cease to have effect.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is necessitated, I submit, by a major development which has taken place since we completed the Report stage. This Bill emanates from the Liberal Democrat Benches—that is obvious to everyone—even though paradoxically, as I pointed out previously, the Liberal Democrats were the only party to vote unanimously 16 months ago, with no dissent permitted, against a Conservative amendment to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill which would have protected 16 and 17 year-old boys and girls from a particular sexual practice which is twice as dangerous as smoking
1088
20 cigarettes a day. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, pointed that out at the time—I am sorry that the noble Lord has just left the Chamber.
Even though that happened, nevertheless, I was prepared to believe that the Liberal Democrats were, in other respects, genuinely concerned with the welfare of young people. It was, above all, that concern that motivated them to press so strongly for this Bill in the belief—whether justified or mistaken, only time will tell—that banning advertising would reduce tobacco consumption among young people. However, only six days ago the Liberal Democrat spring conference voted in favour of legalising cannabis. Once cannabis is legalised it can be freely advertised. The most charitable explanation for that is that the Liberal Democrats sincerely believe that cannabis is less dangerous to the user than tobacco, despite the well known carcinogenic consequences of cannabis and despite Dr Stuttaford pointing out yesterday in The Times that it often leads to schizophrenia.
Of course, I do not believe that the Liberal Democrats would seriously maintain that it is less dangerous to third parties. In that respect cannabis is akin to alcohol. Whatever one thinks about tobacco, however much one dislikes it, one has to admit that it is not responsible for death or injury on our roads in the way that, increasingly, cannabis is. Nor does tobacco provoke violence, as cannabis sometimes can. Your Lordships will be aware that the word "assassin" derives from the word "hashish".
The Liberal Democrats can argue that the respect in which cannabis resembles alcohol is not their immediate concern. The respects in which it parallels tobacco is what matters for the purposes of this Bill. To a user, as distinct from a third party, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco. Therefore, the latter deserves to be discouraged more rigorously.
If that analysis is scientifically proved to be correct, the amendment will have no effect in the short, medium or long term. It can be accepted without any further discussion in the knowledge that it is most unlikely ever to be used. On the other hand, if it is scientifically established that tobacco is significantly less harmful than cannabis to the user, surely it is patently unfair to impose restrictions on tobacco that will not be imposed upon cannabis. That will be the case especially if the Liberal Democrats have their way in regard to decriminalisation, as they may do after the next election if the result is a tight one and a 1974-style Lib-Lab pact comes into being. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we had a debate on a sunset clause on Report. We disposed of that matter. I do not want to add anything further. I do not consider that a sunset clause is justified. In regard to cannabis, the Government have no intention of legalising it.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for a splendidly hypothetical coda to this Bill. It was very opportunistic, especially in the light of my party's conference last weekend and the report on cannabis and health this week. I am

1089
determined not to be provoked by anything that he says and to remain relentlessly good humoured right to the end of this Bill. However, the amendment is a complete red herring. We are none the worse for that. It has put us all in better humour.
Throughout this Bill we have talked in terms of absolute risk and not relative risk. We believe that the banning of cigarette advertising will have a significant effect on tobacco consumption. If any legislation is needed to legalise or to prevent cannabis advertising, I am sure that we shall all leap up and down at a future date.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting what appears to be a split in the de facto Lib-Lab pact and to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his resolute good humour, which I appreciate. I have made my point. It may be interesting for people at large to study what I have said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Clement-Jones.)
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, although it is not usually permitted to speak on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, perhaps I may trespass on the patience of the House to reflect that a great debt of gratitude is owed to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the humorous and effective way in which he has conducted the proceedings on the Bill. I also pay tribute to all noble Lords who have taken part. This is the fifth Friday when we have had highly enjoyable debates on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill and many other issues, pace the noble Lord, Lord Monson. At times the proceedings have been tense, but never wholly disagreeable. We owe a debt of gratitude to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debates.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those words. I want to thank all the
1090
supporters of the Bill who have so patiently sat through all the stages of the Bill and today voted so magnificently. A select few have actively spoken in the debates, some to great effect. I particularly thank ASH and John Connolly for their great assistance during the passage of the Bill.
I thank those who have helped to improve the Bill, such as the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Faulkner, and, dare I say, those who have tested the language and propositions contained in the Bill. Our debates have been conducted with great courtesy. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and my noble friend Lady Northover for their considerable assistance in gathering support.
Finally, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for their encouragement and help as the Bill has proceeded through the House. I recognise that in principle the Department of Health supports the Bill. It is regrettable that it was not introduced straight after the last election.
However, it is not so clear at this time whether the Bill will have a smooth passage through the House of Commons. Ministers will have had the admonitions from Sir Richard Doll and others last week, and I do not need to elaborate on those. But it is worth reading a short piece from the Health Service Journal of yesterday, which put the situation very fairly. It states:
"The 'big test' is this month, with Liberal Democrat peer Lord Clement-Jones' private member's bill expected to clear the House of Lords tomorrow. The bill needs a swift move to the Commons if it is to make progress in this parliamentary session, Mr Bates [the chief executive of ASH] believes. If not, it will indicate 'something quite terrible about the government'. While there is no evidence of sinister forces at work, HSJ has established that the bill may fail to get a prompt Commons reading. The official line is that the government supports its aims, 'but it is too early to say if it will have time to be debated'. The government is 'waiting to see what amendments it has when it comes out of the Lords and what pressures of other business are in the Commons'".
That is a very fair statement and I hope that now that the Bill is about to proceed through the House of Commons, that the Government will take a favourable view and adopt it.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at ten minutes past two o'clock.

  Court Sittings: Travel Arrangements
  Court Sittings: Travel Arrangements
  British Nationals Sentenced to Death Overseas
  British Nationals Sentenced to Death Overseas
  Human Rights: UN Meetings
  Human Rights: UN Meetings
  Jerusalem
  Jerusalem
  British Citizens Tried Overseas
  British Citizens Tried Overseas
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  International Security Assistance Force
  International Security Assistance Force
  Army: Medically Downgraded Personnel
  Army: Medically Downgraded Personnel
  Eurofighter
  Eurofighter
  Armed Forces Pay
  Armed Forces Pay
  Defence Housing Executive: Funding
  Defence Housing Executive: Funding
  Armed Forces: Family Welfare
  Armed Forces: Family Welfare
  Army: Manning Shortfall
  Army: Manning Shortfall
  Service Accommodation
  Service Accommodation
  Ministry of Defence Budget
  Ministry of Defence Budget
  Depleted Uranium
  Depleted Uranium
  Ecosystems: River Pollution Control
  Ecosystems: River Pollution Control
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Farm Animal Exports
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Farm Animal Exports
  National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery Review
  National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery Review