Sitting of 4 July 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
  The House being met, and the Speaker having leave of absence pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 3 (Deputy Speaker), SYLVIA HEAL, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table.

Point of Order
9.33 am
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that, yesterday, Mr. Speaker gave a ruling or guidance to the House about referring to the inappropriateness of the appointment of the Minister for Children. I seek your guidance and interpretation of that ruling. Mr. Speaker said:
"The House should know that when an hon. Member is being attacked in such a way there should be a substantive motion before the House."
He was talking about what he said was
"a regular and concerted attack on the Minister for Children."
Some of us thought that the Opposition were here to make regular and concerted attacks on Ministers, but that may now be a rather old-fashioned view—I do not know.
I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, about
638
the fact that Mr. Speaker said in the context of attacking Ministers that
"there should be a substantive motion before the House."
It would help us if we could have your guidance on what form that substantive motion might take and how it would enable Opposition Members or, indeed, Government Back Benchers more effectively to hold a Minister to account.
I am sure that this is not what Mr. Speaker meant, but the worrying implication of that ruling is that it suggests a degree of protection for Ministers by the occupant of the Chair. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will want to assure us that that cannot be so, but it would be very helpful if you could guide me and the House on what form the substantive motion should take. I hope that you will not say that it should be something like an early-day motion because, as you know, that leads absolutely nowhere.
I hope that you will be able to tell us what we can do procedurally to table a substantive motion that will allow us properly to hold a Minister to account—whether or not it represents, in Mr. Speaker's words, a
"concerted attack on the Minister"—[Official Report, 3 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 542.]
I hope to concert many attacks on Ministers in my remaining time as a Member, but, on this occasion, your guidance would be very helpful.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not think that it is for me to interpret what Mr. Speaker himself said yesterday, but I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should perhaps seek the advice of the Clerks in the Table Office.

BILL PRESENTED
  PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN (PROHIBITION)
  Geraint Davies, supported by Ms Karen Buck, Ms Debra Shipley, Mr. Harold Best, Mrs. Janet Dean, Harry Cohen, Linda Perham, Mr. Greg Pope and Jane Griffiths, presented a Bill to make provision about the physical punishment of children: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed. [Bill 143].
Orders of the Day
  Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Bill
    Clause 1

      COMMUNITY BENEFIT SOCIETIES: POWER TO RESTRICT USE OF ASSETS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, page 2, line 20, leave out "him to perform" and insert
      "or assist him to perform any of".
      9.36 am
      Mr. Mark Todd: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
      Mr. Todd: This group of amendments, of which Lords amendment No. 2 is the most significant, arises from consideration of the Bill in the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which provided a very useful analysis of some aspects of clause 1. The critical element that the Committee raised in respect of this group of amendments was the potential for the clause to be applied more widely, so that it could touch on other aspects of the regulation of co-operative and community benefit societies, not just those related to the activities in clause 1. The intent of this group of amendments is to narrow that purpose, and those hon. Members who have a copy of the amendments available at the Table Office will see that Lords amendment No. 2 specifies how the activities of the individual carrying out such processes should be restricted.
      Mr. John Randall: Although I understand what the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) is saying, I confess that I am not a great expert in this subject. Why have the words
      "or assist him to perform any"
      been included? Lords amendment No. 2 contains a similar phrase, but why are such things restricted to the processes in the clause? I understand that such a change makes the clause less compulsory, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain further how it will achieve what he says is its purpose.
      Mr. Eric Forth: I must admit that I always have a moment of doubt when such an amendment has to be considered at this late but quite proper stage in the proceedings on a Bill. Indeed, in this case, three such amendments have been grouped together. What worries me are phrases such as "authorise a prescribed person", which appears in Lords amendment No. 2. I say that particularly because it goes on to say that that prescribed person will
      "make rules, binding on persons".
      I am not sure that I fully understand why such a rather opaque expression has been written into the Bill. It would help us if the promoter of the Bill gave us his
      640
      thoughts on who that prescribed person might be, and whether that would vary in different circumstances, to say nothing of the fact that that prescribed person can make the rules binding on other persons of a prescribed description. An awful lot of prescription is going on, about which we have no idea and on which we have no assistance. Trying to be helpful and positive, I suppose, the provision goes on to talk about
      "enabling or assisting him to perform any of his functions under the regulations".
      Again, the problem that we always face at this stage of legislation is that we are asked to approve a framework approach to something that will become clear only when the regulations are published. An element of doubt therefore exists that gives me pause for thought.
      The next provision talks about the
      "making, publication and enforcement of such rules".
      Again, that is a permissive provision, but it is very wide, and it appears to provide some unrestricted powers in terms of the rules that can be made. These very wide, broad and rather vague provisions contain the potential for quite draconian action, because we are talking about binding rules being made—even if they are for the purpose of enabling or assisting, they are still binding. It would therefore help the House greatly if the promoter told us whom the prescribed person making those binding rules might be. It might also help us to know who are the persons of a prescribed description on whom these rules will bear.
      The next rather intriguing provision is to leave out "carrying out" and insert "performing". Perhaps the semantics behind that change are too subtle for me to begin to understand. Clearly, the promoter understands them, and it would help the House enormously if he told us whether this subtle change of wording has some sinister implication, or whether their lordships are merely demonstrating to us that they have a much better command of the language than we do, which we would all find entirely forgivable. I am sure that I, along with the promoter, would defer happily to their lordships in their superior command of the language. If there is any more to it than that, however, it would be helpful to the House to know.
      Perhaps the promoter could provide a little more help, give us a little more detail, and—if he could get behind the motivation of their lordships—tell us what he thinks was in their minds when they inserted those provisions. That would help the House greatly.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: I very much follow what my right hon. Friend has said. Having looked at the origins of these amendments, we must be grateful to Members of the other place for having made some progress in trying to limit the Henry VIII powers in this Bill. One might almost say that a culture has been developing in recent weeks and in debates in this Chamber, particularly on Fridays, whereby people think that anybody who tables an amendment to a private Member's Bill, however worthy, is somehow to be disparaged and criticised.
      Their lordships have demonstrated through these amendments that they were anxious about the original scope of the wording, because a Lords Select Committee was concerned about it. As a result of the amendment before us today, especially the second amendment in the

      641
      group, I take the point to which the noble Lord Carter referred in the other place that any regulations conferring functions
      "can only make provision for the specific and limited purpose expressly set out in subsection (1): i.e., they can only set up an asset 'lock-in' regime for community benefit societies".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 June 2003; Vol. 649, c. 501.]
      Clearly, that is better than the previous provision, and for that reason I would be keen to support the amendments.
      9.45 am
      The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I support Lords amendments 1 to 3.
      Clause 1 allows the Treasury to bring forward in secondary legislation regulations enabling community benefit societies to adopt a lock-in over their assets, so that their assets cannot be used or dealt with other than for the benefit of the community, except in such cases as may be prescribed in the regulations, such as insolvency.
      An asset lock-in regime for community benefit societies was one of the key proposals of the strategy unit report "Private Action, Public Benefit". The Government support the principle of such a regime and can see the benefits that it could bring to community benefit societies and to the economy as a whole. However, an asset lock-in regime would require detailed work and consultation to get the policy right, and to reflect the needs of the sector and other stakeholders. That is why we support an enabling clause, rather than bringing forward a substantive asset lock-in regime in this Bill.
      The Government are committed to taking forward an asset lock-in regime. To ensure that the asset lock-in regime is sufficiently robust to give societies the certainty that their assets will always be used for the community benefit, it may be necessary to appoint a body to perform supervisory or regulatory functions. The body may also need to make binding rules to help maintain compliance with the regime. For this purpose, the clause enables the Treasury, through regulation, to confer rulemaking powers on a prescribed body under clause 1(5)(d).
      Although any regulations made under clause 1(1) could only make provision for the purpose of setting up an asset lock-in regime for community benefit societies, the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed concern that such a delegation would be appropriate only if it were to be expressly limited to a specific purpose. To address the Committee's concern, the amendments made in the other place narrow the scope of clause 1(5)(d), so that the regulations can only authorise a prescribed person to make binding rules for the purpose of enabling or assisting him to perform his functions under the regulations. That expression is not new in the Lords amendment: it was already in the provision in the form in which it left the Commons. All that the amendments do is narrow the rule-making power from the wider version in the previous Bill. "Prescribed" is defined as meaning prescribed by regulations. Thus, the amendments made explicit that any rule-making powers conferred on a supervisory body will be directly related to the implementation of the asset lock-in regime.
      642
      Lords Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 made further minor amendments for the purpose of consistency with Lords amendment No. 2. Lords amendment No. 2 uses the phrase "enabling or assisting" whereas clause 1(4)(h) as it left the Commons merely used the word "enable". Lords amendment No. 1 alters this to "enable or assist" for the reasons that I have given to the House in terms of making explicit the provisions of the Bill. Lords amendment No. 2 alters clause (1)(5)(d) so that it uses the phrase
      "to perform any of his functions",
      whereas clause (1)(5)(e) as it left the Commons used the phrase
      "carrying out any of his functions".
      Lords amendment No. 3 alters "carrying out" to "performing". Each of those narrows down the specific points in the Bill. The Government support the amendments.
      Mr. Randall: Lords amendment No. 2 contains the word "perform", so I presume that amendment No. 3 echoes that with its use of the word "performing". Can the Paymaster General enlighten me about whether there is any difference in meaning between "performing" and "carrying out"? Would it have been possible to use the words "to carry out" in amendment No. 2 or is there a legal difference between the two terms?
      Dawn Primarolo:I understand that there is no legal difference. The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that alternative words could have been used. The changes have been made to ensure consistency of terminology between Lords amendment No. 2 and the other provisions in clause 1. The other place decided that it preferred a narrowing of powers on the specifics that the Bill addresses, and the other amendments are about consistency of terminology. That is always desirable to help people when they read such a Bill. The Government are happy to support the amendments.
      Mr. Todd:My right hon. Friend has provided an extremely elegant explanation of some of the textual issues. That responds to some of the points made about the precise choice of words.
      If we dwell for a moment on the broader context of the clause and the reasons for this narrowing amendment, we realise the asset-locking provision, which is a key part of the Bill, is designed not to restrict the rights of certain citizens but to facilitate the ability of citizens who form themselves into community benefit societies to protect that particular asset so that it can do the purpose for which it was originally set up. The provision is not designed to restrict individual freedoms. As I explained on Second Reading, I deliberately chose this Bill as I was seeking one that would not restrict individual freedoms but would facilitate the means by which people could co-operate safely and in a manner that protected the purpose for which they established their venture.
      It is also important to emphasise that there will be a lengthy consultation process on exactly how the regulations will be drawn up. The clause facilitates that process, so there will be many opportunities for

      643
      Members of the House and those who are directly interested in the regulatory framework for community benefit societies to comment on the process and on the regulations that any Government might choose to lay before the House. Decisions on regulations will be determined by an affirmative vote in the House, and that will give Members a further opportunity to debate them in more detail should they wish to do so.
      I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). The other place performed a service in identifying the potential to narrow a little further and sharpen the purposes of the clause. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 38, at end insert— "() Regulations under this section may not create any new criminal offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years."
      Mr. Todd: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The purpose of this amendment is perhaps more explicit than that of the first group. It illustrates the concern of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about what might stem from the clause should the Government proceed to consult on and publish any regulations. Those regulations would, in certain circumstances, impose penalties on those who are in breach of them. I raised questions on this issue earlier in our proceedings on the Bill, and I can certainly sympathise with the view taken in the other place that there should be a clear restriction on the penalties that could be imposed under the clause. The amendment, therefore, readily commends itself to the House.
      Mr. Chope:I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he moved the amendment, but he has failed to explain why he thinks that seven years is reasonable. The justification that Lord Carter gave in the other place for having seven years as the maximum term for imprisonment was that, once the Bill is enacted, it will be possible for offences to be committed that are tantamount to fraud or theft. Therefore, the maximum penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of an offence of fraud or theft. However, an offence of fraud or theft already carries a maximum penalty far in excess of seven years. An officer or member of a co-operative or community benefit society who is guilty of theft or fraud should surely be prosecuted under the provisions of the Theft Acts and be exposed to the maximum penalties stipulated in that legislation. The justification for this delegated regulatory power, which would give the Government the power to introduce a maximum penalty of seven years for offences that might be quite trivial, is slightly specious.
      Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend prepared to go a stage further? The people who could be defrauded are members of co-operatives and community benefit societies and, I think it is fair to say, they are usually some of the weaker and more vulnerable members of
      644
      society. Therefore, if anything, we should give them even more protection. It is bad enough for people to defraud large corporations, but to take advantage of the people covered by the Bill would surely be even worse. Is there not an argument for strengthening rather than weakening the provisions?
      Mr. Chope: I take my right hon. Friend's point. My concern is that, by specifying a maximum of seven years for offences that are tantamount to fraud or theft, a reasonable person—perhaps a member of a co-operative or community benefit society—might ask why Parliament and the Government think that theft and fraud from such a society's funds is a less serious offence than theft or fraud from an organisation in the public or private sector. Lord Carter"s justification for the seven-year maximum could send a confused message to those outside who might think that we do not take seriously fraud or theft in relation to co-operative or community benefit societies.
      Lord Carter was probably seeking to accept the detailed recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Before the amendment was tabled, it was concerned that the Bill contained powers to make regulations creating new criminal offences without specifying the maximum penalties for those offences. On 13 June, the noble Lord seemed to be reluctant to accept the Committee's recommendation. He said that
      "there are precedents for a power to create criminal offences in secondary legislation that do not specify a limit"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 June 2003; Vol. 649, c. 502.]
      He cited the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 2002 as a precedents and although it was obviously an oversight that no limit was included in that Act he was reluctant to accept that. He tried to give the impression that he had complied with the Committee"s recommendations by suggesting a maximum penalty, although I think that it is very high. The ability to impose a maximum penalty of seven years under delegated legislation, which cannot be amended, is a pretty draconian power to give to a regulatory body or the Government. However, a limit of seven years is better than no limit at all, as the Bill originally provided, so I find myself slightly confused. When the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) sums up, I hope that he will explain why seven years is absolutely the right time period.
      10 am
      Mr. Forth: I was about to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) but when he finished I thought, "No, this won"t do at all." I shall not allow him to slip into the debate as easily as that and try to get all heads nodding by saying that any limit is better than no limit at all. He did not justify that statement, which was rather unusual of him, but left it as though it were received wisdom. Frankly, the amount of wisdom received in this place is usually pretty limited and even when it is offered by my hon. Friend, with all his legal expertise, we should at least ponder it.
      We could dwell on the decision to choose a period of seven years for quite some time, although it would not be especially productive. It is always interesting to

      645
      consider why great minds alight on such periods, especially because there is ample evidence that similar offences carry rather different maximum penalties, as my hon. Friend said. I hope that the combined wit and wisdom of the Minister and the promoter of the Bill will be sufficient to explain why, if my hon. Friend"s analysis is right, the provision would distinguish between offences committed under the Bill and similar offences, and why seven years was picked. A bit of an explanation of that would help us out.
      Why is a maximum penalty being introduced at all? I am tempted to engage in a modest dissertation on whether the House should impose maximum penalties or leave that to the discretion of the courts or the judiciary, although I shall not allow myself to do so because I could stray a little wide of the amendment. Although the amendment might appear modest, it gives rise to consideration of the complex relationship that inevitably exists between the House creating framework legislation, the role of the regulations that underpin that framework, and the judicial process.
      Additional information would be useful before the House rushes headlong into accepting the amendment. What do the Minister and, perhaps more importantly, the promoter envisage as the role of the provision? To pick up on what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, why is there need for a maximum penalty? As I said in my intervention, which I hope will not be brushed over too lightly, why is the Bill apparently more restrictive than other measures? I assume that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) wants to assist the co-operative movement and community benefit societies, so why on earth does he apparently want to introduce lower penalties than those that might apply in the profit-making world of commercialism? I know how well qualified he is to comment on such matters, so his views would assist the House.
      Mr. Randall: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) demonstrated why it is sometimes good to step back and think for a while. As my right hon. Friend said, we sometimes consider amendments that appear harmless, and there is almost an inclination to nod them though, especially on Fridays. That is regrettable because we are, after all, making law. When our constituents write to us about our consideration of private Members' Bills, they forget that such Bills actually create law and, indeed, that some create criminal offences.
      I am rather confused about how the maximum limit of seven years was decided. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch talked about sending the message that a crime against a co-operative society might be considered less important than others, although I am sure that that is not the intention of the Bill. It could be possible that committing such a crime might lead to prosecution for further offences that could invoke a longer sentence.
      I am always a little surprised by the way in which society"s view seems to waver on whether we should sentence more or less. I plied my trade as a retailer before coming to the House and I remember when the then shadow Home Secretary—he is the Prime Minister now—said that shoplifting was not a serious offence. I
      646
      was biased at the time, but many of us in the retail trade believe that the offence takes away profit and thus people"s livelihoods. The Prime Minister made his comments at that time to imply that there would be a new, liberal regime, but things have moved on and we now have a Home Secretary who is more intent on locking people up.
      Perhaps the promoter of the Bill or the Paymaster General will provide us with further explanation. Financial punishments might be more appropriate for such offences, so perhaps the amendment should set out levels of fines. Are those who commit such offences the sort of people who should be sent to our already overcrowded prisons? Now is not the time for a lengthy dissertation on whether we should leave such matters to the judiciary, but I would like a little more information about how the decision to use a seven-year period was reached and whether there are any provisions for financial penalties under the Bill.
      Dawn Primarolo: It is important that a society's asset lock should be sufficiently robust to provide investors and society itself with the confidence that its assets will be used only for the benefit of the community. For that reason, it may be necessary to impose criminal liability on persons breaking asset-lock regulations. Penalties are already part of the legislative framework governing societies, and are an important part of the checks and balances that protect the interests of societies, their members and those who deal with the sector. The Bill currently places no limit on the maximum penalty that can be prescribed for any criminal offences created to enforce the asset lock-in.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) raised a pertinent issue. He is wearing his United States tie—he brings it out once a year on American independence day, and I am glad to see it in the Chamber today—and made a point about balancing the rights of people in society, people who depend on its resources and, indeed, people who may break the rules, which are designed to protect members" interests. He was right to touch on that point, which was also dealt with by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It considered the delegation of powers in clause 1(5)(a), and an amendment was introduced in the other place to address its concerns by limiting the maximum penalty that can be imposed under the regulations to seven years" imprisonment.
      A number of hon. Members asked why that limit was imposed. Prior to consultation, it is not certain exactly what criminal offences may be created under clause 1 (5)(a), so it is important that the maximum penalty should be sufficiently high in light of the seriousness of offences that may be created and the current maximum sentences for similarly serious offences. The maximum penalty of seven years" imprisonment is the maximum penalty for analogous offences in company law—there is no reason why people in societies should be any less protected than people protected by company law—and the law relating to charities. There are therefore examples of the seven-year penalty. For example, seven years is the maximum penalty that can be imposed on persons who are knowingly party to the carrying on of any business of a company for a fraudulent purpose. The maximum punishment for the theft of a charity"s assets is seven years" imprisonment.

      647
      Those offences are comparable in seriousness to an offence that may be created in regulations made under clause 1—an officer of a society fraudulently using the assets of a society for purposes not permitted by its asset lock, whether for personal gain or otherwise. Clearly, if offences created under the regulations are less serious, that would be reflected in a lower maximum penalty. However, the amendment made in the other place represents, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested, an appropriate restraint, given those examples of analogous offences, on the delegated power to make regulations. For those reasons, I am glad to give the Government"s support to the amendment, and recommend it to the House.
      Mr. Todd: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for her explanation of why seven years was chosen as a maximum penalty. It raises an issue that arose earlier in our consideration of the Bill—there is a desire to place co-operative and community benefit societies on the same footing as companies in their response to threats that they may face. That has been a consistent strand in our debates, so I can understand why Lord Carter recommended, albeit hesitantly—I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is right—acceptance of the Lords amendment.
      It is also worth saying that the outcome of the consultation cannot be predicted. We are dealing with a narrow group of potential offences—they relate specifically to the abuse of an asset lock on a society, and do not generally relate to fraud in the society, which is covered by other legislation—so it is difficult to predict precisely which offences will be defined after the consultation has concluded. Flexibility is therefore needed, and it may be suggested that financial penalties are more appropriate in certain circumstances. With that in mind, I commend the amendment to the House.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

  Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Bill
    Clause 1

      OFFENCE OF DEALING IN TAINTED CULTURAL OBJECTS
      10.15 am
      Mr. Richard Allan:I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 2, leave out from "if" to end of line 2 and insert—
      "he dishonestly deals in a cultural object that is tainted, knowing or believing that the object is tainted".
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal):With this it will be convenient to discussamendment No. 3, in page 1, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
      Mr. Allan: I shall speak to amendment No. 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and me. I shall also address amendment No. 3, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and, I hope, demonstrate why it is unnecessary and unhelpful. I am pleased that the Minister for the Arts, who has been named Minister of the year, is in the Chamber to talk about the Bill. I hope that she has enjoyed getting up to speed on heritage legislation and the detail of putting online databases in libraries over the past week or two.
      Amendment No. 1 is the result of a lot of work done by Anthony Browne of the British Art Market Federation, an organisation that has approached the Bill in a constructive manner. Its members will be seriously affected by any criminal legislation, as it represents the dealer community against whom prosecutions may be made. It has sought to make sure that the offence is properly and tightly drafted so that the legitimate art market, which Mr. Browne represents and which seeks at all times to avoid dealing in tainted cultural objects—objects that have been removed illegally—can conduct its business properly. However, the criminal offence remains for people outside the legitimate market who knowingly and dishonestly deal in such material.
      Amendment No. 1 seeks to redraft and clarify the offence so that if someone is prosecuted, but the object turns out not to be a tainted cultural object, the offence does not apply. There was some questioning of the offence in the Bill as originally drafted, and we have tried to keep the definition tight in the spirit of private Members" legislation. We do not want drafting to be all over the place so that many offences arise—we want to keep the offence specific. In the original drafting of the Bill, if an object turned out not to be tainted, a prosecution could not take place, but we accept that there was ambiguity. The wording proposed in amendment No. 1 is a better way to deal with the problem so that we can be certain about the offence and assure people in the market that they will not be prosecuted if it turns out that a cultural object is not tainted.
      The Bill aims to have a deterrent effect. We want to ensure that the protection of sites and monuments, whether in the UK or abroad, is as robust as possible so

      649
      that people know that there is no market for tainted objects. It is not intended that the offence should be used regularly, but the provision should be regarded as a deterrent. There must be a strong message that someone will be prosecuted if they knowingly and dishonestly deal in tainted cultural objects. The threshold is set quite high, and the prosecution is required to prove three things. It has to prove dishonesty, the fact that something is a tainted cultural object—amendment No. 1 makes that even clearer, which I hope gives assurances to the hon. Member for Christchurch—and that the individual knew or believed that that was the case.
      I understand why the hon. Member for Christchurch found clause 1(2) problematic, and I am grateful to him for giving us an opportunity to try to elaborate on the need for its inclusion in the Bill. If he has further questions once he has discussed his amendment, I would be happy to deal with them.
      Subsection (2) is important. Once a prosecution has reached its threshold, we do not then wish there to be an opportunity to adopt a line of defence that effectively says that the individual did not know or believe that the object was a cultural one. That would open up greater scope for the defence than we would wish. The prosecution would already have had to demonstrate that it was a tainted cultural object, but our advice from counsel at the time of drafting was that by not explicitly ruling out this line of defence, as in, "Yes, it may have been a tainted cultural object, but I did not understand that it was a cultural object within the definition of the Bill", we would unnecessarily and against the line of policy narrow the scope of prosecutions that could take place or broaden the scope of defences.
      That was run past the ministerial advisory panel on the illicit trade in antiquities and it was comfortable with that. It represents all sides of the business—those on the heritage side and those on the art dealing side—and it accepted that the current wording was appropriate. I initially queried why subsection (2) was necessary, but I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will be able to accept that there is a logic to it, which is to seek the appropriate balance whereby the prosecution must rightly meet a high threshold while not allowing scope for defences that would mean that cases would be extremely difficult to bring even where there was strong evidence that somebody was dishonestly and knowingly dealing in a tainted cultural object.
      I am perfectly willing to answer further queries, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will quite properly have, but I hope that at the end of the debate, having explored the issue and had some assurances about how the Bill will operate, he will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
      I hope that the House will be willing to accept amendment No. 1, which, as I say, is an effort to reassure people, particularly those on the art market side who have worked constructively on the Bill, that the offence will be appropriately used and prosecutions brought where something is genuinely a tainted cultural object, and that there is no doubt that if something is not a tainted cultural object prosecutions will not be brought, which is the purpose of amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan)
      650
      for the way in which he has introduced his amendment and commented on mine. I hope that the Bill will reach the statute book and I am sorry that he has said that he will not seek re-election at the next general election, but that is probably because he thinks that once he has a Bill on the statute book he has achieved all that needs to be achieved in this place. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) says, the hon. Gentleman will become a cultural object, but I shall not say any more about that at the moment.
      Amendment No. 3 would ensure that a person would have to know or believe that the object was a cultural one before he could be convicted of an offence. The hon. Gentleman, in introducing his amendment, made it seem almost as if there would be large numbers of prosecutions, but paragraph 37 of the explanatory notes states:
      "Given that the level of prosecution is estimated at probably not more than one every two to three years costs to Courts and enforcement agencies will be de minimis."
      If that is so, why try to prosecute somebody where there is evidence that they did not know that the object that they were dealing in was a cultural object? If my amendment was accepted, that problem would be overcome. Obviously, there are issues relating to dishonesty, and that would be for a jury or court to determine, but one can imagine many situations in which someone would be handling an item that they did not realise was a cultural object but which may have tremendous significance. If they did not know it was a cultural object when they were handling it, why should they be liable to criminal penalties for committing an offence?
      Mr. Allan: There is a requirement on the prosecution to show that the dealer knew or believed that the object was tainted, so the dealer must know or believe that the object had been illegally removed from an ancient site or building. That requirement is on the prosecution. Having demonstrated all that in order to bring a prosecution in the first place, we seek to avoid someone then entering into a lengthy defence whereby they try to prove that they did not know it was a cultural object. We felt that it was inappropriate that, having proven that they knew that the object had been illegally removed, they could try to prove that they did not know that it was a cultural object, with all the expert witnesses and paraphernalia that that may involve.
      Mr. Chope: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I know that he has looked into the matter carefully and that his amendment tightens up the situation significantly, and in the light of that I shall not seek to press the amendment to a Division.
      Tim Loughton: I wish to add a few comments in support of amendment No. 1, to which I have added my name. It may, on first sight, appear purely a rearrangement of words, which it is, but one of the points that I was eager to make in Committee was that we needed the Bill to be watertight and not to leave various things to chance that could be the subject of lengthy and costly legal wrangles in court. As with so much legislation, it is essential that we get it right and closely defined in this place rather than give further business to lawyers outside.

      651
      I, too, wish to mention Anthony Browne of the British Art Market Federation, who has been exceedingly helpful and is also a member of the panel seeking to ensure that the legislation will work and is acceptable to the vast majority of honest dealers and people with an interest in and a business in dealing with cultural objects.
      Amendment No. 1 is a useful tidying exercise that will remove any remaining doubt about the thrust of the Bill and what a tainted object is. Proportionality is also necessary. The hon. Gentleman has already mentioned the high threshold of burden of proof on the prosecution in order to prove that the object being dealt with is a cultural object. Therefore, I fully support the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has raised some interesting points, but subsection (2) is essential; otherwise the Bill would give succour to the lawyers in long-drawn-out legal wrangles.
      What are expert dealers doing with objects if they do not know them to be cultural objects in the first place? It really is a bit of nonsense to be able to use that as a defence. If a dealer tries to claim that he did not know that an Egyptian artefact was a cultural object, he has no business being a dealer in such artefacts in the first place.
      Mr. John Randall: Is my hon. Friend saying that the Bill is purely for those who are expert dealers? Presumably, it would affect anybody who is dealing in tainted cultural objects. It could be someone who could not be expected to know an object"s exact provenance and merit.
      Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is right. This must cover everybody. Only a small proportion of people making a supposedly respectable business out of this may be flouting the law. But at the same time, this is big business among criminal classes. In many cases, they are looting to order and know exactly what they are looting. Therefore, it applies to everybody, but we do not need to give a line of defence to people involved in criminal activities by which they could wriggle out of the terms of this highly necessary Bill.
      Dr. Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) touched upon an important point, because we are dealing not just with big London dealers but with, for example, scrap reclamation yards. Under those circumstances, the definition of a cultural object is important. What is a cultural object? It could be a doorknob removed from an old house in this country; it is not just confined to Egyptian artefacts.
      10.30 am
      Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some concerns have been raised in the press by those engaged in architectural salvage. We have examined the issue in great detail, and the panel has considered all the possibilities. The purpose behind the Bill is not to make criminals out of people who sell doorknobs that turn out to have come from a stately home of unique provenance and can be defined as cultural objects. The Bill is not
      652
      targeted against that sort of legitimate business. There are enough safeguards in the Bill to ensure that those involved will not fall foul of the proposed legislation. The experts who form part of the panel have taken all that into consideration, but it is a fair point for my hon. Friend to make.
      I support amendment No. 1. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that although his concerns are noted, the effect of amendment No. 3 would be to weaken the intentions behind the Bill and to provide a line of escape for those on whom we are seeking to clamp down.
      Mr. Randall: The purpose of amendment No. 1 has been well explained, and I agree that it should be supported. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that perhaps I had a slightly jaded view of the legal profession. I shall be careful because I do not wish to come up against members of it. If we removed subsection (2), it would make it easier for prolonged wrangling to take place. There are many opportunities. I can imagine hours of discussion over what is a "cultural object" and whether it is of
      "historical, architectural or archaeological interest."
      I was pleased to hear that the expectation is that there will be relatively few prosecutions; otherwise, shares in the legal profession would be increasing dramatically in value.
      Dr. Murrison: There is some confusion in my mind, and I suspect that there is confusion among those who might be affected by the Bill. What exactly do we mean by "cultural objects"? For me it means, for example, the treasures that are being looted from Iraq. What is less clear is what a cultural object means in the context of the United Kingdom. There is a scrap reclamation yard close to my constituency. It is an enormous site that deals in a raft of bits and bobs that people recycle and put into their homes. It is a big business. I am concerned about what the Bill would mean for that business. As I understand it, there would be an onus on the operator of the business to define in some way, or to be clear in his mind, the provenance of the various objects in which he is dealing. I agree that this is potentially a bean feast for lawyers as they define exactly what is meant by extraordinary terms such as "tainted" and "cultural". What is meant by "historical"? Does that mean an object from a listed building, for example? Another term is "architectural"; another is "archaeological interest". The definitions are complex.
      Tim Loughton: I am interested in my hon. Friend's point. There are checks and databases for stolen and looted goods of cultural and archaeological interest that are open to reputable dealers, be they London art dealers or auction houses. They are open also to others involved in archaeological salvage. They are available for items above a certain value, and it is possible to check whether items have been looted. Those who are dealing in items of larger value can make a number of checks. That would prevent them from falling foul of prosecution.
      Dr. Murrison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If it were to be a defence, and clearly defined as such, that checking on a database would prevent the sort of person

      653
      whom I have described from falling foul of the law, that would be fine. However, despite my hon. Friend"s clarification, I am still not clear whether that would be the case.
      Mr. Randall: I shall take as an example something in which I have a great interest. In Kosovo, many monasteries and churches have been destroyed. Undoubtedly, many of the icons have been removed. They may not be historical, but they are of religious importance. They would not be on any database, but in my opinion they would be tainted.
      Dr. Murrison: I agree with that elegant description, and I am touching on precisely that. What is a cultural object? What is clearly a cultural object and what is not? For example, a door fitting or a piece of panelling from an elderly house in this country does not quite fit the bill, to my mind. However, it might well be on the database that has been described, whereas the truly cultural object given in the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) would not be.
      Mr. Allan: I understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed about the architectural salvage industry, which have also been expressed to me. While the definition of "cultural object" is quite broad, the definition of "tainted cultural object" is quite narrow. For an object to be tainted, an offence must have been committed in its removal. In the context of UK buildings, that means that someone must have taken it contrary to listed building consent. The archaeological salvage industry does not have to worry about old buildings that are not listed. Material in old buildings that is taken without breaching listed building consent is not covered by the tainted definition, which as I have said is extremely narrow.
      Dr. Murrison: We are getting closer to the clarification that I was seeking. However, there are important buildings in this country that, for various reasons, are not listed. For example, certain estates are exempted from being listed buildings. I am still not entirely clear about the matter because it is not defined in the Bill, and perhaps it should be. If we are talking about listed buildings—perhaps that is not a bad definition—I suggest that that should be specified in the Bill.
      The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): I join the debate part way through. I read the debates on Second Reading and in Committee. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on introducing an important Bill. He has driven it through its many stages with great enthusiasm.
      Like other hon. Members, and at the risk of repeating myself, which rarely happens in the House on a Friday morning, I support amendment No. 1 and resist No. 3. In some respects, they are different sides of the same coin. Amendment No. 1 adds protection and No. 3 goes too far. It would provide a bean feast for lawyers. In the context of amendment No. 1, there is an argument that the Bill already makes things clear. However, it is right to clarify the provision beyond doubt. If the object was not tainted, an offence could not possibly have been committed. That is a common-sense interpretation. It is useful to have it defined in primary legislation.
      654
      I think that the explanation of "cultural" provided by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam was perfect. If it is illegally excavated, that is by definition the point at which a criminal offence has been carried out. That answers the concerns that have been expressed about subsection (2). A person must know that the item has been illegally excavated, and why would it have been illegally excavated if it was not of cultural value? That is the important point. This is not a definitional debate about what is of cultural value and what is not. Illegal excavation offers the protection that individuals will need. Amendment No. 1 offers protection in the sense that if something was not taken illegally, it could not have been an offence.
      Mr. Randall:I presume that when the right hon. Lady says "illegally excavated" she means illegally removed. To me, excavated means dug up.
      Estelle Morris: Indeed. The Bill is about dealing with items that have been illegally removed as well.
      I join the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam in supporting amendment No. 1 and resisting amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Allan:I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) for the spirit in which he moved his amendment and for indicating that he will not press it to a vote. I am also grateful to other hon. Members for taking part in the debate. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has been a tremendous supporter of the Bill throughout and he put the case for amendment No. 1 extremely effectively.
      The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) was right to raise those concerns. I put on the record an apology for not having sufficiently consulted the architectural salvage trade in the early stage of the drafting of the Bill. That was an oversight on my part. I have since spoken to Mr. Thornton Kay of Salvo and other architectural salvage people. They told me of their concerns, which are not entirely resolved. The hon. Member for Westbury expressed the remaining concerns. I believe that the Bill does not do what some people think it does, but it is difficult because of the way in which it is drafted.
      The key to the narrowness of the Bill is not in clause 1, but in clause 2, which refers to illegal removal. In the context of UK law, for an offence to be committed there must be a breach of the law protecting ancient monuments or of the law on listed buildings. That is quite narrow, and I do not believe that the architectural salvage trade has much to fear. By way of further reassurance, my understanding is that in the case of architectural salvage, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the individual knew that an object had been taken from a listed building without consent. The onus is not on the individual engaged in architectural salvage to prove that he is innocent; the prosecution must prove that he is guilty and acted deliberately, knowingly and dishonestly. That is a considerable burden of proof.
      One would expect a reasonable level of checking, and I understand that Salvo has a good code of conduct for the architectural salvage trade, which states that all

      655
      members of Salvo should carry out such checks. Anyone conforming to the Salvo code his nothing to worry about, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westbury for raising the matter and allowing me to put on the record my apologies for the fact that we did not have more consultation with the architectural salvage trade at an earlier stage.
      The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) was right to speak about non-experts. The prosecution that occurs every year or two is likely to be directed not at somebody engaged in the legitimate trade, but probably at the criminal gangs to which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) referred and which we know are operating in the field. The kind of deal that is likely to take place involves somebody arranging a deal with somebody in Afghanistan or Pakistan to import Buddhist scrolls and sell them on, or involves iconic material from countries such as Kosovo or Bosnia, where there is disorder. We want to target such people; we do not want them to be able to say, "I'm not an expert in the field, I'm not a dealer, I'm just an ordinary criminal, so I didn"t understand that it was a cultural object." We do not want them to have such a defence. If the object was illegally removed and was tainted, we want to be able to get them for it.
      I hope that, with those assurances, the House will accept that amendment No. 1 provides a useful tightening of the Bill, and that we do not need to remove subsection (2), as proposed by amendment No. 3.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2

      MEANING OF "TAINTED CULTURAL OBJECT"
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 11, after "of", insert "significant".
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 16, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
      "(b) the removal or excavation constitutes an offence.".
      No. 5, in page 2, line 2, after "of", insert "significant".
      No. 7, in page 2, line 10, leave out from "of" to "thing" in line 11 and insert
      "any vessel or part of any vessel.".
      No. 8, in page 2, line 12, leave out "trace or".
      Mr. Chope: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said that the key to the narrowness of the Bill was in clause 2. Amendment No. 4 and its corresponding amendment, No. 5, would make the Bill clearer and less all-embracing by inserting the requirement that, in order to become tainted, the cultural object must in the first instance be an object of significant historical, architectural or archaeological interest. I would not classify as a significant cultural object a brick taken from a listed building that had been demolished, but under the Bill"s broad definitions it would be a tainted cultural object because it had been taken from a listed building without consent. However small a piece of masonry it was, it could be caught by the
      656
      Bill. I hope that the promoter will be persuaded to limit the provision to significant historical, cultural or architectural objects. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) suggested in the previous debate, we should restrict the scope of the Bill.
      Amendment No. 7 is a probing amendment. I should like to explore with the promoter why he seeks to extend the definition of "monument" to include vehicles, aircraft and other movable structures. I can understand that sunken vessels may well be historic monument sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) is an expert on sunken vessels, or parts of sunken vessels. I do not understand why old cars—old bangers—left in listed buildings or parts of aircraft should be protected under the Bill. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam why he thinks the Bill should cover such objects.
      Amendment No. 8 would narrow the definition of the remains so that there had to be a sign, rather than just a trace, of the previous existence of the object in question in order for it to qualify for protection. I am sure that in the context of weapons of mass destruction we will discuss where there is a sign of them or just a trace, but in the context of the Bill, if we are creating criminal offences, there should be a sign of the object"s previous existence—something that can be seen—rather than a trace that can be seen only under a microscope or with the expertise of a scientist.
      Mr. Chris Mole: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a trace of biological weapons could be extremely significant?
      Mr. Chope: I certainly accept that, but I am not sure that biological weapons have yet become cultural objects, although I know that they are achieving a significance similar to that for the Government. The hon. Gentleman makes my point: should the mere trace of a cultural object give rise to criminal sanctions? I hope that the promoter will see the strength of the argument in support of the amendment.
      10.45 am
      Mr. Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) for tabling amendments so that we can explore clause 2, which defines the scope of a possible offence. He eloquently explained that his amendments would narrow that scope. He used the word "significant" in the first two amendments, but the general point is that objects should be substantial. I shall resist those amendments and speak to my amendment No. 2.
      Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are unnecessary. Under clause 2(3), an offence must have been committed. Amendment No. 2 would further clarify that, with subsection (3)(b) being amended to state:
      "the removal or excavation constitutes an offence".
      That creates the significance threshold that the hon. Gentleman seeks through his amendments. An offence must have been committed, so by definition we are speaking only of objects that have the legal protection of heritage law. I hope that he will accept that heritage law is not applied willy-nilly and that a building or

      657
      archaeological site must already be significant to achieve protection under listed building or sites and monuments legislation.
      Mr. Randall: Looking abroad, I would surprised if many of the places where looting takes place had strict heritage laws. In many places, objects might be property of the state rather than being subject to heritage law. Would that mean that the objects were outwith the provisions, or would they be included?
      Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the international aspects of the Bill, and I am grateful for his close attention. He is right that the scope of heritage protection laws varies in other countries and that that is significant in the context of the Bill. The Bill aims to support the United Kingdom"s membership of the UNESCO convention on illicit trade in antiquities and, by doing so, to give an international assurance that we will classify as tainted any material removed in contravention of the law of any other state and therefore not allow it to be dealt in United Kingdom markets.
      That is a very important element of the Bill, which originated, in a sense, in the need to address that potential mischief. Protection laws in other states vary. Some provide that all heritage material belongs to the state. Indeed, within the United Kingdom, Scottish law points a little more in that direction than that of England and Wales. The Bill operates by seeking not to prejudge heritage law, but to reinforce it by saying that if an object has been taken in contravention of another country"s law it will be tainted in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Uxbridge was right to say that such issues will vary, but I think that that is the most workable and practical approach. An approach that sought to define a different threshold for other countries was considered, involving bilateral agreements with Italy, Greece and so on, but it was discounted in favour of that which has been adopted, whose onus is on knowing whether an item has been legally or illegally obtained from the third country.
      Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman is raising as many questions as he is answering. Let us take the example of property that belongs to somebody, after which there is a change of regime and the state says that no private property should be held and that any such property is therefore state property. The person who previously owned the property, which could have been in their family for generations, might decide to get rid of it or sell it. Would that constitute an offence?
      Mr. Allan: There is a separate regime for illegal exports. The Bill seeks to remain narrow. The hon. Gentleman said that I had raised as many questions as I had answered. This is an area in which we cannot be entirely definitive, as there are problems concerning a lack of regime and, as he pointed out, the way in which legislation can change. All we can do—this is why I point to the United Kingdom"s accession to the UNESCO convention as a significant aspect—is attempt to make our law as effectively as we can and accept that United Kingdom courts may have to make judgments about whether the law that they are asked to work with was properly enforced. I do not think that we can cater for every eventuality, but the Bill will go a long
      658
      way towards supporting our UNESCO convention membership and the general thrust of law on illicit trade in antiquities, which seeks to ensure respect for each other"s legal codes. I cannot go into the detail of every regime change that could take place, but I think that the general principle is a sound one. The matter was considered and discussed by the panel of experts, and the principle that has been used is the one that it felt was most likely to be effective.
      Mr. Chope: I should like to cite a nitty-gritty example from my constituency, where there is a grade 1 listed building called Highcliffe castle, which has recently been restored. In recent years, its owners have been selling off pieces of masonry from the castle, which are now adorning people"s gardens in Christchurch. Are those cultural objects tainted? Such items are not significant, but they are cultural objects.
      Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman cites a very good example. Provided that the building"s owners had listed building consent, the objects will not be tainted in any way. The key point in clause 2 is whether an offence was committed and, therefore, in the context of the UK, whether materials were taken contrary to listed building consent. The architectural salvage trade has properly raised concern about the issue. When a building has been demolished or altered with all the consents in place, there will be no problem whatsoever. Any material from the building can be sold on to the market in accordance with whatever other legal provisions exist. The Bill has no locus where people have listed building consent.
      The concern about the word "significant" is that it would set up a double test: first, whether an offence had been committed—the test that is already included in the Bill—and, secondly, whether the material was significant. I think that the additional second test is unnecessary. If the offence has been committed, the matter should be serious enough for the offence set out in the Bill to be considered. We should not have to reach a second threshold of significance.
      The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was kind enough to indicate that amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are probing amendments. On amendment No. 7, he asked whether we need to deal with monuments other than ships, including aeroplanes and so on. I refer him to battlefield sites and second world war plane wrecks. Such sites can properly be listed as protected. Increasingly, if we are future-proofing the Bill, we must recognise that some objects and sites need protection in respect of the longer description that it sets out. Such objects might include aeroplanes or vehicles that require protection, rather than merely ships or vessels. I hope that he will accept that that is the reason for the broader scope, especially in respect of battlefield sites.
      In respect of amendment No. 8, the hon. Gentleman referred to traces and the fact that scientific detection is required. He is right: archaeological scientific detection is required. One of the key points is that traces can be the most important element of an archaeological site. The Bill seeks to bolster the protection of those sites. Somebody who digs up an archaeological site, as happened recently at Yeavering Bell, can extract objects that may be of little value in themselves, but will destroy material of huge archaeological and scientific value. Frequently, such material takes the form of traces. For

      659
      example, in respect of Anglo Saxon burials, the nature of the ground and soil in Suffolk is such that the skeletal remains will frequently have disappeared, leaving only a trace in the sand. Such a trace will have huge scientific and archaeological relevance, but we could not deem it substantial. Any test saying that it was okay to destroy such material as long as nobody took large objects made of silver or gold would be anathema to archaeologists and contrary to the purpose of the Bill.
      Mr. Chope: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how one can deal in traces in the sand? This is the season for sandcastle building, but it is difficult to preserve sandcastles. Likewise, how could anybody move a trace in the sand, deal in it and open themselves to prosecution under the Bill?
      Mr. Allan: We are not seeking to suggest that somebody should not deal in the sand that comes from the site, but trying to supply a definition of "monument" that is broad enough to include places where the primary artefacts are traces. The material taken from a monument may be a single gold clasp, but the monument would have been protected in the first place not because of that clasp but because of the many scientific traces. My concern is that the hon. Gentleman"s amendment would narrow the scope of the Bill so that monuments of the sort that mainly consist of traces could no longer be protected, and that material that had been taken—I accept that that would not be sand, but some other movable object—could be freely dealt in and could not be deemed to be tainted. I think that the amendment addresses the question of the nature of the monument rather than that of the object that is removed. I am arguing for us to continue to keep the scope of "monument" broader, so that it includes scientifically valuable sites.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that I have dealt with the concerns that he raised in his probing amendments. I also hope that the House will support amendment No. 2, which has again been drafted with the support of the British Art Market Federation and is an attempt to tighten the definition of the sort of offence that could trigger the tainting. The amendment specifically refers to concerns expressed in Standing Committee and previously about avoiding a situation whereby somebody could commit a health and safety offence, for example, in the context of removal or excavation, and thereby trigger the offence in question. It contains a much tighter wording, which makes it clear that the removal of the excavation itself is an offence, rather than permitting a broader scope of offences that apply to the removal or excavation that might trigger the offence itself. I cited various examples such as VAT fraud, health and safety and assaulting an archaeologist. We are trying to ensure not that one cannot do any of those things—if one did, one would be taken to court under other laws—but that the tainting offence would not come into force in those circumstances. It comes into force very specifically when people have breached heritage legislation.
      11 am
      Mr. Randall: I am grateful for the opportunity to delve further into this matter. In a previous job, I was a tour leader for a specialist bird-watching company that went all round the world. When we were not bashing around in swamps and jungles, we often came across local people, well off the beaten track, offering objects for sale. Expert bird-watchers the tourists may have been, but cultural experts they probably were not. When they got near to a cultural site they got their binoculars out to make sure that there was not an interesting species lurking there, not to look at the architecture or archaeological features. I am therefore concerned that if they bought something in good faith—one could argue that they should be a little more cynical about where it may have come from—they would fall foul of the Bill.
      My only other question delves deep into areas I had almost forgotten about. I seem to remember that there is something in law, which may have disappeared by now, called "marché ouvert", whereby if a person buys stolen property on a stall or in a market, they cannot be deemed to have committed the offence of buying a stolen object, as they would if they bought from a shop or a dealer. Perhaps "marché ouvert" went out with William the Conqueror—it sounds as though it should have done—but I should like to know whether it would apply.
      Tim Loughton: I want to deal with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) before adding my support to amendment No. 2, which is in my name and that of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). My hon. Friend"s amendments are interesting, but they would detract from the Bill.
      The most important aspect of amendments Nos. 4 and 5 is the addition of a double test in relation to the word "significant". The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam listed the various legal protections that sites have under heritage law and illegal export legislation. If the word "significant" is inserted in those two places, who on earth will judge what is significant or not? Would the significance test be based on its importance to a certain culture or cultural sequence—an importance that may be recognised only by a certain museum, country or part of the world? That would start all sorts of value arguments as to the historical, architectural or archaeological significance of items to different bodies of people. The entire subject of today"s very important Bill—it is certainly very important to hon. Members who are here—is, regrettably, of absolutely no importance to most people outside this place, who have other priorities, albeit that many people recognise that the nation"s culture and heritage is of great importance.
      Can one qualify significance in terms of size? My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned bits of masonry. Was the bit of the sphinx"s nose that Napoleon"s troops took pot shots at significant? In itself, probably not—it is just a chunk of old rock—but it is of exceedingly great significance in the context from which it comes. Would a little bit off the end of a Gujerat frieze or a Mayan temple constitute significance? As just a little bit of well-weathered, worn stone, it would not, but in the context of where it came from and what it was part of, it might. Many parts of the Elgin marbles in the British museum may not be regarded as significant—

      661
      indeed, it is often hard to tell what they are—but they are of course significant in the broader context. Could the qualification of significance be applied to the medium in which the object was made? If it is only old, rough-hewn stone, would it have the significance of properly dressed marble? Would it have to be made of a precious metal rather than a cheap alloy?
      I cite those hypothetical examples because they are the sorts of defences that people could use in a legal situation to avoid prosecution. Inserting the word "significant" in those two places would add an unhelpful extra test that would detract from the effectiveness of the Bill.
      Amendment No. 7 would replace the longer description in clause 2 with reference only to vessels. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who has now left the Chamber, was amusingly described as being an expert in vessels—not, I am sure, those vessels that are drunk from. Referring only to vessels could detract from the definitions in the Bill, because vessels could be construed as being pots, or assorted cookware rather than ships as many people might expect. The amendment would add confusion. It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge is not in his place. We know him to be a retailer to the gentry, but I never had him down as a professional international twitcher, as he revealed himself to be. I am delighted that he has now returned. Perhaps a reported sighting of a lesser spotted something in New Palace Yard diverted his interest and explains his temporary absence.
      Mr. Allan: While the hon. Gentleman is on that subject, I wonder whether I can allay the fears of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) about his birdwatcher friends and colleagues, whom I, too, would not wish inadvertently to be prosecuted. The prosecution test, whereby the individual must know or believe that they are buying a tainted cultural object, is paramount. Someone who cynically went over to South America—I assume that the hon. Gentleman is thinking about such countries—and bought material that they knew to have been illegally removed would be liable, but someone who inadvertently picked something up would not.
      Tim Loughton: That is absolutely right. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that extra clarification.
      On amendment No. 8, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch shows consummate skill and a degree of appropriateness. The Bill has great resonance in the context of Iraq because of the events at the Baghdad museum, and he brought weapons of mass destruction—biological weapons—into the equation as well. That shows great ingenuity. However, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam is right that the word "traces" is required. Often in archaeology, to the frustration of many of us who have laboured many long days in pouring rain or beating hot sun to excavate precisely nothing, finding nothing is more significant than finding something. An object may be of interest or of value, but the context in which it is found—or not found when it had been expected to be found—is often far more important in archaeological terms. For example, there may be no bone remains owing to the acidity of the soil, but something attached to the area
      662
      suggests a burial. It may be a chariot. There have been interesting examples in this country: the grave of a female charioteer was excavated last year. In such cases, most of the wooden remains, such as the wheels, have gone, but a few examples of ironwork remain. In some cases, examples of metalworking or burnt layers suggest that industrial activity took place in a specific area. In those instances, the traces have greater archaeological significance. Perhaps it is like finding the dinosaur footprint. One has not found the dinosaur"s foot, but the footprint is enormously significant, not archaeologically—
      Mr. Allan: Palaeontologically.
      Tim Loughton: Absolutely. I had momentarily forgotten the word. I shall not attempt to spell it, but Hansard will have to.
      Amendment No. 2 is a tidying-up exercise. It stems from the amendment that I tabled in Committee, which stated:
      "leave out from the beginning to end of line 17 and insert
      "the removal or excavation, or any failure by any person involved in the removal or excavation to comply with procedures required in respect of that removal or excavation constituted an offence at the time it occurred.'."
      It was simple and straightforward but perhaps the wording of the amendment that we are considering—
      "the removal or excavation constitutes an offence"—
      is much neater. It makes the matter legally clearer, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said. I am grateful to the parliamentary draftsmen, whose skills have created such a neat amendment.
      We took legal advice, which centred on the word "circumstances". The word adds nothing positive to the Bill, and we should concentrate on the object and its removal, not the legal status of the person or persons connected with the removal, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said. The amendment should clarify the scope of the offences that may cause tainting. The attached notes reflect that intention.
      The Bill should cover removals or excavations that constitute offences, for example, when a person removes, without written permission, an object of archaeological or historical interest that he has discovered through using a metal detector in a protected place. That is an offence under section 42(3) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam repeated the point that we made in Committee that criminal circumstances may surround the excavation of an item that have nothing to do with the item being tainted. For example, a digger that was used to dig up a large item may have been stolen. That should not taint the object. Perhaps the person responsible for the dig is the subject of criminal prosecution for something else that has nothing to do with digging up the object. Perhaps the digger on the site has been assaulted. Again, those events should not taint the object. Although amendment No. 2 makes matters much clearer, perhaps the Minister would explain what has changed and why Government thinking has changed from the response that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who was then the Minister responsible, gave in Committee. He said:

      663
      "The amendment would unnecessarily restrict the definition of a tainted cultural object and introduce uncertainties in the scope of that definition."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 May 2003; c. 15.]
      He said that we needed to ensure that the offence that the Bill created covered not only conduct that breached local laws to prohibit the removal or excavation of cultural objects from monuments but cases in which the conduct breached general laws that protected property, such as theft.
      Surely theft laws cover such activities and they are separate from the significant cultural nature for which we are trying to legislate. I should therefore be grateful for some clarification from the Minister of how and why Government thinking changed—I am pleased that it did—so that they now feel able to adopt a version of the amendment that we tabled in a rather more clumsy form in Committee.
      11.15 am
      Estelle Morris: I too should like to join others in supporting amendment No. 2. Although amendments Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 are interesting probing amendments and the debate has been good and useful, I shall resist them and hope that they will be withdrawn.
      First, let us consider amendment No. 2. I cannot read the mind of the former Minister, but it is entirely proper for the Government to reflect on what hon. Members of all parties say during a Bill"s passage. I accept the interpretation of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that alternative legislation could tackle theft and that the Bill should deal with tainted objects. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to say that the Government have reflected on his comments in Committee and decided that the wording of the new amendment is better, I am happy to do so. I sense that hon. Members of all parties support the Bill and I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing the wording to the attention of the Government and the promoter. I acknowledge that, with the help of parliamentary draftsmen, the current wording satisfies us.
      Let me briefly consider amendments Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8. Like other hon. Members, I believe that "significant value" in amendments Nos. 4 and 5 is a test too far. We do not want to draw up legislation that tantalisingly leaves us unable to deal with the offences that we believed we had covered.
      On amendments Nos. 7 and 8, I am informed that the definitions of monument and trace merely repeat those in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned. I have no reason to believe that those definitions have not stood the test of time. Having similar definitions in legislation that deals with similar matters is commendable. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) will accept that.
      I did not have information about, marché ouvert in the deep recesses of my mind, but experts reliably inform me that it no longer exists. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) will be surprised to learn that it has been abolished only recently. It used to exist in designated markets, including Bermondsey. I am sure that the
      664
      promoter will be interested in telling the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about that. In it, items could be sold before sunrise. Believe it or not, in this land of ours, people could sell stolen—my officials put "dodgy" in brackets, but we do not use that term—objects. I assure hon. Members that it has been abolished. I hope that that deals with the fears of the hon. Member for Uxbridge.
      Mr. Chope: We have had an excellent and erudite debate, after which I am wiser. I am grateful to the promoter and to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for the calm, precise, persuasive and thorough way in which they have dealt with my anxieties. I congratulate my hon. Friend on an ingenious critique when he explained what would happen if one took "vessels" out of context. I am grateful to the Minister for making clear the precedents for the definition of monument and trace. I do not accept all the arguments about "significant", because the amendments qualify the word. It would not stand alone but qualify archaeological and historical interest. However, I take the points that have been raised. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 2, in page 1, line 16, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
      "(b) the removal or excavation constitutes an offence.".—[Mr. Allan.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      11.20 am
      Mr. Allan: I thank all who have been involved with the Bill so far. I pay tribute to the many professionals in the heritage sector who have built the case for us to tackle the trade in illicit antiquities over many years. Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn has played a leading role, which will no doubt continue when the Bill goes to the House of Lords. The next set of principal actors in the Bill"s evolution are members of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I congratulate them on their work, and especially on returning to the subject in the follow-up inquiry that they announced recently.
      ITAP, the ministerial advisory panel on illicit trade, did some excellent work on bringing together all the relevant parties under the chairmanship of Professor Norman Palmer, who was also generous with his time in helping me personally with the Bill"s preparation. I hope that ITAP"s work will be able to continue, as the Bill is certainly not the end of the story in terms of tackling illicit trade. I believe that it could have a particularly valuable role in considering the issue of databases for stolen and tainted objects. I know that the Department is also keen to work on that.
      I especially thank one ITAP member, Anthony Browne of the British Art Market Federation, for the huge amount of work he has put into ensuring that the Bill can retain the support of the whole sector. That is reflected in the amendments we have discussed today, but also in much of the debate that we have had to clarify aspects of the Bill that caused concern.
      David Gaimster and the DCMS team have gone beyond the call of duty to ensure that everything could proceed smoothly, and have been unstinting in the time

      665
      that they have devoted to the Bill. Roger Bland and Michael Lewis of the portable antiquities scheme at the British Museum have also helped with the Bill, and have been inspirational in showing how we can better handle found cultural objects. That excellent scheme, with its network of local finds liaison officers, has led to the reporting of thousands of cultural objects in this country that would otherwise have gone unrecorded. I hope that the Department will be able to guarantee its future funding when the current heritage lottery fund arrangements run out, but that is a debate for another day.
      It has been a pleasure to deal with both Ministers who have handled the Bill. The present Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), always brings a certain flair to any debate, and I am grateful to him for spending a couple of Fridays here—we had an abortive first attempt at Second Reading—as well as responding helpfully in Committee. As I have said, I am also very pleased that the Minister for the Arts has been here today.
      Finally, let me thank the many Members on both sides of the House who have helped the Bill on its way. I am especially grateful to those who volunteered to serve on the Committee and to the Conservative spokesmen who have participated—the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) on Second Reading, and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) in Committee and today. On both occasions, he was an active and helpful participant. We also spent a good deal of time considering these issues during the all-party archaeology group inquiry. I think that one reason that we have been able to achieve cross-party consensus, with a group of Members working behind the Bill, is the discussion in which we were able to engage then. The all-party group has done a tremendous job.
      This is, I think, a good Bill that will make an important contribution to heritage legislation in the United Kingdom. It will enhance our reputation as a nation that cares deeply for culture, both our own and that of other countries. It is, I hope, a model that other countries may wish to emulate, so that we can reach a point at which there is no market anywhere for looted cultural objects.
      I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading, and wish it well in another place.
      11.24 am
      Mr. Randall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on his admirable Bill, and thank those who took part in its earlier stages. I am delighted to discover the great expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), which I am sure the Conservative party will use to great effect in the future.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to my expert knowledge of underwater vessels. I am not entirely sure where that came from, unless it is connected with the fact that this time last year my private Member"s Bill on marine wildlife conservation was holed below the water line in another place, and is now sitting at the bottom of the legislative ocean. I rather hope that it is found not by a team of marine archaeologists, but by a team of salvage operators who will bring it to the surface in due course.
      666
      The protection of cultural objects, whether in our own country or elsewhere in the world, is of prime importance. In Iraq and, as I said earlier, in Kosovo, we have recently witnessed the incredible destruction of centuries-old buildings, and the resulting loss of objects that were inside them. But whether we are talking about the churches and monasteries of Kosovo or historic churches such as my local parish church, St. Laurence in Cowley, this is a vital issue. Even the archaeological traces of long-lost legal knowledge that I once acquired have now, sadly, become part of history.
      I wish the Bill well in the other place.
      11.26 am
      Mr. Chope: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has been very actively involved in the Bill.
      The Bill has been considered very carefully both before and during our debates in the House, and there was widespread consultation. It has been dealt with in an exemplary way. Its ambit is relatively narrow, but although it is a specialist Bill it is tremendously important to those who are concerned about these issues. I have learned a lot, and I now know that my constituents who have pieces of masonry from Highcliffe castle in their gardens will not offend against the Bill if they decide to sell them in due course.
      I think we are all concerned about our heritage and its despoliation by those who seek to make money. That applies not just in this country but elsewhere. Although the Bill is modest and will not involve many prosecutions, it will send a clear signal that we need to protect our heritage. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for enabling us to do that.
      11.27 am
      Dr. Murrison: I broadly welcome the Bill, although there are problems of definition, which we have covered in a most amusing fashion. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) for his assurance on architectural salvage, which was most useful, but I think it is important to identify what we mean by a cultural object in this context. I still fear that we are confusing objects of obvious cultural importance—the sort referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall)—with the more workaday objects that we might see in this country.
      11.28 am
      Tim Loughton: We warmly welcome the Bill. I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) about the way in which it has been handled, thanks largely to the expertise of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and the cool manner in which he has guided it through Parliament. That has not been easy at times, but we have ended up with a very good Bill. The hon. Gentleman may well have fulfilled his political ambition by producing this important piece of legislation, and I envy him for being able to put his name to it.
      The Bill has widespread support among all sorts of organisations and individuals who care about culture and cultural objects. It sprang from recommendations

      667
      made by the Select Committee back in July 2000, which were taken up by the advisory panel set up by the Minister under Professor Norman Palmer. The panel did some excellent work. The Bill has the backing of the Council for British Archaeology, Rescue, the British Museum, the portable antiquities scheme, the National Council for Metal Detecting and other organisations. The Government should be given credit for the progress that the Bill has made, for taking the issue seriously and for signing up to the 1970 UNESCO convention on cultural objects, which they did last October. For once, then, on this issue, we can give the Government credit where credit is due.
      As the Minister said, the Bill has all-party support. We have had a good debate and much interest has been shown by Back Benchers. I look forward to welcoming all their applications to join the all-party parliamentary group on archaeology, which is a very important body in these Houses. I belatedly welcome the Minister to her new role. We greatly enjoyed the contributions of her predecessor, not least because he said that he had a particular interest in the Bill and in archaeological matters, and he added the relic of Welsh rugby to the discussions in Committee.
      It is important to get the Bill right; it should be proportionate in providing protection and in allowing honest, decent dealers in items of cultural and archaeological significance to go about their business. After all, the art market in this country is an important employer, with some 40,000 people, and London has an international reputation for expertise and honesty in this field. The Bill should add to the respectability of that market.
      As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, illegal trading in cultural items is now big business. It is not quite up there with dealing in drugs, but it is becoming an important international business, and there are links to the funding of terrorism. As Julian Radcliffe from the Art Loss Register has said:
      "I used to be sceptical about whether stolen art is being used in money laundering. Now I'm not."
      We need to move with the times and clamp down on an activity that has only really evolved in the last 10 to 20 years. It is unfortunate that we have to do that, but it is right that we preserve the cultural integrity of nations around the world.
      Once items are lost to scholarship, particularly if, as in many cases, they are taken from sites that were previously unknown, that leaves an enormous gap in our understanding of many cultures. Often we do not learn much from the antiquities themselves unless we know their context. Those of us who profess to be amateur archaeologists do not dig up objects for their own sake; we do it to expand our knowledge of why they were there, who made them and how they fit into the cultural thread.
      There have been several alarming cases such as the recent one involving a New York dealer who, I am glad to say, was given a sentence of 33 months in jail for conspiring to receive and handle stolen Egyptian pieces. Those pieces had been covered in plastic so that they looked like the cheap tourist knick..knacks brought back from Egypt by holidaymakers. People are going to extraordinary lengths to try to abuse the proper dealings in cultural objects.
      668
      Many bodies in this country are doing great things to improve the checking mechanisms. The International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art has plans for its members to conduct searches with a database for all items over the value of £10,000 to make sure that they are not stolen. It is now looking to reduce that threshold to £2,000, which would scoop many more people into the net.
      The British Museum set a good example in 1990 when it restricted itself to acquiring only pieces that were documented as having been out of the ground before 1970, when the UNESCO convention kicked in. As the hon. Gentleman said, we should give a lot of credit to the work of Lord Renfrew, who taught both of us at Cambridge in our archaeological days. He also set up the illicit antiquities research centre at the MacDonald Institute in Cambridge, which does a lot of good work in this area.
      The Bill"s timing has been focused by events in the Baghdad museum in Iraq, and it is right that we should raise the profile of the cultural vandalism and potential disaster that took place there. However, as events have unfolded in recent weeks, it has become clear that the extent of the looting was, thank goodness, much smaller than anticipated. Artefacts such as the bull"s head harp from Ur, which is 4,500 years old, the great vase of Warka, which is 5,000 years old, and others from all the incredible cultures in the cradle of civilisations that is that part of the middle east have re-emerged and been returned to the museum.
      It was fitting that yesterday the museum was able to re-open its doors, albeit on a temporary basis, to show people that most of the exhibits were still in place. Many of the objects that were stolen had been in store rooms, and were probably taken in planned looting. We should take those matters seriously, and it is right that the Department, in co-ordination with the British Museum, has lent its help to ensure that Iraq"s culture is not lost.
      If I have one qualification about the Bill, it concerns regulatory impact assessment No. 37. I made this point in Committee and it was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). The RIA says that it is not anticipated that there will be more than one prosecution every two to three years, so it is de minimis to law enforcement agencies. I hope that that is not the case, because although this is a deterrent measure that sends out clear signals that this behaviour is criminal and will not be tolerated, illicit dealing will still go on. Many people will need to be taught a harsh lesson if they are to learn about the seriousness of the legislation. I would hope that we will have some high-profile prosecutions, along the lines of that in New York, which would set an example. We do not want to lock everybody up, but there will have to be more than one such case every one or two years if the Bill is to be taken seriously. The RIA makes a serious underestimate.
      That notwithstanding, this is a good Bill. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, it will make an important contribution to heritage legislation in the UK, and, as with much else that happens here, send out good signals and set good examples for other countries. It has the wholehearted support of Conservative Members, and we wish it a speedy and successful passage through the other House.
      11.37 am
      Estelle Morris: I, too, welcome the Third Reading of the Bill, and I wish it well as it goes to the House of Lords. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), and all the members of the Standing Committee, on the Bill.
      One of the joys of trying in the last few days quickly to read the Committee"s proceedings was to realise not only the interest but the expertise in the matter that there is in the House. It was clear from the pages of Hansard that all Members who took part in the debates on the Bill did so with great enthusiasm and energy. I was surprised at the size of the all-party group on the issue. I had not realised the extent of interest and expertise both in this House and in the other place, and that is to the great credit of Members. I suspect that that explains why this is a good Bill—the people who have guided it through the House care about it and about what it will mean.
      Perhaps with greater enthusiasm than on many occasions, I congratulate the promoter, and I suspect that in years to come, when he looks back on all his contributions to politics, he will see this as a major one. I know that the Bill will stand the test of time and that many people, not only in this country but in those that are seeing their cultural heritage destroyed, will have reason to be grateful for him. I pay great tribute to his energy and enthusiasm, and I pay equal tribute to other Members who, in the Committee and the Chamber, have shown the House at its best. Every Member who has spoken today has properly explored the issues and acknowledged that the Bill is important, and we want to speed it on its way.
      On behalf of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), now the Minister of State, Department for Transport, as well as on my own account, I thank hon. Members for their comments about my officials and the help that they extended to the promoter of the Bill. We are all confident that the legislation will be good; it has been properly written and will fit the purpose.
      Sometimes, when archaeological sites and sites of cultural interest are looted, local people think that they stand to gain, but they do not. They are being robbed of their heritage as well as being robbed financially. The Bill is in their interests. It is also in the interests of the
      670
      legitimate London and UK art market. Because that market plays by the rules, it has been let down by the illicit trade so the Bill will be welcome.
      When I read the background, I was delighted to find that the Bill is welcomed by all parts of the trade; that cannot be the case for many measures. I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for his acknowledgement that the Bill has been dealt with speedily. As much as is possible in any parliamentary Session, the Department has tried to give it time.
      If the Bill had been passed four years ago, many people in this country would not have understood its significance. Sadly, because of what has gone on in international conflict, most recently in Baghdad, no one will fail to understand the Bill's significance, so the Bill is timely. In thanking everybody for their work on the measure, I join hon. Members in wishing it good speed as it goes through the House of Lords.
      11.41 am
      Mr. Allan: With the leave of the House, I briefly thank all hon. Members for their most kind comments. I do not want to take too much time as I know that other Members are waiting to speak to their Bills.
      Like all movers of a private Member"s Bill, my nerves have been thoroughly wracked on many occasions over the past few months, but each time that things looked decidedly dodgy people from both sides of the House and from all quarters have turned up to help. I even found myself warming to the shadow Leader of the House as he was advising me on dates and timings, which I certainly had not expected. I have received cooperation from across the board so it merely remains for me to thank all hon. Members who have taken part.
      The Minister for the Arts referred to the size of the all-party archaeological group; she may find that the muscle of the all-party group will be knocking at her door to discuss associated issues, so I hope that she is similarly receptive to the other measures that we want to introduce to protect our culture both in the UK and abroad.
      I am confident that there is sufficient support in the House of Lords for the Bill to have a good chance of reaching the statute book and I am dead chuffed that we have got this far.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Legal Deposit Libraries Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Legal Deposit Libraries Bill
    New Clause 1

      EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY: DEPOSIT OF PUBLICATIONS ETC.
      "(1) The delivery by a person, pursuant to section 1, of a copy of a work is to be taken—

      (a) not to breach any contract relating to any part of the work to which that person is a party, and

      (b) not to infringe copyright, publication right or database right in relation to any part of the work or any patent.

      (2) Subsection (1) applies to the delivery, pursuant to regulations under section 6, of a copy of a computer program or material within section 6(2)(b) as it applies to the delivery of a copy of a work pursuant to section 1.".—[Mr. Mole.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      11.43 am
      Mr. Chris Mole: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal):With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 2—Exemption from liability: activities in relation to publications—
      "(1) A deposit library, or a person acting on its behalf, is not liable in damages, or subject to any criminal liability, for defamation arising out of the doing by a relevant person of an activity listed in section 7(1A) in relation to a copy of a work delivered under section 1.
      (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the liability of a deposit library where—

      (a) it knows, or in the case of liability in damages it knows of facts or circumstances from which it ought to know, that the copy contains a defamatory statement, and

      (b) it has had a reasonable opportunity since obtaining that knowledge to prevent the doing of the activity in relation to the copy.

      (3) Where, pursuant to section 1, a person (in this section, "the publisher") has delivered a copy of a work to an address specified by a deposit library, the publisher is rot liable in damages, or subject to any criminal liability, for defamation arising out of the doing by a relevant person of an activity listed in section 7(1A) in relation to the copy.
      (4) Subsection (3) does not apply where—

      (a) the publisher knows, or in the case of liability in damages the publisher knows of facts or circumstances from which it ought to know, that the copy contains a defamatory statement, and

      (b) it has had a reasonable opportunity since obtaining that knowledge to inform the library of the matter, facts or circumstances known to it and has not done so.

      (5) Where a work is published on the internet, subsection (6) applies to a copy of the work if—

      (a) the work is of a description prescribed by regulations under this subsection,

      (b)the publication of the work on the internet, or a person publishing it there, is connected with the United Kingdom in a manner so prescribed, and

      (c)the copy was made by a deposit library or person acting on its behalf copying the work from the internet in accordance with any conditions so prescribed.

      (6) Where this subsection applies to a copy of a work—
      672

      (a) no person other than the library is liable in damages, or subject to any criminal liability, for defamation arising out of the doing by a relevant person of an activity listed in section 7(1A) in relation to the copy, and

      (b) subsections (1) and (2) apply in relation to the doing of an activity in relation to the copy as they apply in relation to the doing of the activity in relation to a copy of a work delivered under section 1.

      (7) In this section—

      (a) "relevant person" has the same meaning as in section 7;

      (b) references to activities listed in section 7(1A) are references to those activities whether or not done in relation to relevant material (as defined in section 7);

      (c) references to a deposit library include references to the Faculty of Advocates.

      (8) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for this section, as it applies in relation to liability in damages and criminal liability for defamation, to apply in relation to liability (including criminal liability) of any description prescribed in the regulations, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed.
      (9) Where this section applies to the doing of an activity in relation to a copy of a work it also applies to the doing of the activity in relation to a copy (at any remove) of that copy.
      (10) Nothing in this section imposes liability on any person.".
      New clause 3—Legal liability—
      '(1) A deposit library or person acting on its behalf is not liable for damages or for any other pecuniary remedy or for any criminal sanction for carrying out any of the activities mentioned in section 7 (1A) in relation to a copy of a work delivered under section 1.
      (2) Subsection (1) only applies to the liability of a deposit library where it—

      (a) does not have actual knowledge of unlawful activity or information and, where a claim for damages is made, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which it would have been apparent to the library that the activity or information was unlawful; and

      (b) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information.

      (3) A person (in this section, "the publisher") who, pursuant to section 1, has delivered a copy of a work to a deposit library is not liable for damages or for any other pecuniary remedy or for any criminal sanction arising out of any of the activities mentioned in section 7(1A) relating to that copy.
      (4) Where a work of a description prescribed by regulations under this subsection has been copied, in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed, from the internet by a deposit library or person acting on its behalf—

      (a) no person other than the library is as a result of the accessing of that copy, and

      (b) subsections (1) and (2) apply in relation to the accessing of that copy as they apply in relation to the accessing of a copy of a work delivered under section 1.

      (6) Where this section applies to the accessing of a copy of a work it also applies to the accessing of a copy (at any remove) of that copy.
      (7) Nothing in this section imposes liability on any person.
      (8) In the case of legal publications, this section applies as if the Faculty of Advocates were, and the authority controlling the National Library of Scotland were not, a deposit library."
      Amendment No. 20, in page 7, line 5, clause 10, at end insert—
      "database right" has the meaning given by regulation 13(1) of the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997/3032);".
      Mr. Mole: At the outset, I want to make it clear that I encourage the House to support new clauses 1 and 2 and amendment No. 20, to which I shall speak, but to resist new clause 3.

      673
      I welcome the opportunity to return to improving this important measure. The new clause addresses an issue that was outstanding after the Committee proceedings: the concern that publishers may, in certain circumstances, be in breach of contract with some third party for depositing material with the legal deposit libraries.
      The new clause provides that a publisher shall not be in breach of contract nor infringement of copyright or publication right by depositing a work in accordance with clause 1, or by depositing any computer programme in accordance with clause 6 (2)(b). It gives protection for contracts that are governed by the laws of England, although it does not offer protection for other contracts. However, I have been advised that it is unlikely that foreign courts will act when that is a condition of compliance with laws of another sovereign state. The new clause thus offers some international protection.
      Publishers in some sectors want to be further protected by a clause that extends the provision to international contracts. Indeed, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) has tabled an amendment that would address that issue. I have been advised that that may provide a loophole and allow publishers to avoid deposit. I retain concerns that if such a clause is incorporated there is a risk that there would be scope for contracts to be structured deliberately to avoid the requirement to deposit. I am sure that would not be the intention of committed publishers, but I shall revisit that point when we discuss amendment No. 21. It remains the case that those matters cause concern, so there will be an opportunity to raise detail for consideration when any regulations are proposed, consulted on and assessed.
      As promised in the Standing Committee, new clause 2 has been drafted to address the liability for defamation incurred through the accessing of deposited material. Under subsections (1) and (2), it provides that libraries will not be liable for damages for defamation arising from accessing the material in the library unless the library knows, or ought to have known, that the material contained a defamatory statement and did not remove the material, or disable access to it, within a reasonable time. Under subsections (3) and (4), the new clause provides that a publisher will not be liable for damages for defamation arising from accessing the material in the library unless the publisher knows, or ought to have known, that the material was defamatory and did not inform the library of that.
      I am pleased that we can introduce the third leg of the Bill. Until now, discussions have covered print and offline electronic publications. However, an important element of future proofing is the ability to harvest online content, for which specific powers to deposit are obviously not required. Protection from defamation is introduced under subsection (5), while copyright breach and other issues are reflected in amendments Nos. 7, 9 and 14.
      Subsection (5) provides that where material of a prescribed description has been downloaded from the internet, in accordance with any prescribed conditions, only the library can be liable for damages for defamation and it will be liable only in the same circumstances as those outlined in subsections (1) and (2). Publishers cannot be liable for defamation arising as
      674
      a result of access to material in libraries when the material has been harvested. The provision applies to any copies that are made of the original work deposited: for example, for preservation purposes.
      The new clause does not include a provision for liability for contempt, as the Department for Constitutional Affairs has advised that neither libraries nor publishers would be liable for contempt as a result of accessing the material in the libraries.
      I understand that, to achieve consistency, some publishers still want to cover all liabilities and activities. I have been advised that, other than defamation, no potential liabilities would arise from using the material in libraries. However, subsection (1) of new clause 2 enables the defamation issue to be addressed and, under subsection (8), the Secretary of State is enabled to pick up other liabilities where a case has been demonstrated that that is necessary. That seems a much simpler and more effective way of dealing with the concerns that were raised.
      New clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, deals with legal liability. It will deliver no benefits beyond those already provided for under new clause 2. That is because other issues arising, unlike defamation, cannot lead to the conclusion that simply accessing material constitutes re-publication. In any event, as I have just described, new clause 2(8) will create the enabling power for the Secretary of State to address any such issue if a case is made in the future. Amendment No. 20 is technical and will insert a definition of database rights in clause 10, entitled "Interpretation".
      Mr. Malcolm Moss: I wish to speak to new clauses 1 and 2, then new clause 3, which is on the amendment paper in my name.
      New clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole), seems only to give protection for contracts governed by the laws of this country. It does not seem to offer protection for contracts with overseas content suppliers who have made those contracts in other jurisdictions under the laws of other countries. Much of United Kingdom publishing is international in content, and a great many UK publishers incorporate in their online services information sourced from information suppliers residing outside the UK—in the United States, for example—and those contracts are concluded under the appropriate laws of those foreign countries. New clause 1 will not, in our opinion, remove UK publishers" legal exposure for making deposits in breach of contractual or confidentiality obligations with third party, overseas content providers. In an attempt to clarify that difficulty, we have tabled amendment No. 21, which has been grouped with another set of amendments, but which goes to the heart of what we propose in new clause 3.
      The hon. Member for Ipswich said that he had been advised that UK legislation could not go further than offering the protection from breach of contract obligations that is proposed in the new clause. He also claimed that it is not possible to offer protection in respect of contracts governed by foreign laws, but in our opinion that need not be so. It is certainly possible for the Government to provide that the deposit obligations will not override the provisions in contracts with

      675
      overseas suppliers. By not addressing that exposure, the hon. Gentleman, with Government support, risks exposing many UK-based publishers to breach of contract and confidentiality obligations with foreign information suppliers. That is a new and unacceptable exposure.
      The hon. Gentleman also said that he had been advised that overseas courts would not award more than nominal damages—I think that that was the phrase he used—in respect of a breach of contract if the breach were due to the publisher complying with an obligation under the law of another sovereign state. Again, in our view, the risk of damages from breach of contract will often be less important than enabling overseas suppliers to terminate their contracts with UK publishers, thus possibly depriving them of important raw material for their products. Furthermore, it would be a burden for UK publishers to be required to negotiate special terms with all their overseas suppliers, assuming—of course, this is by no means certain—that overseas suppliers would be willing to agree to contract changes.
      I shall give the House some examples of such contracts. In particular, Cambridge University Press has supplied examples of software licences governed by non-English law, where it is unrealistic to suppose that the licensee could insist on a change to the wording such that the agreement would be governed by English law. First, Cambridge University Press licenses text software for use in a CD-ROM and networked version of a dictionary. That agreement is governed by the laws of Denmark. Secondly, the press also licenses Aladdin systems for, I am told, the Stuffit—an inappropriate word, I am sure—installer, which is a common decompression programme for use in CD-ROM products. That licence is governed by the laws of the state of California. If such licences were contravened by legal deposit, the protection offered by these proposals would be of no comfort. In our opinion, it would be essential for the duty to deposit to be waived in such circumstances.
      Again, the hon. Gentleman took the view in proposing his new clauses that they have taken on board some of the views and opinions of the publishing community, whereby contracts with third-country suppliers would create a significant loophole. Having looked at what is proposed, the Department"s line is now that, if the Government went along with these proposals, a significant loophole would be created through which, as the hon. Gentleman said, publishers could avoid the requirement to deposit. He did not, however, attempt to explain this morning why that would create a loophole. The publishers do not believe that it would create one, and our amendment relates only to contracts with foreign-based suppliers. Apparently, a fear exists that UK publishers might decide to relocate overseas as a result. Again, we do not for one moment find that credible. Our amendment, recommended to us by the online sector, is an entirely reasonable and proportionate means of addressing this exposure by removing the offending parts of the clauses.
      As far as new clause 2 is concerned, although the exemption from liability in defamation represents a welcome addition, and we thank the hon. Member for Ipswich for listening to the submissions made to him in
      676
      that respect, other categories of liability need to be addressed, as is the case in the Electronic Commerce (EC) Directive Regulations 2002. The hon. Member for Ipswich went on to say that under subsection (8) of his proposed new clause the power may be used in future to confer protection from liability in respect of other matters by regulations, should that prove necessary. There is a feeling, however, that although that power exists, it may not be used, and all that remains, of course, is the proposal on defamation. Other matters of concern to the publishing industry, in terms of the additional offences that might be faced, are the following: negligent mis-statement, contempt of court, privacy, racism, obscenity and misleading advertising. All those areas of concern have been expressed on many occasions, and have not so far met with the hon. Gentleman"s approval or support from the Minister or the Department.
      The hon. Member for Ipswich claimed that he has moved in the direction of the publishers by limiting liability for works published on the internet. That is in subsection (5) of new clause 2, which states:
      "Where a work is published on the internet, subsection (6) applies to a copy of the work if … the work is of a description prescribed by regulations under this subsection",
      and
      "the publication of the work on the internet … is connected with the United Kingdom in a manner so prescribed".
      With that, he makes the point that he and his advisers have gone some way to meeting the fears of the publishing industry. If we look carefully at subsection (5)(a), (b) and (c), however, no guarantee is given of any movement in that direction. Proposals will come forward in the future in regulations, but as yet, many of those have not been discussed, and those concerned have no real idea as to how they will evolve, devolve and affect them across the board.
      We also believe that the notice and takedown provisions in the Bill should be consistent with the e-commerce regulations that already exist, to ensure that publishers and libraries operate under a consistent legal framework. It would be unacceptably confusing and entirely unnecessary to have a different notice and takedown regime for legal deposit under all other circumstances. For the sake of consistency, all liabilities should be addressed in the Bill as closely as possible to those provisions set out in the e-commerce regulations. Through new clause 3, we begin to address some of those issues. Although I shall return later to amendment No. 21, it is coupled with that in terms of tightening up what are considered to be problems and difficulties with the way in which the Bill is currently drafted.
      12 noon
      The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): Without going over the material covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole), I shall respond to one or two of the points raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). I support new clauses 1 and 2—but not new clause 3—and amendment No. 20, which is consequential on the new clauses.
      I think that it is generally agreed that new clause 1 provides the publishers and libraries with protection in the deposit of materials. New clause 2 provides that the deposit libraries will not be liable for any defamation arising out of the use of the material in the libraries

      677
      unless the library is aware that the material contains a defamatory statement and has had a reasonable opportunity to prevent that use. Similarly, new clause 2 offers publishers the same recognition. Hon. Members must understand that the Bill is enabling legislation that is designed to stand the test of time. Much of how it is enacted will be subject to further consultation and debate with publishers and others. It makes provisions in relation to future media, and new clause 2 gives us that additional flexibility.
      I want to deal with the point that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire raised about contracts with entities abroad not offering protection other than under English law. I would not for a minute wish to suggest that members of the publishing community would enter into a contract with someone overseas to give them protection from depositing in the UK, but the hon. Gentleman might accept that that is a loophole that could be exploited by those who do not act in the way that he and I would hope. In law, it is a potential loophole. Therefore, Ministers and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich cannot offer publishers protection from overseas law—only from English law. However, we shall consult publishers and the industry on a case-by-case basis.
      The print media currently deposit books in libraries. They do not face this problem, and do not have protection from international law; they are protected only from English law. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman"s point—none of us wants to put publishers into a position in which they might be subject to action from overseas law—I ask him to accept that we do not want a loophole to be exploited by those who act in a way that we would not consider to be honourable.
      Mr. Moss: I made two points. The first is that there might be a problem with the law of the originating country. We accept that there may be a nominal position with regard to the breaking of that law. The more important point—I hope that the Minister accepts this—is that overseas suppliers of information may think that, given the circumstances under the Bill, they may not wish to continue to supply material. That would have a serious economic impact on the businesses involved.
      Estelle Morris: I understand that point. To some extent, the hon. Gentleman responds in the way that I did. In circumstances that we might not expect, there is a potential for overseas people to view a contract in that light. I accept that that is possible. However, I repeat two points. The first is that that has not caused a problem with the printed books that are deposited in libraries, so it should be possible to find a way around that problem. Secondly, given that this is enabling legislation that will deal with the issues on a case-by-case basis, the hon. Gentleman"s point is one that we shall want to consider.
      The fact that there is not protection from non-UK law is something that publishers will have to take into account when entering into contracts. The purpose of the Bill in ensuring that we have national archives and libraries that keep copies of published material is important. Many amendments were made to the Bill in Committee and dealt with the proper concerns that were raised. We want to give ourselves a framework in the Bill
      678
      that will enable us to continue discussions with the publishers about how we can protect them while preserving our national heritage and libraries.
      I add one more point in response to the wish repeatedly expressed by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire for the use of wording taken from electronic commerce regulations. I am advised that it is used in a different context and that, legally, it is possible to refer back to the original EU directive for clarification. The Bill would clearly not enable that to happen, which is why the wording, which we have been advised is appropriate, does not always relate back to the e-commerce regulations.
      It was entirely proper for the hon. Gentleman to table the new clause and express concerns on behalf of publishers. We are trying to offer publishers the protection that they want while ensuring that our libraries may access the copies that they need. I hope that he accepts that even if he has remaining concerns, they will be properly dealt with by the advisory committee which I reaffirm that the Government wish to set up, which will consider matters case by case. We will not initially require all forms of online and offline publications to be lodged. We will start with offline publications and move to online publications only when we have reached proper agreement following consultation with publishers and others. In the light of that, I hope that he will support new clauses 1 and 2, but not press new clause 3 to a Division.
      Mr. Mole: I welcome the contributions made by hon. Members. We will return to the question of international protection when we consider amendment No. 21. I welcome the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Minister to provide clarification and cross-referencing, and I hope that they have persuaded the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) not to press new clause 3 to a Division.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY: ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO PUBLICATIONS
      "(1) A deposit library, or a person acting on its behalf, is not liable in damages, or subject to any criminal liability, for defamation arising out of the doing by a relevant person of an activity listed in section 7(1A) in relation to a copy of a work delivered under section 1.
      (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the liability of a deposit library where—

      (a) it knows, or in the case of liability in damages it knows of facts or circumstances from which it ought to know, that the copy contains a defamatory statement, and

      (b) it has had a reasonable opportunity since obtaining that knowledge to prevent the doing of the activity in relation to the copy.

      (3) Where, pursuant to section 1, a person (in this section, "the publisher") has delivered a copy of a work to an address specified by a deposit library, the publisher is not liable in damages, or subject to any criminal liability, for defamation arising out of the doing by a relevant person of an activity listed in section 7(1A) in relation to the copy.
      (4) Subsection (3) does not apply where—

      (a) the publisher knows, or in the case of liability in damages the publisher knows of facts or circumstances from which it ought to know, that the copy contains a defamatory statement, and

      (b) it has had a reasonable opportunity since obtaining that knowledge to inform the library of the matter, facts or circumstances known to it and has not done so.

      (5) Where a work is published on the internet, subsection (6) applies to a copy of the work if—

      (a) the work is of a description prescribed by regulations under this subsection,

      (b) the publication of the work on the internet, or a person publishing it there, is connected with the United Kingdom in a manner so prescribed, and

      (c) the copy was made by a deposit library or person acting on its behalf copying the work from the internet in accordance with any conditions so prescribed.

      (6) Where this subsection applies to a copy of a work—

      (a) no person other than the library is liable in damages, or subject to any criminal liability, for defamation arising out of the doing by a relevant person of an activity listed in section 7(1A) in relation to the copy, and

      (b) subsections (1) and (2) apply in relation to the doing of an activity in relation to the copy as they apply in relation to the doing of the activity in relation to a copy of a work delivered under section 1.

      (7) In this section—

      (a) "relevant person" has the same meaning as in section 7;

      (b) references to activities listed in section 7(1A) are references to those activities whether or not done in relation to relevant material (as defined in section 7);

      (c)references to a deposit library include references to the Faculty of Advocates.

      (8) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for this section, as it applies in relation to liability in damages and criminal liability for defamation, to apply in relation to liability (including criminal liability) of any description prescribed in the regulations, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed.
      (9) Where this section applies to the doing of an activity in relation to a copy of a work it also applies to the doing of the activity in relation to a copy (at any remove) of that copy.
      (10) Nothing in this section imposes liability on any person.'.—[Mr. Mole.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 4

      LIMITATIONS ON APPLICATION
      '(1) In the case of a work published on line which is of a description prescribed under section 1(4), this Act applies only if subsection (2) or (3) applies.
      (2) This subsection applies if the work is first published from the United Kingdom by—

      (a) a British citizen,

      (b) a natural person resident in the United Kingdom, or

      (c) a body (including a partnership) using a fixed establishment in the United Kingdom.

      (3) The presence and use of the technical means and technologies required to provide the information society service, do not, in themselves, constitute an establishment of the provider.
      (4) The Secretary of State may be regulations amend subsection (2) or (3).".—[Mr. Moss.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Moss: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 24, in page 4, line 7, clause 6, at end insert—
      "(5) Regulations under this section may not be made so as to apply to works published on line which do not contribute to the national intellectual, cultural or scientific record.".
      No. 9, in page 5, line 3, clause 8, at beginning insert—
      "() Copyright is not infringed by the copying of a work from the internet by a deposit library or person acting on its behalf if—

      (a) the work is of a description prescribed by regulations under section (Exemption from liability: activities in relation to publications)(5) of the 2003 Act,

      (b) its publication on the internet, or a person publishing it there, is connected with the United Kingdom in a manner so prescribed, and

      (c)the copying is done in accordance with any conditions so prescribed.".

      No. 10, in page 5, line 5, clause 8, leave out from first "the" to end of line 6 and insert "2003 Act".
      No. 12, in page 5, line 24, clause 8, at end insert—
      "() "the 2003 Act" means the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003;'.
      No. 13, in page 5, line 25, clause 8, at beginning insert "'deposit library",'.
      No. 14, in page 5, line 32, clause 8, at beginning insert—
      "() Database right in a database is not infringed by the copying of a work from the internet by a deposit library or person acting on its behalf if—

      (a) the work is of a description prescribed by regulations under section (Exemption from liability: activities in relation to publications)(5) of the 2003 Act,

      (b) its publication on the internet, or a person publishing it there, is connected with the United Kingdom in a manner so prescribed, and

      (c) the copying is done in accordance with any conditions so prescribed.".

      No. 15, in page 5, line 34, clause 8, leave out from `the" to end of line 35 and insert "2003 Act".
      No. 16, in page 5, line 41, clause 8, leave out ", "relevant material" has" and insert "—
      () "the 2003 Act" means the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003;
      () "deposit library" and "relevant material" have'.
      Mr. Moss: New clause 4 would define more clearly the origin of a specific work or piece of information. I am informed that discussions have taken place among the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and representatives of the publishing industry and that there was a view that agreement had been reached that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) could draft an amendment to address several of the points raised, especially those expressed by the Digital Content Forum. Unfortunately, that did not happen, and the word from the Department was that there would be long-term flexibility to deal with the issue in response to evolving non-print media.

      681
      Of course, the effect of the decision is that the Bill has no territorial certainty. The problem is that inadequate consultation has taken place, and perhaps the Minister and the promoter do not really understand the implications of extending the deposit regime to include online publications, because it will raise many difficult problems. The fact that the Bill does not address and clarify the territorial scope of online services is a fundamental fault, which new clause 4 seeks to rectify. It aims to ensure that publishers know in future exactly where they stand in relation to the concept of territoriality.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: I should like to speak to my amendment No. 24, which deals with online publications and would introduce a restriction on the requirement to submit online publications, which would not apply unless they contributed to the national intellectual, cultural or scientific record.
      The Bill is extremely woolly on the subject of online publications—[Interruption.] I did not hear what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said.
      Mr. Eric Forth: He was being rude.
      Mr. Chope: That is a matter for the hon. Member for Ceredigion, who should exercise his judgment. I am surprised that he is not concerned about the problem caused by the proliferation of online material on the internet and the prima facie requirement in the Bill that the contents of every single website should be submitted in electronic form to the national deposit library so that they can become part of the national collection.
      Mr. Forth: I hesitate to intervene on my hon. Friend, because he knows that my knowledge of, and interest in, the internet is not merely zero but negative. However, I wish to make a modest contribution if I catch Mr. Deputy Speaker"s eye, so I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could provide me with some context. Is a website a territorial thing, and does it have a territorial existence or being? That question is germane to the issues raised by this group of amendments, and an explanation would be of enormous assistance in helping me to formulate my thoughts.
      Mr. Chope: Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend has chosen the wrong person to get a good answer to that question. As I understand it, the contents of a website can be accessed on any suitable computer in any global jurisdiction. Indeed, I even believe that people travelling intergalactically can get access to those websites.
      Mr. Forth: Does it follow that the material on a website cannot have a meaningful territoriality or territorial existence?
      Mr. Chope: I am not sure about that, as I understand that there is a series of offences that can be committed by people who download content from a website. From my superficial knowledge, gleaned from looking at popular newspapers, it seems that people are sometimes deemed to be downloading material from a website even when they are just visiting it, rather as one may visit a library to look at the books rather than withdraw
      682
      anything. However, I must admit to my right hon. Friend that my knowledge of the difference between a website that falls within a domestic jurisdiction and one that falls within an international jurisdiction is limited. However, like me, he will be familiar with the fact that some websites have a "co.uk" designation—I do not know whether that means that they are exclusive to the UK. I am also aware that some websites are designated ".eu", and do not know whether we cannot get access to them in this country until we join the single currency. There are also dotcom websites, which I understood to be an international grouping, access to which is probably more expensive than to the co.uk sites. But that takes us a bit further than I had intended with the amendment.
      12.15 pm
      In the past, the very process of publishing and its costs were such as to restrict the material that was published. In order for books to be published, they had to be considered by a publishers' scrutiny committee, and we know that many tens of thousands of people have sought in vain to have their work published. Now, as I understand it, everyone whose work is rejected for publication in written form can put it on their personal website. The Bill would require every piece of worthless material on a website—in other words, any book not considered by a publisher to be worth publishing—to be submitted to the national library in duplicate. It has even been suggested that six copies may be required.
      We have heard much recently about the proliferation of e-mails and something called spam, although I am not quite sure what that is. But those problems are as nothing compared with the problems that will be created if there is a legal obligation under the Bill for every item that is published on the internet by someone resident in this country—to take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—to be submitted to the national library.
      Apart from anything else, that will impose an intolerable burden upon the library in cataloguing, storing and accessing such material. It completely cuts across the idea of having a national library collection, which is a collection of works that have been published because a publisher thought that they were worth publishing. There may in the past have been a few works that were published by rich people at their own expense, but such works have been relatively few in number. Now, anyone can set up their own website. They could put a collection of their primary school essays on the website. Some schools encourage their pupils to put their material on to websites so that it can be accessed by a wider audience. Are we really saying that the equivalent of schoolchildren"s exercise books, albeit in online form, should have to be submitted to the national library collection?
      My amendment seeks to ensure that in so far as there is such a requirement it does not extend to works that do not enjoy significance and contribute to the national intellectual, cultural or scientific record. That concept is clearly reflected in the regulatory impact assessment, which runs to some 17 pages with an appendix, paragraph 2(1) of which states:
      "the objective of the proposed measure is to extend the provisions of section 15 of the Copyright Act 1911 to cover non-print material to ensure that all publications of significance are

      683
      collected, regardless of the medium in which they are published, and are preserved as part of the national published archive so as to remain available to future generations of users."
      You will have noted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the reference there to "publications of significance". At present, that is not reflected in the Bill, and certainly not in relation to online publications. That is why I think that the Bill would be much improved if amendment No. 24 were incorporated in it.
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend would help me if he were to expand his remarks now so that I could set my remarks in a better context. I am curious to know whether my hon. Friend thinks that we have a mechanism that is robust enough to make a judgment about what he is calling the national intellectual, cultural or scientific record. That definition seems to have the potential to involve subjective judgments. I think that that necessarily must be so. Does my hon. Friend think that the provision in amendment No. 24 will be able effectively to be implemented? The wording, which sounds rather grand, helpful and positive, may in the end be of little or no meaning when it comes to implementation.
      Mr. Chope: I share my right hon. Friend"s concern that my amendment might introduce what is in the nature of a subjective test. However, there will have to be some subjectivity. If not, we shall find that every schoolchild"s essay and every piece of any other material, however ghastly it is in terms of content or grammar, will have to be deposited in the national archive collection, if it has appeared online on a website.
      On Second Reading, the promoter said:
      "The purpose of legal deposit is to ensure that the nation"s published output, and thereby its intellectual record and future published heritage, is collected systematically and as comprehensively as possible. We do this to make material available to current researchers in the libraries of the legal deposit system, and to preserve it for the use of future generations of researchers. Both purposes are important. The system dates back several hundred years and has been vital in preserving and making available the published record of previous generations for the researchers of today and of the future."
      However, that has not included the odd jottings of previous generations of schoolchildren, or their scribblings. Partly in answer to the question raised by my right hon. Friend, the promoter said:
      "What might we be losing? The material at risk includes: major directories, such as the Europe Information directory, which is available on DVD; news sources, including the web-published results of public opinion polls from companies such as MORI; indexes to help researchers to locate material such as the Legal Journals Index; the Cochrane Library, which is arguably the best single source of reliable evidence on the effects of health care and which is available only on CD-ROM and the web; a wide range of important local government and national Government documents, such as the Home Office series of "online only" research reports; and an increasing number of e-journals, such as Sociological Research Online, which is available only on the web."—[Official Report, 14 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 577.]
      When the promoter was addressing the issue on Second Reading, in a sense he was inserting his own subjective judgment on what he regarded as documents or material that would not be available for future generations because it had not been deposited in the
      684
      library. However, even his examples are minor compared with the vast quantity of material that would be envisaged by the Bill as it stands, as extended to online publication.
      I refer again to the regulatory impact assessment, which states under the heading "Risk Assessment" on page 3, sub-paragraph (iv):
      "If the provisions of legal deposit are not extended to non-print publications there is a considerable risk that important material contributing to the national intellectual, cultural and scientific record will not be secured and preserved for the benefit of future generations."
      The wording of my amendment is taken directly from the regulatory impact assessment. The assessment goes on:
      "It is generally accepted that publishers do not have the expertise, or infrastructure, to preserve their publications or provide access beyond the timespan during which they are of commercial value to them."
      When one looks at the regulatory impact assessment, particularly at how thin it is in respect of online publications, one realises that there must be some safeguards in the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst may be of the opinion that it should not cover online publications at all, but accepting that there may be a case for certain online publications, my amendment seeks to restrict that category significantly.
      My right hon. Friend will probably ask me what the regulatory impact assessment says about the overall costs of dealing with UK websites.
      Mr. Forth: Good guess.
      Mr. Chope: That is dealt with under option 4 on page 7 of the regulatory impact assessment, which states:
      "Harvesting UK websites
      This would involve the selective archiving of UK websites, with priority given to sites of current and future research potential. This would work on the basis of partnership and sharing with other agencies. It is assumed that the main institutions who would undertake and co-ordinate this work would be the National Libraries."
      The document goes on to discuss the costs and benefits and states:
      "The benefits include the ability to preserve, selectively, a representative sample of UK websites, and thus create a more complete national archive in the web domain."
      That speaks for itself. The assessment goes on:
      "Benefits will be accrued if this is undertaken in partnership with other agencies, eg the Public Record Office."
      As regards the costs, option 4, "Harvesting UK Websites", states:
      "There is no means of estimating the costs of archiving noncommercial websites, especially in the absence of reliable data as to how costs might be shared through partnership arrangements. The experience of the British Library's experimental Domain UK: Interim Report (March 2002) is valuable. On a three-year time horizon, it can be assumed that the running cost of £600,000 per annum (real costs at 2003 prices) would allow the management of an archive of UK domain websites in accordance with following targets: 10,000 research-focused UK domain websites (0.3 per cent. of the total domain of UK websites"—
      in other words, only three in a thousand websites—
      "on a quarterly basis, and undertake an annual harvest of the entire UK domain of three million websites."

      685
      I am not sure how it is possible to carry out an annual harvest of 3 million websites, but perhaps the promoter of the Bill will explain.
      The regulatory impact assessment goes on:
      "However, at this juncture it is not possible to estimate, with confidence, what costs would look like over a 10-year time horizon."
      Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend effectively telling me that the regulatory impact assessment concludes that an assessment cannot be made, and that despite the entire mechanism that is designed to allow us as legislators to make a judgment about the legislation, we are rendered virtually incapable of making such a judgment and are being asked to sign a blank and open cheque? Is that what my hon. Friend is suggesting?
      Mr. Chope: I am not just suggesting that—I am stating it. That is the import of what is contained in—or rather, omitted from—the regulatory impact assessment. This is an extremely important debate. There may be people out there listening to the debate who have failed to get their work published with authorised publishers, and who may think that the way to get their work into the British Library is to set up their own website and put their essay, novel or whatever on that website. They may think that they have made a contribution to future generations that will be secured for the national archive. In the light of the regulatory impact assessment, it appears that such people may be acting under a misapprehension in building their own website and displaying the material on it, but one cannot be sure because of the vagueness of the issue.
      12.30 pm
      Mr. Forth: Is not my hon. Friend getting himself into some difficulty? Having made those remarks, how does he expect the mechanism envisaged in amendment No. 24, which he tabled, to work? Somebody, somewhere will have to make an assessment of the intellectual, cultural or scientific nature of the material, yet he has just graphically pointed out that the volume of material is enormous and that the resources are, presumably, limited. In the light of what he has said, can he help me to understand, before I make my contribution, how amendment No. 24 could be made to work?
      Mr. Chope: I accept that the amendment could be made to work only with a very expensive bureaucracy that would assess the material to see whether it complied with the requirements that the amendment sets out. However, the alternative is the even larger bureaucracy involved in archiving and cataloguing every single item of online material from anybody"s website, albeit within the confines of the United Kingdom—I give that the benefit of the doubt. In my submission, that task is even more unmanageable. That is why I tabled the amendment; I am attempting not to drive a coach and horses through the Bill or to undermine its purpose, but to bring some rationality to the issue of online material.
      In Committee, the now Minister of State, Department for Transport, who was then responsible for the Bill, said that the National Library of Wales had a fantastic collection of pornography. I do not know whether we will find that national libraries vie with one another as to which has the largest and most extensive collection of
      686
      pornography, but if that is their ambition, the burden will be breathtaking. That is why we need to give some serious thought to the implications of requiring everybody with online material to submit it to one of the national collections.
      I could speak at greater length, but the point has been made and it does not need repeating. I hope that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) can respond to the genuine concerns that have been expressed and explain how he believes the provisions can be applied in a common-sense way under the terms of the Bill as it currently stands.
      Mr. Mole: I encourage the House to support amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 12 to 16, but I feel that it should resist new clause 4 and amendment No. 24.
      In Committee, the now Minister of State, Department for Transport undertook to consider drafting an amendment defining a UK publisher. New clause 4, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), returns to that issue. An amendment was drafted, but its implications proved problematic. It was suggested that the e-commerce directive provided a possible model, but it was thought unworkable. The Committee was also advised that the concept of the place of establishment did not translate as helpfully into UK law and applied only to the provision of commercial services, whereas the Bill potentially covers non-commercial services as well. The amendment would also refer back to European law and regulations that are capable of being changed every five years. That is not satisfactory in respect of a definition in a Bill that is certainly expected to last longer than that.
      For those reasons, we have decided to keep the original provision in clause 6(2)(g) that allows the definition to be dealt with by way of regulations after a great deal more consultation and consideration. Issues to do with the location of web material are irrelevant, including the concepts of domain extensions, whether they are.uk,.com or whatever, because the Bill treats the role of the individual in publications as critical. The key point is who is responsible for the publication and not where it physically sits.
      Publishers have expressed their concern at the implications of new clause 4 for international publications in which UK businesses are partly engaged—for example, in sub-editing. They fear that such a form of words would prejudice their businesses.
      Under amendment No. 9, copyright would not be infringed by web harvesting, provided it was done in accordance with prescribed conditions.
      Amendments Nos. 10, 12 and 13 are consequential on amendment No. 9. The first two amendments are technical and clarify references to the Bill when enacted, and the third adds the term "deposit library" to "reader" and "relevant material", so that the terms have the same meaning as in clause 7 and throughout the Bill.
      Amendment No. 14 would make equivalent provisions to amendment No. 9 in respect of database rights to ensure that they are not infringed by web harvesting.
      Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are technical amendments that are consequential on amendment No. 17 in relation to terminological references to the Act and definitions.

      687
      I ask the House to resist amendment No. 24, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), because it very much constitutes a subjective opinion. Such matters should be left to the collections policy of legal deposit libraries. Where collection policies interact with commercial interests, I would hope that a future technical committee could give advice.
      Mr. Chope: How does somebody who has a novel on their own website know whether it should be submitted to the national collection, in accordance with the national collections policy?
      Mr. Mole: Such an individual should look at the website of the British Library. The point of web harvesting is not to require activity by the publisher, but to simplify the process of deposit whereby libraries gather what they feel to be appropriate through their collections policy. The individual should look at the collections policy in trying to determine whether something should be collected.
      The Bill tries to enable a continuation of the framework that existed for print materials. For example, bus timetables are not collected through legal deposit, and that would not translate into the electronic media. As for the question of what will limit the decisions on collection policy, the answer is available finance. We are talking not about a blank cheque but about cutting the cloth to the available resources in determining the scope of collection policies. Annual harvesting is a snapshot by automated electronic copying of what is deemed appropriate by collection policies.
      Mr. Chope: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the risk assessment described in the regulatory impact assessment has to be qualified by libraries" resources? The RIA says:
      "If the provisions of legal deposit are not extended to non-print publications there is a considerable risk that important material contributing to the national intellectual, cultural and scientific record will not be secured and preserved".
      Mr. Mole: The purpose of a collection policy is twofold: first, to define the intellectual content of the nation; and, secondly, to ensure that collections can be made within the available resources. Perhaps I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. The British Library has developed a sound collection policy over many hundreds of years. The website states:
      "The collection of the British Library has been formed over many years and embraces all known languages. It traces its formal history to the foundation of the British Museum Library in 1753 in which three existing great collections were brought together: the Cotton Collection (which had been bequeathed to the nation in 1700) the Harley Collection and the Sloane Collection. To these was added in 1757 the Royal collection, formed by monarchs of earlier ages, and since then many others. The quality, size and depth of the Library's collection (estimated at above 150 million items) are central to its position as the national library.
      While no library can any longer aspire to being comprehensive in its coverage of the world, the Library nevertheless collects widely and in depth in its areas of traditional strength.
      The collection of the British Library operates on many levels and with reference to the rest of the Library system in the country. At the core it represents the collective memory of the nation by
      688
      retaining for posterity the intellectual output of British publishing. To assist in this legal deposit legislation ensures that the Library is entitled to a copy of all books, journals and newspapers published in Britain. To this core is added purchase research-level material from around the world and appropriate unpublished material in different formats.
      Our collecting policies reflect our function as a library of first instance and last resort; last resort for those whose primary access is the university, company or public library and first instance where the Library is the sole convenient source for the research material they require."
      I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Christchurch.
      Mr. Forth: I may be the only person in the Chamber who does not wear an anorak on such occasions. However, the layman is entitled to speak and I shall therefore venture into the e-world or cyber world about which I have little or no knowledge and in which I am not interested. I hope that I can add a different dimension to the debate by asking the promoter and perhaps the Minister some non-technical and non-e-questions.
      My unease was increased when my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) gave us a useful and relevant analysis of the sheer volume of material in the new world that we are considering. He referred to materials that were available only online and also used the term e-journals. That could alarm someone such as me who has never visited a website; I hope to get through my life without ever doing so. However, it could also reassure me that I am immunised from the amount of rubbish that doubtless exists. I confess that I am also bereft of the wisdom that might reside on all those websites. One has to make a judgment.
      New clause 4 and amendment No. 24 especially attracted my interest. In the light of the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who introduced new clause 4, I wonder how much meaning the provisions would have. Even with my scant knowledge of such matters, it strikes me that phrases such as "published on line", let alone
      "first published from the United Kingdom"
      may not be robust, meaningful definitions.
      The technology is now such that people of any nationality can move freely throughout the world and communicate in a wireless mode on the internet and thence on websites. The term
      "first published from the United Kingdom"
      must therefore give rise to doubt in that context. Perhaps the promoter or the Minister can help me to understand better how the phrase is meaningful in a wireless world.
      In the old days, there were certainties. The printed word had certainty and one could readily identify its provenance. However, provenance is a problem in a wireless world when one tries to use such phrases as
      "first published from the United Kingdom"
      or
      "a natural person resident in the United Kingdom".
      Although the term residency is well founded in, for example, nationality law and immigration law, I do not know whether the new clause would be workable. The more I look at it, the more I wonder how workable it would prove in this new technical world.

      689
      12.45 pm
      I hesitate even to discuss subsection (3) of the new clause, because I do not begin to understand it. I only hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire understands it and that someone else somewhere does as well, because I cannot imagine what would happen if it ever found its way into statute. It states:
      "The presence and use of the technical means and technologies required to provide the information society service, do not, in themselves, constitute an establishment of the provider."
      I suppose that that must have some sort of meaning. Perhaps someone will help me with it at some stage. It is not very sound grammatically, or very attractive linguistically; but it may be possible to interpret it in the world in which we now move. I shall leave that question hanging in the air for the time being, though, because I want to say something about amendment No. 24.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I normally agree on most things. We have worked together happily and in harmony for many years, and it distresses me to part company with him now. I gave him every opportunity to explain his amendment to me, and he tried to do so, but sadly he has not succeeded so far.
      At least my hon. Friend"s speech drew from the promoter the admission—I think it was an admission—that the collection policy on which he relied so heavily in responding to my hon. Friend will inevitably be constrained by the available resources. That is, in a sense, self-evident, but, having been teased out of the promoter, it sets in context the great difficulty that underpins the Bill.
      If my hon. Friend"s statistics are correct, there will be an explosion in the amount of material available electronically. For centuries the amount of material available at any one time has been limited by the sheer physical constraints of page and print, and the effort required to translate concepts on to the page and disseminate them—although more has been published in each decade of the past century than in the whole of human history before that.
      Even I, in my state of blissful ignorance, can imagine the extent to which the electronic facilities currently available to us will multiply. As my hon. Friend explained, anyone with a keyboard and access to the internet and the necessary technology can now contribute in a way that was formerly restricted by the physical requirements of the printing process. We are entering a new universe, in which material will expand exponentially.
      In that context, the collection policy constrained by resources that the promoter has mentioned becomes highly germane—to say nothing of the questions raised by my hon. Friend, and what he is trying to do in his amendment. A collection policy is one thing: it is established, and, although constrained by resources, it works. I think, however, that real difficulties arise when we attempt to build into that the ambitions contained in my hon. Friend"s amendment. I think my hon. Friend would be the first to admit—indeed, I think he did admit—that the mind boggles when one tries to imagine who will exercise a subjective judgment, meaningful in terms of the amendment, about what is intellectual, what is cultural, or what is scientific.
      690
      Working backwards through those, the scientific is probably by far the easiest of those categories readily to identify, although the volume of scientific material is, if anything, even greater than the literary output confronting us. At least one could envisage a start being made on identifying what is, and what is not, scientific. When one moves on to the cultural or intellectual, however, the task is much more difficult. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch pointed out, the essays of a young mind might, in some cases, be regarded as of little value, but who is to say? Many of the great geniuses of history, in whatever sphere of endeavour, blossomed at an early age. Who would have set out to judge a musical, artistic, literary or scientific effort made at a very young age?
      We are getting ourselves into new and very difficult territory, and although I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend was trying to do in tabling amendment No. 24 I am yet to be convinced that it is workable. I have to say to the promoter, however, that I am not convinced, either, that the collections policies on which he places so much reliance would be sufficiently robust to achieve what the Bill sets out to do.
      I have come to the subject fairly new, and I thought, in my innocence, that this was a relatively limited, technical and focused Bill. I suspect that the promoter started out thinking that too, but I am sure that he would now admit that he has been surprised at the extent to which, when the House has examined it—this is the key point, and it is a tribute to the parliamentary process—on Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report, we have begun to see its ramifications.
      I pay tribute to the promoter because he has, very properly, been prepared to table new clauses and amendments to try to put his Bill in order, and he is to be congratulated on that. I am left with the uneasy feeling that although the Bill"s objectives are shared, I think, by everybody, it may be much more difficult to implement than was thought.
      Mr. Chope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that the promoter has sought to make the Bill what he has described as future-proof?
      Mr. Forth: If that is so, I would have thought that, in the context of the technologies that we are discussing, it is a pretty bold claim, to put it mildly. Even I am aware that the advance of this technology, perhaps more than any other in history, is mind-bogglingly rapid. I would have thought that a more modest aspiration was appropriate: to try to frame legislation that can contain what we think we know of the existing technology and to make an effort to look a little bit ahead. But the claim that this will deal with the future is barely credible.
      My own reservations are about what is, or what I believe to be, and the difficulties that arise therefrom. It distresses me to say that, on this occasion, I am not happy with the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, for the reasons that I have given and, sadly, I am not yet convinced about amendment No. 24 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Until I hear more from them, and I hope to seek to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may have to withhold my support.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I do not know about interplanetary logging on and logging off, but I feel as though we had been to the planet Zog and back in the last half an hour. There are, however, a couple of serious points to be made about the amendments.
      The Bill puts print and non-print publications, published for use in the United Kingdom, on exactly the same footing. New clause 4 would change that relationship, and I would oppose that. I believe strongly that what we are trying to achieve with the Bill is the recognition that non-print publications are as important to our cultural, intellectual and scientific life as were print publications in the past, and we must recognise that they need to be collected in exactly the same way as we have collected print publications.
      That brings me to amendment No. 24 and collections policy. It is a pity that some hon. Members in the Chamber today did not attend the Second Reading debate as they would have been able to hear strongly expressed views about what librarians and archivists have achieved in building up our national collections. There are six for the whole United Kingdom, three of which are the national collections for the constituent nations; there are also collections in Oxford and Cambridge and one for the whole island of Ireland.
      The Second Reading debate made it clear—as I hope will also be clear today—that those national collections were built up using the knowledge of archivists and librarians and their interpretation of what was culturally significant at the time. They may not always get it right, but they have a depth of experience and a well of knowledge, as well as the sense of the history of such things that is passed on in those institutions from generation to generation. I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would have appreciated that work and its future.
      I speak as someone who has worked in such an institution, so I have seen how such work is carried out. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would be welcome at any of our national libraries to see how the collections were built up. The Bill entrusts librarians and archivists with future proofing in the sense that it entrusts them with collection policy, and I very much support that.
      Dr. Andrew Murrison: I rise principally in support of amendment No. 24. I agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that librarians and archivists are extremely skilled. Perhaps they can be entrusted to determine what is significant, but they need guidance in statute, as, by nature, they are magpies—rightly so. However, the collecting instincts that are reflected in the provisions of this generally laudable Bill need some structure or framework.
      Often, in our haste to collect everything, we belittle and demean what is really important. Most of us have experience of weeding our office files, for example. We do so because we want to ensure that important documents are not disguised by the generality, which is relatively trivial. That workaday example has some relevance in the context of our debate.
      One of my chief concerns relates to awareness, compliance and enforcement. Under the current law applying to the printed media, we see how things can operate sub-optimally. For example, we publish
      692
      political leaflets, with the imprint duly appended. Under the current law, in theory, such leaflets should be deposited yet few people would seriously claim that they were of
      "national intellectual, cultural or scientific"
      importance. The Liberal Democrat "Focus" leaflets—dare I say famous "Focus" leaflets?—are generally complete fiction. No one would suggest that they should be deposited, yet under current law perhaps they should be.
      Most of us have web pages these days—with the exception, perhaps, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
      Mr. Forth: Certainly not.
      Dr. Murrison: In theory, under the law, web pages should be deposited and, as most of us update them, they should be redeposited at regular intervals. However, no one would seriously suggest that those documents have any great significance for future historical research, although one or two of us might flatter ourselves that they might. I suspect, however, that they will not.
      Amendment No. 24 would cover such matters and, with guidance—I hope—from professional archivists and librarians, would exclude the trivial, and for that reason I support it.
      Estelle Morris: I particularly want to address my remarks to new clause 4 and amendment No. 24, as I support the other amendments tabled and ably introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole). However, before I do so, I wish to say that this business is undoubtedly complex and that many of the comments made by hon. Members have been right and proper. As people who have charge of passing down our cultural heritage to the generations that come after us, we must decide whether we want to include non-print publications. Whether we like it or not and whether or not we have a website, we must accept that the world is moving into a time when communication and publishing takes place other than in print.
      1 pm
      My personal view is that it is right for us to try to find a way forward so that future generations can have access to what was published in the past. That is my starting point. In some ways, that is very simple, but I entirely accept that, once we try to make that happen, things become very complicated, partly because it is a world that does not stand still and all the notions of what constitutes a publication, let alone where it is published, call for decisions that are very difficult to write down in law. That has been the difficulty with the Bill throughout its proceedings in Parliament. Certainly, from what I have picked up in the past few days, I sense that that has been the difficulty.
      What we are doing—I think that this is what my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich meant when he referred to time proofing—is providing a framework that will allow us to have discussions with people who are far more knowledgeable than we are. Certainly the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)

      693
      has admitted that he is not very knowledgeable about websites. I may know a little more about them, but I am certainly not as knowledgeable as I would need to be if I were to take decisions about what should be saved for the future. The comments made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who has a good background in this subject, were absolutely spot on, and I wish to emphasise them, which is why I shall concentrate on new clause 4 and amendment No. 24.
      New clause 4 deals with an important issue and I give the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) credit for raising it, but I draw his attention to clause 6(2)(g). The Bill does not state what constitutes a UK publication in primary legislation. We are not deciding that today; it will be subject to further regulations. If the hon. Gentleman feels that new clause 4 offers his preferred definition of what constitutes a UK publication, he could propose that as part of those regulations and—who knows?—it might be adopted, but, for once, I agree with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that that is not the right way to define such things.
      I take the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that that may be his preference, but the best way to deal with this issue is to have the proper consultation and discussions with those who are very knowledgeable about what constitutes a UK publication and for the definition to be the subject of those regulations. I do not wish to detract from the fact that I do not have any easy definition up my sleeve. I do not know what the definition will be—it is very difficult—but it is important to consider where things are published.
      The clause that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst read out was absolutely key because some of the definitions in that clause are not used in the legislation. If we were to adopt that part of the legislation, we would have great difficulty in interpreting it. I am not arguing against the definition of what constitutes a UK publication proposed by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire; I am arguing in favour of acting under clause 6(2)(g), having proper consultations and then making regulations.
      Mr. Moss: I take some reassurance from the right hon. Lady"s words in answer to the proposal in new clause 4, but does she agree that the problem for those who must deal with all this—in particular, the publishers, not the libraries—is the great uncertainty? They do not know what will evolve from the consultations that the Minister and her predecessor have promised, so they are completely in the dark about what the implications, particularly the economic ones, will be for them in future. I hope that, at some stage, the Minister will confirm her predecessor"s commitment to the consultation process and the formation of a panel, but will she now give me and those involved a guarantee that, when the panel meets and discusses the implications of the proposals on origination and territorial limitations, nothing will be agreed that strikes against their economic interests?
      Estelle Morris: Further amendments to the Bill state rightly that such economic interests need to be taken into account. That is established in the legislation. To refer back to my opening comments, it is almost our
      694
      duty to find a way through this, although I accept how difficult it is. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to say that in all cases, how ever great or small the economic cost to the publishers, that consideration would in all circumstances override the decision to deposit these materials, I cannot give such an assurance, and I would not want to do so. Other people's interests are also at stake, and that is the balance that we are striving to keep. I shall take every opportunity that I can to confirm what my predecessor said about setting up the forum and the consultation, not acting without expert knowledge, and doing all that we can to take the industry and publishers with us and to allay their fears—I understand that it is difficult when they do not know what will be the eventual shape of the regulations. I repeat, however, that it is right that we try to find a way through. I can do no more than that.
      I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will withdraw new clause 4 and wait for the proper definition of a UK publication in regulations. I might make the same comments in relation to amendment No. 24 tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). Again, it is disappointing news, but his childhood essay may not be deposited in one of the major libraries of this country. It never was a provision of the Bill that everything on a website and on the internet would find its way to be deposited in a library. That was never the intention. What we are left with is the process of selection, which is another difficult area. We are grappling with a legislative process that is dealing with something that was not even dreamt of when that legislative process originated in history. That does not mean that we will not have a damn good try at making the legislation as effective as possible.
      Briefly, the reason that I resist this amendment is that we want to consult the experts. I can add no more to the comments made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion, whose predecessor, I remember, used to speak on education Bills, so he and I were well used to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. It is proper to take the advice of those who may not be democratically elected but who have the practical and historical knowledge to enable them to decide what it might be appropriate to keep. I ask the hon. Member for Christchurch not to press amendment No. 24, as it will be the subject of further consultation.
      If the Bill passes through all its parliamentary stages, we will not immediately begin to collect all the online and offline material that has been published. It will not be a case of everything having to be deposited from day one. The advisory panel, which, I hope, will work with the library and experts, will decide almost on a rolling basis what is collected. It will not therefore impact on all the material at exactly the same time—let us say, six months from now—but will be done in a carefully managed way. In response to both hon. Gentlemen who expressed such concern, it is absolutely right that the way that we determine what will be collected, and when and how it will be collected, will be subject to further consultation with those who have the relevant experience.
      Mr. Forth: Given that the Minister has only recently picked up this responsibility, she is doing a wonderful job in the House today. If only all Ministers were as

      695
      confident and competent as she has proved to be. She has earned fully the prize that she received the other night.
      The Minister has made several references to future consultation. Does she not concede, given that she has only recently arrived in her post, that the Bill would have benefited from much more previous consultation and, who knows, from pre-legislative scrutiny, which is very trendy under her Government at the moment? Perhaps if the Bill had been a Government Bill, scrutinised pre-legislatively—
      Mr. Simon Thomas: Online?
      Mr. Forth: Certainly not. Fifty per cent. of the population are still not online, and we do not want to disfranchise them. I thought that we were all-inclusive these days. Does not the Minister concede that in offering future consultation she highlights the fact that the Bill has suffered greatly from not having enough previous consultation?
      Estelle Morris: That very thought crossed my mind earlier this week.
      Mr. Chope: The Minister said that she saw some sense in my amendment No. 24 but did not like its precise wording and wanted to consult about it. The wording in that amendment is the same as in the regulatory impact assessment produced by Baroness Blackstone on 11 March. Paragraph (iv) on page 3 refers to non-print publications and says that
      "there is a considerable risk that important material contributing to the national intellectual, cultural and scientific record will not be secured and preserved".
      However the Minister now says that that language is not appropriate and should be the subject of consultation.
      Estelle Morris: The problem arises in defining that. I have every confidence in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but I do not think that I would be taking too much of a risk if I were to say that she might not wish to take to herself decisions about defining what fulfils the criteria.
      Regulatory impact assessments will be published in respect of any regulations made, so clarifications that have been sought today and not received might get another bite of the cherry later. The hon. Gentleman will have another chance to put forward his definition of what should be collected when the consultation takes place.
      Mr. Moss rose—
      Estelle Morris: I will not give way, as I have concluded my remarks.
      Mr. Moss: I am not surprised that the Minister sat down when she was ahead. However, will she respond to one more question before I decide what to do with new clause 4? She said that a consultation panel would work with the industry to consider carefully the implications
      696
      of the definition of "territoriality". Is she saying that she believes that it is vital to define a UK publication and that she will seek to do that with the panel?
      Estelle Morris: We have to find a way through that. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether something I say will define the outcome of the consultation, the answer is no. If he is saying that it is an important issue that must be resolved to the understanding—if not the agreement—of all concerned, the answer is yes.
      Mr. Moss: The Minister again chose her words extremely carefully, referring to "understanding" and not to "agreement". This is an important issue that must be addressed. I hope that the Minister will concentrate on it perhaps before the Bill goes to the other place. The Bill may fall on this issue if "understanding", not "agreement" is the key ingredient in the consultation.
      With those prescribed assurances on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 6

      REGULATIONS: DEPOSIT OF NON-PRINT PUBLICATIONS
      Mr. Mole: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 3, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will convenient to take the following amendments: No. 25, in page 4, line 5, leave out subsection (4).
      No. 19,
      that Clause 9 be divided into three Clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1), (7) to (7C) and (9) (Regulations: general), the second of subsections (2) to (6) (Regulations: Scotland and Wales) and the third of subsections (8) and (10) (Regulations: Trinity College, Dublin).
      No. 17, in page 6, line 38, clause 9, at end insert—
      "(7A) Regulations under section 1(4) or 6 may not be made so as to apply to works published before the regulations are made.
      (7B) Regulations under section 1(4) or 6 may not be made unless the Secretary of State considers that the costs likely to be incurred as a result of the regulations by persons who publish works to which the regulations relate are not disproportionate to the benefit to the public arising from the delivery of copies of such works.
      (7C) Regulations under section 1(4), 6, 7 or (Exemption from liability: activities in relation to publications)(5) may not be made unless the Secretary of State considers that the regulations do not unreasonably prejudice the interests of persons who publish works to which the regulations relate.'.
      Government amendment (a) thereto, in line 3, after "1(4)", insert "2".
      Government amendment (b) thereto, in line 8, after "1(4)", insert "2".
      No. 22, in page 6, line 38, at end insert—
      "(7A) Regulations under this Act may not be made—

      (a) so as to apply to works published before the regulations are made;

      (b) unless the Secretary of State considers that the costs likely to be incurred as a result of the regulations by persons who publish works to which the regulations relate are not disproportionate to the benefit to the public arising from the delivery of copies of such works, or

      697

      (c) the Secretary of State considers that the regulations do not unreasonably prejudice the interests of persons who publish works to which the regulations relate.'.

      No. 18, in page 6, line 41, leave out from 'satisfied' to end of line 43 and insert
      ",in relation to relevant material delivered pursuant to such an entitlement—

      () that as regards the restriction by section 7 (having regard to any regulations made under that section) of activities in relation to relevant material, the restriction of those activities under the laws of Ireland is not substantially less,

      () that as regards the protection under the laws of any part of the United Kingdom of copyright, publication right, database right and patents in relation to relevant material, the protection under the laws of Ireland of corresponding rights is not substantially less, and

      () that as regards the protection from liability under subsections (3) and (4) of section (Exemption from liability: activities in relation to publications) (or those subsections as applied by regulations under that section), the protection under the laws of Ireland in relation to corresponding liability is not substantially less.".

      No. 21, in page 6, line 47, at end insert—
      "(9A) Regulations may not be made under this Act that would require a publisher to act in breach of any contractual terms entered into with a third party residing outside the United Kingdom.".
      Mr. Mole: At the outset, I wish to make it clear that I encourage the House to support amendments Nos. 1 and 17 to 19, but to resist amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 25. I shall leave all comments on Government amendments (a) and (b) to amendment No. 17 to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
      Amendment No. 1 relates to amendment No. 17 on proportionality. By deleting clause 6(3) and (4), which reappear in amendment No. 17, it moves, through amendment No. 19, the provision that says that regulations can apply only to works published after the regulations are made and the provision dealing with the impact on the publishers, which has been expanded and improved, to clause 9. That ensures that the provisions apply to regulations made under the general duty to deposit in clause 1(4), as well regulations on the use and deposit of non-print publications made under clause 7 and regulations made under clause 6.
      1.15 pm
      Amendment No. 17 addresses proportionality and publishers" interest. The question of proportionality—balancing the needs of a publisher with those of a national archive—was raised in Committee primarily by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd). The amendment is an attempt to satisfy those concerns and to meet the underlying requirements of the Bill. It will ensure that regulations may apply only to works published after the regulations were made by covering regulations made under clauses 1(4) and 6—the provision replaces clause 6(3).
      The amendment also replaces the requirement in clause 6(4) and deals with proportionality and unreasonable prejudicing of the interests of publishers. It provides that regulations requiring deposit may be made only if the Secretary of State considers that the
      698
      costs that are likely to be incurred by the publishers are not disproportionate to the benefit to the public of deposit. Regulations requiring deposit and dealing with access to the material deposited and harvested may be made only if the Secretary of State considers that they do not unreasonably prejudice the publishers of the relevant works.
      The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire tabled amendment No. 22, which would extend the proportionality provision to all regulations made under the Bill. I can say only that we have done that, when possible and practical, and I remind him that issues of proportionality will naturally be considered under each regulatory impact assessment that is required before the production of a set of regulations.
      Amendment No. 18 relates to deposits in the Republic of Ireland and clarifies the circumstances in which material may be required to be deposited with Trinity college. Clause 9 currently provides that material need not be deposited with Trinity college if the restrictions on its use under Irish law are substantially less than those under UK law. The amendment clarifies and extends that provision by providing that deposit is not required when protection under intellectual property rights and liability for defamation is substantially less.
      Amendment No. 19 is a consequential amendment that arises from new clause 1. It will divide clause 9, which is somewhat over-long, into three separate clauses. The proposed headings are "Regulations: general", "Regulations: Scotland and Wales", and "Regulations: Trinity College, Dublin". I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that will make the detail in the clause much more digestible.
      Amendment No. 21 was tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. I understand that UK legislation cannot offer protection from breach of contract obligations to a greater extent than under the provisions in new clause 1. It is not possible to offer protection for contracts governed by foreign laws—we discussed the issue tangentially earlier. Future foreign contracts may be appropriately negotiated to take account of requirements to deposit, and I doubt that many international publishers would want to lose the ability to sell into the extensive UK market.
      It is expected that overseas courts would not award more than nominal damages for breach of existing contracts if that were due to the publisher complying with an obligation under the laws of another sovereign state. However, if the matter continues to cause concern, it may be considered when regulations are proposed, consulted on and assessed.
      I discourage hon. Members from supporting amendment No. 22, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, because proposed new clause 9(7B) in amendment No. 17 would achieve the same effect.
      I urge the House to resist amendment No. 25 because it would remove the Secretary of State"s requirement to consider the impact of regulations on persons who publish works of the description prescribed in the regulations, which would thus remove the protection for the business interests of publishers that we have worked to put in place. There has been long consideration of the impact that regulations would have on publishers and there is strong need for extensive consultation on the

      699
      detail of those. Amendment No. 17 specifies a tough regime in which the Secretary of State must consider the economic implications of regulations that she proposes.
      Mr. Forth: I generally welcome amendment No. 17, but I have doubts about its viability. I think that I welcome proposed subsection 7A, which I would characterise as the non-retrospectivity provision. I am usually a great opponent of retrospection in legislation, but it is odd that the promoter should seek to prevent retrospection, because this is one of the very few cases in which it is justified. If we can only guarantee to capture this vital and valuable material from the point at which the Bill comes into effect, and perhaps risk missing a large part of material created until then, retrospection, rather unusually, may be justified. I shall leave it at that, because I would have to be talked into opposing the amendment for that reason. However, it demonstrates that there can never be any absolutes.
      Amendment No. 17 also deals with the concept of disproportionality. Perfectly reasonably, it says that regulations shall not be made unless the Secretary of State considers that the costs likely to be incurred are disproportionate to the benefits—we are therefore dealing with our old friends, costs and benefits. I think that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) said that he expected regulatory impact assessments to be used on a case-by-case basis. However, that does not inspire confidence in me, because the recent history of regulatory impact assessments has not been very good, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has been at pains to point out, not just today but on previous Fridays. Time after time, the regulatory impact assessment has either not existed or has not been published or promulgated, or has been available only at the last minute.
      At the very least, I would like an assurance from the Minister, who will preside over the assessments for, I hope, a very long time, that proper RIAs will be made, if they are to be as integral to the Bill as the hon. Member for Ipswich suggested. With that proviso, I am prepared to go along with amendment No. 17, which introduces the vital link between costs and benefits that most of us want.
      We should welcome the requirement in amendment No. 17 that regulations
      "may not be made unless the Secretary of State considers that the regulations do not unreasonably prejudice the interests of persons who publish works".
      I would welcome the expansion of that concept. It sounds encouraging, but how on earth do we balance the interests of people who publish the works against more general interests? I should be grateful if someone could give me an example of a case in which the interests of the publisher prevail over the more general interests and, presumably by implication, prevent material from being recorded. Such recording is, of course, one of the intentions of the Bill.
      Although I welcome the provisions in amendment No 17, they require a little more explanation. I would like a commitment from the Minister on the way in which regulatory impact assessments will routinely fit into the Bill"s mechanisms. I should also like an expansion of
      700
      proposed subsection 7C and an example, even a hypothetical one, of the way in which the publisher"s interests outweigh more general interests.
      Mr. Chope: I think that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) has misinterpreted my amendment No. 25 because it would remove the requirement that
      "Regulations … may not be made so as to apply to works published before the regulations are made."
      I tabled that amendment because I am concerned about the gap between the situation as it is now and the time when the regulations might be made. If it is important to capture this material so that it will not be lost to posterity, we may be waiting many years before the regulations are brought forward.
      Having heard the Minister"s helpful comments in response to the previous group of amendments, it seems that the matter will be so complicated, particularly with online publications, that it may be many years before we have any regulations. In the meantime, there will be no requirement that important online publications should be deposited with the library. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can address my concern that there may be a lacuna in the Bill if subsection (4) remains.
      Estelle Morris: I particularly wish to speak to Government amendments (a) and (b) to amendment No. 17. which I think has been welcomed. The amendments seek to offer extra protection to the publishers, because, as I think has already been said, one of the characteristics of online publishing is that work can be republished and republished and changed every day, so a decision has to be made as to whether a publication is new or substantially the same. The same could be true of printed books as well.
      Amendment No. 17 and amendment (a) merely give the reassurance that when consideration is given to whether a publication is substantially the same, the cost to the publishers will be taken into account. I hope that will be welcomed by the publishers as some protection.
      I am glad that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) acknowledged my previous comment that RIAs will be published in respect of the regulations, and that they will be introduced in the right and proper way, giving yet another opportunity to discuss the consequences of any subsequent regulations. I hope that he will understand if I resist trying to invent an example of a case of the interests of the publisher outstripping the interests of the public; otherwise we would be here all weekend, let alone all afternoon.
      Mr. Moss: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 21 and 22. I mentioned amendment No. 21 in my opening remarks on new clause 3, to which I said it was related. We had a fairly good debate on that and I do not wish to continue that discussion any further at this juncture, save to say that it is an important point that I believe will be revisited in the other place.
      The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole), in discussions with the Department, has gone quite a long way to meeting some of the reasons for tabling

      701
      amendment No. 22, except that it referred to regulations under the Bill whereas amendment No. 17 restricts the regulations to clauses 1(4) or 6. Clause 1(4) states:
      "In the case of a work published in a medium other than print, this Act applies to a work of a prescribed description."
      Therefore amendment No. 17 refers to non-print publications.
      My amendment has not made the grade, so to speak, but I sought to broaden the debate from non-print to print, because there are still some concerns relating to the print medium, which I am sure is an issue to which we will return in the other place. Unfortunately, as the Committee stage was rather rushed, although there has been some consultation, the time scale has been limited and many of us received the amendments only a day or so ago and the selection of amendments only last evening. I am informed by the publishing community that it was told of amendments, or received amendments, only after the deadline for tabling them at 7 o'clock the other day. It is not pleased about that. It meant that it was unable to adjust some of its ideas and proposals accordingly. There are outstanding issues, especially with regard to print, that will be revisited. I am putting that down for the Minister and the proposer to take on board, because these matters will need to be addressed fairly rapidly in the short time that is available before the House rises.
      1.30 pm
      As drafted, the structure of the Bill will continue without any change to the current system of deposit of print publications to the British Library, and on request to the other legal deposit libraries. There is, however, a failure to recognise the economic impact of the current system on a significant number of print publishers of high-value business, particularly management and scientific reports, directories and printed databases. These publishers may well sell fewer than 10 copies of any given title. The costs to them are, first, the marginal cost of supply and, secondly, the loss of sales resulting from access to deposited materials by users, or by the deposit libraries not purchasing those materials.
      The deposit libraries have recognised that and have accepted that publishers can embargo access to their materials and deposit to on-deposit libraries only. However, there was no consultation on the current system of print deposit. The Kenny committee was set up by the Government to consider these matters, and especially non-print publishers. It focused only on non-print publishers, and the libraries acknowledged the difficulties under the current system for certain publishers. Those difficulties are not acknowledged in the Bill. I attempted through amendment No. 21 to bring them within the ambit of the Bill. I recognise that I failed to do so, but I am sure that the issue will be revisited, as I have said, in the other place.
      It seems fair and reasonable that protections should equally apply to all publications, whether they are format print or non-print. In amendment No. 17, the proposer has gone quite a long way to accepting the principles of disproportionate burden, but only as they apply to non-print publications. An imbalance is left for some publications, particularly of the high-value, low-volume producers. That being so, I shall not press my
      702
      amendments. As I have said, I can assure the Government and the proposer that these issues will be revisited.
      Mr. Mole: I welcome the contribution of all hon. Members. I shall respond to the challenge to identify an example of the balance of decision between the publisher interest outweighing the requirement to deposit. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) has touched on the concept of high-value, short-life publications in the print world as much as in the non-print world. In the non-print world, it is particularly critical for a number of publishers that there should be some decisions about at least making a delay in the availability of deposited material so as not to interfere with their ability to extract commercial benefit from their short-run publications.
      The other circumstance would be one where sales are less than a certain number. It would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring that deposits not be made
      The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire commented on the difficulties from which we have all suffered as a result of the time that it has taken to nail down some of the detail in the Bill. The issue of variants to the print regulations has been raised at the 11th hour. I thought it was clear since Second Reading and through Committee that there was no intention to change the 1911 framework with regard to print.
      I respect the concern of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) about the gap that may exist until regulations are made. He should accept an honest commitment made by the Minister to make progress where progress can be made, and as quickly as possible.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7

      USE OF NON-PRINT PUBLICATIONS
      Mr. Mole: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 9, leave out "use" and insert
      "do any of the activities listed in subsection (1A) in relation to".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Nos. 23 and 3.
      No. 4, in page 1, line 11, clause 2, after "of", insert "significant".
      No. 5, in page 2, line 2, after "of", insert "significant".
      No. 6.
      No. 7, in page 2, line 10, leave out from "of" to "thing" in line 11 and insert
      "any vessel or part of any vessel.".

      703
      No. 8, in page 2, line 12, leave out "trace or".
      No. 11.
      Mr. Mole: I encourage the House to support amendments Nos. 2 to 8 and 11, and to resist amendment No. 23. Amendments Nos. 2 to 8 address libraries" use of deposited material or clarify what libraries can do with the material that is deposited. They provide that neither libraries nor readers can perform any of the activities listed in subsection (1A) unless regulations are made under subsection (2) allowing them to do so. Amendment No. 3 details the range of activities allowed, subject to regulations, in respect of legally deposited material. The amendment provides that activities that can be authorised are authorised. Those activities include using the material, copying it, adapting an accompanying computer programme and, lending, transferring and disposing of material. Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are all consequential upon it.
      Amendment No. 7 relates to web harvesting. It provides that material that has been web harvested is covered by the restrictions on use in clause 7, as is any copy that is made of the work originally deposited.
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) tabled an amendment that would allow relevant persons to copy material without exception. I understand his concern that the work of librarians and archivists must not be seen to suffer or be hindered by cumbersome legal requirements. That is not the point of the Bill. Although I appreciate the sentiment behind his argument, I conclude that at this stage it is rather premature. What a library can do with the material once it is deposited will be considered prior to regulations being made. It seems pointless now to make exceptions to the activities detailed in amendment No. 3 when the matter will be considered and consulted on in due course.
      Amendment No. 11 relates to copyright and makes clear the effect of regulations made under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to exclude the application of provisions of the Copyright Act. It rewrites subsection (3), clarifying the scope of prescribed activities for which regulations under clause 8(2) can be made. It may be necessary to turn off some or all of the copyright exceptions as they apply to non-print legal deposit material, to ensure that deposited material cannot be used without infringing copyright in circumstances where that would not be possible with the same material in other libraries that have had to purchase it.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: Amendment No. 23 is a probing amendment so that we can return in the House to an issue that I considered in Committee and on which I think it important to hear the views of the promoter and the Minister. We all accept that the Bill in the form in which we are now considering it is significantly changed from the Bill originally introduced by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole). It has been improved as a result of the process that it has undergone. However, one thing has been lost.
      In the original Bill, clause 7(2)(a) stated that it would be right for a deposit library or a person acting on its behalf to copy relevant material for the purposes of
      704
      preservation. That clause was replaced by new clause 2, which has become clause 7 in the Bill before us. It has been further amended by the hon. Member for Ipswich today. The Bill makes it clear that it is okay for a library to copy material for the purpose of making information available to readers, but there is no specific cover for a librarian or archivist making a copy for archival purposes. There is something to be gained in that respect. We must recognise that not only the content of online or off-line non-print material can be of historic and cultural significance, but its format. Sometimes the way in which the information was made available to the public can also be of interest in the future. Therefore, it is sometimes not only the content that should be given to succeeding generations, but knowledge of how it was made available. The equivalent are the values of different editions of the same book. Later editions of an original publication may have different illustrations or have been put together in a different way to react to the way in which the audience has changed over succeeding generations. That can tell us a lot about how our culture has changed in that period, and the same is true of non-print materials.
      I am concerned that the Bill in its current format would make it easy to ensure that information is kept available to the reader, but would not allow a librarian or archivist to ensure that its format is preserved. In other words, preservation is not recognised, despite its inclusion in the long title of the Bill, as a reason for copying in itself.
      When I raised that matter in Committee, the then Minister, now the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who has been replaced by the Minister of the year—I welcome her to these proceedings—said that my questions
      "went a little further than that",
      and added:
      "we will certainly reconsider the matter to see whether things can be further clarified, as we are talking about an important and valuable function."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 4 June 2003; c. 2.]
      He was speaking about the function of preservation. I have tabled the amendment to give the House an opportunity to reflect on what the then Minister said, so that we can reconsider it and further clarify the matter. I wish to be absolutely sure that when librarians and archivists make copies for preservation reasons and archival purposes in their institutions, they are not going outside the remit given to them in the Bill.
      Estelle Morris: I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). I certainly support my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) in his belief that the matters that are being raised are covered in our amendments. In the spirit of helpfulness, however, I should like to say that I trust the hon. Gentleman"s judgment on this issue. If he has ongoing fears or reservations in respect of his suggestion that it is not properly covered, will he accept from me an assurance that we will have the chance to discuss it outside the Chamber and reflect on it? If we are persuaded that we have not made appropriate safeguards to ensure that what he says needs to be done is done—I accept that we must preserve such things for

      705
      future generations—we will take the opportunity to table an amendment in another place. That is not a promise to table an amendment, but given the passion and clarity with which he spoke, I hesitate to say that he should have no fears and that the issue is fully dealt with. I am merely trying to be helpful, because I do not have the background knowledge to know whether there are genuine grounds for his fears. All I can say is that I am assured by our lawyers that his concerns should be covered. If we discuss the matter outside the Chamber, we will be left with an opportunity to table amendments should it be necessary to do so.
      That apart, I support the comments and recommendations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 3, in page 4, line 9, clause 7, at end insert—
      "(1A) The activities are—

      (a) using the material (whether or not such use necessarily involves the making of a temporary copy of it);

      (b) copying the material (other than by making a temporary copy where this is necessary for the purpose of using the material);

      (c) in the case of relevant material comprising or containing a computer program or database, adapting it;

      (d) lending the material to a third party (other than lending by a deposit library to a reader for use by the reader on library premises controlled by the library);

      (e) transferring the material to a third party;

      (f) disposing of the material.".

      No. 4, in page 4, line 10, leave out "the use by".
      No. 5, in page 4, line 11, leave out "of" and insert
      "to do any of the activities listed in subsection (1A) in relation to.
      No. 6, in page 4, line 14, at end insert "or copied".
      No. 7, in page 4, line 30, at end insert—

      "(iii) a copy of a work to which section (Exemption from liability: activities in relation to publications)(6) applies;

      (iv) a copy (at any remove) of anything within any of subparagraphs (i) to (iii);".

      No. 8, in page 4, line 34, leave out paragraph (d)—[Mr. Mole.]

    Clause 8

      USE OF NON-PRINT PUBLICATIONS: COPYRIGHT ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 9, in page 5, line 3, at beginning insert—
      "() Copyright is not infringed by the copying of a work from the internet by a deposit library or person acting on its behalf if—

      (a) the work is of a description prescribed by regulations under section (Exemption from liability: activities in relation to publications)(5) of the 2003 Act,

      (b) its publication on the internet, or a person publishing it there, is connected with the United Kingdom in a manner so prescribed, and

      (c) the copying is done in accordance with any conditions so prescribed.".

      No. 10, in page 5, line 5, leave out from first "the" to end of line 6 and insert "2003 Act".
      No. 11, in page 5, leave out lines 11 to 18 and insert
      "prescribing activities—

      (a) done for a prescribed purpose,

      (b) done by prescribed descriptions of reader,

      (c) done in relation to prescribed descriptions of relevant material,

      (d) done other than in accordance with prescribed conditions.".

      No. 12, in page 5, line 24, at end insert—
      "() "the 2003 Act" means the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003;".
      No. 13, in page 5, line 25, at beginning insert ""deposit library",".
      No. 14, in page 5, line 32, at beginning insert—
      "() Database right in a database is not infringed by the copying of a work from the internet by a deposit library or person acting on its behalf if—

      (a) the work is of a description prescribed by regulations under section (Exemption from liability: activities in relation to publications)(5) of the 2003 Act,

      (b) its publication on the internet, or a person publishing it there, is connected with the United Kingdom in a manner so prescribed, and

      (c)the copying is done in accordance with any conditions so prescribed.".

      No. 15, in page 5, line 34, leave out from "the" to end of line 35 and insert "2003 Act".
      No. 16, in page 5, line 41, leave out ", "relevant material" has" and insert "—
      () "the 2003 Act" means the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003;
      () "deposit library" and "relevant material" have'.—[Mr. Mole.]

    Clause 9

      REGULATIONS: SUPPLEMENTARY
      Amendment made: No. 19,
      That Clause 9 be divided into three Clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1), (7) to (7C) and (9) (Regulations: general), the second of subsections (2) to (6) (Regulations: Scotland and Wales) and the third of subsections (8) and (10) (Regulations: Trinity College, Dublin).—[Mr. Mole.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 17, in page 6, line 38, at end insert—
      "(7A) Regulations under section 1(4) or 6 may not be made so as to apply to works published before the regulations are made.
      (7B) Regulations under section 1(4) or 6 may not be made unless the Secretary of State considers that the costs likely to be incurred as a result of the regulations by persons who publish works to which the regulations relate are not disproportionate to the benefit to the public arising from the delivery of copies of such works.
      (7C) Regulations under section 1(4), 6, 7 or (Exemption from liability: activities in relation to publications)(5) may not be made unless the Secretary of State considers that the regulations do not unreasonably prejudice the interests of persons who publish works to which the regulations relate.".—[Mr. Mole.]
      Amendments made to the proposed amendment: (a), in line 3, after "1(4)", insert ",2".
      (b), in line 8, after "1(4)", insert ", 2".—[Estelle Morris.]
      Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 6, line 41, leave out from "satisfied" to end of line 43 and insert
      ",in relation to relevant material delivered pursuant to such an entitlement—

      () that as regards the restriction by section 7 (having regard to any regulations made under that section) of activities in relation to relevant material, the restriction of those activities under the laws of Ireland is not substantially less,

      () that as regards the protection under the laws of any part of the United Kingdom of copyright, publication right, database right and patents in relation to relevant material, the protection under the laws of Ireland of corresponding rights is not substantially less, and

      () that as regards the protection from liability under subsections (3) and (4) of section (Exemption from liability: activities in relation to publications) (or those subsections as applied by regulations under that section), the protection under the laws of Ireland in relation to corresponding liability is not substantially less.'.—[Mr. Mole.]

    Clause 10

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendment made: No. 20, in page 7, line 5, at end insert—
      "database right" has the meaning given by regulation 13(1) of the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997/3032);".—[Mr. Mole.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      1.44 pm
      Mr. Mole: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who are here today to debate my Bill, some of whom were involved in its Committee stage. I thank them for their interest. The Bill is now very much better for having been through that process; it has benefited from the close scrutiny of many experienced colleagues and what they have been able to bring to it.
      I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister to her new role. I am sure that she will take the opportunity to reassure members of the industry who have expressed concern about the matter that the assurances and commitments that her predecessor made in Committee will apply whoever the holder of that ministerial position may be. I thank her predecessor and her Department for their continued help with the Bill.
      I thank the legal deposit libraries, especially the British Library, for their continued support.
      The Bill originated from the need to update and extend the current legal deposit legislation, which was passed in 1911. That legislation covers printed publications, yet more than 60,000 non-print items were published in the UK last year—a figure that will increase by a factor of four or five by 2005. Non-commercial publications, including websites, add enormously to that number. At present, there are no systematic or comprehensive arrangements for the collection and preservation of such non-print publications. Without new legislation to ensure that non-print materials are saved for future generations, the 21st century could be seen as a cultural dark age in which we failed to archive a substantial and vital part of the nation"s published
      708
      heritage. The Bill proposes to extend legal deposit legislation to include non-print publications such as CD-ROMs and online resources, enabling the six legal deposit libraries to ensure that those items are collected and preserved for the national archive.
      Together, the six legal deposit libraries—the British Library; the national libraries of Scotland and Wales; University library, Cambridge; the Bodleian library, Oxford; and Trinity college library, Dublin—maintain a world-class national published archive that has benefited generations of researchers from industry, academia and the general public. The existing print legal deposit arrangements have enabled the British Library alone to collect, and to save in perpetuity for the nation, more than 50 million items. In the past year, the library acquired 95,286 books, 248,686 journal issues, 1,994 maps and 2,357 newspaper titles through legal deposit. Once acquired, the library stores and catalogues those items and provides facilities for researchers to access them. In that way, millions of unrelated items, which form the national published archive, are transformed into organised knowledge and secured for posterity.
      The legal deposit libraries and the four main publisher trade bodies—the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, the Directory and Database Publishers Association, the Periodical Publishers Association and the Publishers Association—have been working for several years to extend the national published archive. Through the joint committee on voluntary deposit, they oversee the code of voluntary deposit. The Joint Committee on Voluntary Deposits has already proved valuable in helping publishers and libraries to address implementation issues and in safeguarding the economic interests of the publishing industry. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has given an assurance that a body in a similar role will be developed; that will be essential to maintaining a high level of consensus.
      Prior to Second Reading, publishers identified several issues that were not to their satisfaction. The Department has worked closely with publishers to address their concerns, and amendments and assurances in Committee went some way towards doing that. We are confident that the amendments that we have just agreed to will go further to satisfy those concerns and to reassure publishers that we recognise and appreciate the economic environment in which they operate. I thank publishers for their continued involvement in the process.
      Those who have followed this issue, and indeed the passage of the Bill, will be well aware and, I am sure, appreciative of the urgency of the need to legislate. As we all understand, the world of new media publishing is fast changing, and we are discussing a Bill whose generic nature we consider to be the best way of tackling that situation. In terms of pace, the practice of legislating for legal deposit is not far behind technological advances in publishing. A few weeks ago, the Parliament of New Zealand passed the National Library of New Zealand Act 2003. It is hoped that that Act will protect New Zealand"s most precious heritage items, and at the same time allow the library to operate with credibility in the electronic environment.

      709
      That is what the Bill will do. The British Library and the other deposit libraries have shared expertise in this area and are respected across the world. The Bill is essential to them in building on their excellent work of collecting and preserving print material by extending legal deposit to non-print material. I commend the Bill to the House.
      1.49 pm
      Mr. Moss: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) on his success in the ballot and on selecting the Bill. I thank him for acting on suggestions and proposals that were made in Committee and subsequent consultations. He has tabled 19 new amendments and two new clauses; perhaps that suggests that the measure has turned out to be more complex than originally envisaged.
      Estelle Morris: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Moss: The Minister has been dealing with it only for the past week. Perhaps it has less overall support than we were led to believe.
      I congratulate the promoter on the professional way in which he has taken the measure through the various stages and on the consideration that he has shown to Opposition Members. I join him in thanking the British Library, members of the Joint Committee on Voluntary Deposit and members of the Digital Content Forum, who have assisted me to table amendments that would affect their interpretation and implementation of the measure.
      I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. I had the pleasure of participating in a debate on a statutory instrument with her only the other day. I reiterate the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that she has shown her professionalism in picking up a brief and becoming expert at it in a short time. Such is her ability to cleave through the huge tomes that relate to the Bill and other measures that she has already concluded that the Bill could have done with more consultation. She reached the same conclusion as her predecessor. He soldiered on gallantly for the Government on two enormous Bills—the Communications Bill and the Licensing Bill. I suspect that the measure was parked on the top shelf during that time and that when the former Minister lifted it off the shelf, he made similar comments to those of the Minister this morning, hence his many assurances in Committee about further urgent and necessary consultation between the end of the Committee stage and Report.
      However, although some consultation has taken place, it has not satisfied those who will be affected by the Bill. I believe that the Minister acknowledges that much work remains to be done to reassure those who are on the receiving end of many of the Bill"s proposals. I want to communicate to the Minister and the promoter the growing feeling that the measure is being rushed through.
      Hon. Members understand that the Bill is mainly enabling legislation and that flesh will be put on the bones at later stages. However, those who are staring at a potentially ruinous economic impact are rightly
      710
      worried that so much, especially on the online side, is not defined. We discussed some of those matters in today"s debate. People feel exposed to potential problems. Consultation needs to happen urgently and in greater depth to reassure the relevant organisations. They believe that no matter what proposals they have presented, all have been rejected except slight suggestions in amendments Nos. 17 and 22. They should be shown a little more understanding in future negotiations so that their genuine fears can be allayed.
      On Second Reading, we expressed broad support for the Bill. We still think it is important to the national archive and our heritage, and that it is probably overdue. We also acknowledge the excellent work done by the Joint Committee on Voluntary Deposit, and the progress that has been made to date. Because of the enabling nature of the Bill, however, and because many questions are still hanging in the air, it is difficult for the publishing sector—particularly the Digital Content Forum—to accept the Bill as it stands. No doubt the sector will press its case in the other place. I have already warned the Minister that the Bill is not done and dusted and that a good deal of work remains to be done to ensure its passage. We want that to be done because we think the Bill is important, but it must be as right as we can get it.
      Although more work is needed, we will not oppose Third Reading, and we congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich.
      1.56 pm
      Mr. Richard Allan: The Liberal Democrats accept the principle of the Bill, although we agree with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) that more work needs to be done—in the other place, if we send it there today.
      I have followed the Bill"s progress with interest—indeed, I served on the Standing Committee—but I did not intervene on Report because the issues were covered so thoroughly and ably by other Members. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) on having got this far, but I shall leave it at that because there is other important business on the agenda.
      1.57 pm
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole). This is a highly complex matter, and I am glad that improvements have been made to the Bill. It is only the latest in a long line of measures dealing with legal deposit. In 1537, François I issued a decree requiring every printer in the country to deposit one copy of each book produced in his printing office. That was taken up in this country in 1610, when Sir Thomas Bodley made an agreement with the Stationers Company that became law in 1662. The Bill dates back directly to legislation passed in 1911 giving publishers and distributors in the United Kingdom and Ireland a legal obligation to deposit published material in the six legal deposit libraries.
      The Bill seeks to ensure that non-print formats are included in legal deposit. More than 60,000 non-print items were published in the UK last year. The various non-print formats include DVD, CD-ROM, electronic journals and other items delivered via the web.

      711
      I hope that the Minister can reassure us about a couple of things. We all support the Bill, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) that it is highly complex. The publishing industry is worried about the detail, and it is important for us not to rush it through.
      I am particularly worried about two aspects. First, how can we protect publishers of valuable material who publish in low volumes? A number of such publishers are concerned about illegal use of their material. In Committee the then Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Kim Howells), said that the Government would ensure that the necessary restrictions were put in place when regulations were made. I hope that the Minister can confirm that assurance.
      My other concern, which has been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), relates to how online material will be deposited. I think everyone agrees that that is a complex problem. I understand that the Government will proceed stage by stage, dealing with offline material first and then, after consultation, online material. That seems a sensible way to proceed, but I should like an assurance today that the consultation process will start as soon as possible, that it will be thorough and that it will involve all interested parties.
      I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire for addressing some of those concerns, and we hope that by the time the Bill becomes an Act it will meet all our requirements to help the publishing industry and ensure that we preserve our valuable cultural heritage. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich on his Bill.
      2 pm
      Dr. Murrison: I support the Bill. This is a complex matter, and we have delved into some of those complexities today, but this skimming of the surface has revealed that a great deal more work is needed. One looks forward to seeing that work done before the Bill passes into law.
      I am concerned about awareness. I highlight the example of the printed media and the fact that people are unaware of the requirement to deposit printed publications. I suspect that the same will be true of electronic media if the Bill passes into law. I am also concerned about compliance and enforcement. I particularly draw the Minister"s attention to the current situation relating to printed matter. Most people are not aware of the existing law; they do not comply with it and enforcement is extremely difficult.
      I have said enough. Many of us want to proceed rapidly on to the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill, so I just want to say how much I support the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) on it.
      2.1 pm
      Estelle Morris: I shall try to keep my remarks brief, but it is important that I put on record the assurances that I need to give the publishing industry.
      I want first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) on the Bill. He has done incredibly well in guiding it through Committee. It
      712
      has not been the easiest of Bills, and it has involved him in not only adopting the original principle, but being prepared to take on board comments from other members of the Committee and the industry. He has done a brilliant job and I thank him for that.
      I know that my hon. Friend will want to join me in thanking the Department"s officials and lawyers, who have helped us in recent weeks to end up with a Bill that is far better than when it went into Committee. I pay tribute to everyone who has been part of that process, which was a cross-party effort. I hope that eventually we will have a Bill that will stand the test of time and perform the function for which it was intended.
      I want to emphasise the importance of getting this right. It is of great importance to future generations that we preserve publications of great cultural, intellectual and scientific significance. The fact that those now appear in non-print material should not stop us preserving them, but we have to ensure that we have the necessary provisions to do that as effectively as possible.
      I want to give assurances about the way forward. The Bill is generic, so it has enormous potential to generate regulations, but our enthusiasm must be tempered by a recognition of the burdens that those could impose on deposit libraries and publishers. The Bill is enabling, but it makes clear the process by which regulations will need to be made. All regulations will be subject to consultation of 12 weeks or more and, as I have said, accompanied by a rigorous regulatory impact assessment that will examine the potential cost of deposit for all parties. That will be prepared in advance of an affirmative resolution in both Houses. No regulations will be produced without that adequate assessment and understanding of their implications for other people.
      The Bill, as amended, assigns areas of responsibility relating to access and preservation to publishers and deposit libraries. It provides specific protection concerning copyright and liability for defamation relating to contracts under UK law. It also directs the Secretary of State to take particular note of the legislation"s impact on the commercial interests of publishers and of issues of proportionality. I know that the measures will be welcomed by the House.
      As noted in Committee and again today, we shall create an independent advisory panel to assist us in drawing up regulations. I reaffirm the commitment made in Committee and shall briefly describe our intentions. I hope that will reassure hon. Members that the Bill is in a fit state to move to another place.
      The advisory panel will be constituted of members from the deposit libraries, the publishing industry and other stakeholders, as well as including expert members. We believe that it will be best served by an independent chair who, together with the members, will be able to guide us on drawing up the regulations. It is important that the advisory panel is up and running in advance of proposals for the first set of regulations and we shall take action to ensure that that is so.
      Once the panel has been set up, it will play, and will continue to play, a key role in advising the Secretary of State on the preparation, monitoring and review of regulations. We expect that, typically, it might assist in the development of policy on new media that are eligible to be brought under the scope of the measure and would advise on how best to achieve that.

      713
      In conclusion, the Bill is important, and I repeat that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, the publishers and the deposit libraries are all to be commended for their work and their engagement during the Bill"s passage through the Commons. The legislation will, no doubt, be implemented slowly, incrementally and, above all, selectively, but it offers the possibility of enhancing the wealth of our national repositories to the ultimate benefit of us all. Against that background, I commend the Bill to the House.
      2.6 pm
      Mr. Mole: With the leave of the House, I shall do no more than thank my colleagues for their comments and for the opinions expressed during this interesting debate. I single out my right hon. Friend the Minister for her quick grasp of the subject and the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) for his constructive approach on behalf of the official Opposition.
      I commend the Bill to the House and hope that it has a trouble-free passage in the other place.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Sustainable Energy Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Sustainable Energy Bill
    New Clause 1

      TARGET FOR ELECTRICITY GENERATED FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES
      "Before the end of 2003 the Secretary of State must make a statement specifying those measures that he intends to take to move towards the achievement of the generation of 10 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources by the end of 2010.".—[Mr. Chope.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      2.7 pm
      Mr. Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this we may discuss the following:
      New clause 2—CHP targets—
      "(1) Before the end of 2003 the Secretary of State must make a statement specifying those measures that he intends to take to move towards the achievement of the generation of 10 GW of electricity by CHP by the end of 2010.
      (2) At any time after making the statement mentioned in subsection (1) the Secretary of State may make a further statement specifying those measures he intends to take to increase the generation of electricity by combined heat and power for the period beyond 2010.".
      Amendment No. 8, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, after "2004" insert "and ending in 2015".—
      Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 5, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
      "() Achieving a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent. by 2010 based on 1990 levels".—
      Amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 4, leave out Clause 5.
      Mr. Chope: My remarks will be brief because I am as keen as anybody to see the Bill on the statute book. I am as disappointed as the promoter, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), and most Members at the attitude of the Government, which has resulted in the Bill we supported on Second Reading being filleted of all its important targets in the Standing Committee.
      New clause 1 is fundamental. Without it, the measure will not exert on the Government the necessary pressure for renewables. It requires that before the end of 2003 the Secretary of State should make a statement specifying the measures he intends to take to move towards the achievement of the generation of 10 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources by the end of 2010.
      If that sounds a familiar target, that is because it is—it was included in the Labour party manifesto and in the Government"s White Paper. Successive Ministers have given a commitment to it. In the Standing Committee, the former Minister for Energy and Construction, the

      715
      hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), said:
      "I am happy to restate the renewables target, which is that 10 per cent. of our electricity should come from renewable sources of energy by 2010.—[Official Report, Standing Committee C,11 June 2003; c. 5.]
      Later, he described the target as "extremely challenging".
      Perhaps it was because the target was too challenging that the Government decided to remove references to targets from the Bill. However, I think that such references need to be put back, because since Second Reading we have received the great insights of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Paragraph 214 of the Committee"s fourth and very thorough report concludes:
      "There is no prospect of achieving the target of 10 per cent. renewable generation by 2010 or the aspiration of 20 per cent. by 2020. There is no chance of meeting the Government"s targets for CO2 reductions if current policies and market conditions remain in place."
      The most important part of that is the Select Committee's finding, it having taken a wealth of evidence, that there is no prospect of achieving the 10 per cent. renewables target by 2010, despite that being at the core of the Government"s energy policy.
      Is it surprising that everyone regards the Government"s energy policy as being in chaos, and the way in which the Bill has been conducted as a tussle between Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry? The Bill would be immeasurably better if the new clause were included, and I hope that the promoter will accept it.
      Brian White: I am already in trouble for spending my wedding anniversary here rather than at home, but I will perhaps get into more trouble by sympathising with the speech made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). Although stringent targets were originally included in the Bill, they were changed in Committee because of a long series of negotiations, so I sympathise with the points that he makes. However, it took a long time to try to get to a position where the Government, the interest groups and others, as well as the Opposition spokespersons, could accept the Bill. I say spokespersons because the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) is the third official Opposition spokesman on energy with whom I have had to deal in relation to the Bill, and I welcome him to his new post.
      No one is entirely happy with the Bill, but everyone can live with it at the moment. Even though I am sorely tempted by the proposal made by the hon. Member for Christchurch, I shall resist it because it would upset the balance. To be fair to the Government, they are taking action on the renewables obligation. They have exempted renewables from the climate change levy. They are putting £350 million into capital grants and research and development. They have changed the planning guidance on renewable energy, and they have set out a strategic framework for offshore wind generation and a programme under the Renewables UK unit.
      Dr. Andrew Murrison: The hon. Gentleman mentions a missed anniversary: I recommend lnterflora—it works wonders.
      The hon. Gentleman lists a catalogue of very positive things, but does he agree that the introduction of the very reasonable target in new clause 1 would only add to the achievements and ambitions that he has outlined?
      Brian White: When I originally proposed what was clause 1, there was a whole series of targets, not just one, such as those in the White Paper. There was a long discussion between the different interest groups and the Government about whether a generalised proposal would achieve those targets. The Government gave certain commitments in Committee that, within that generalised duty, they would report on the specific items in the White Paper. I accepted that commitment from the Minister, and I hope that he will reiterate it now and say that the generalised reporting duty will ensure that those targets are addressed.
      Mr. Chope: Rather than take up valuable time with the Minister reiterating what the hon. Gentleman says he has already said, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that, if he sits down and no one else stands up, it is my intention to withdraw the motion, so that we can move on?
      Brian White: On that basis, I shall sit down.
      The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has made a very helpful offer to the House. Of course, I would have opposed his proposal and taken a little time to explain why he was mistaken in some of the points he made about the Government"s approach to such matters. He has made a generous offer, which the House will appreciate. In the light of that good will, I will not put to the House the points that I would have otherwise made.
      Mr. Chope: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      ANNUAL REPORTS ON PROGRESS TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AIMS
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 2, leave out from "household" to end of line 3 and insert
      "which needs to spend more than 10 per cent.of its income on fuel costs to heat its home to an adequate standard of warmth.
      () In this section an adequate standard of warmth means 21(c in the living room and 18(c in other occupied rooms.".
      2.15 pm
      The amendment would introduce a definition of fuel poverty that is already the standard definition, which, for some reason, is not included in the Bill. The Government say that they are committed to ending fuel poverty or reducing the numbers of people in fuel poverty, but they are prepared to accept a definition of

      717
      fuel poverty in statute that is only in the most vague and general terms. Why do we not take the opportunity of incorporating into the Bill the same definition of fuel poverty as is contained in the Government"s warm front policies—that anybody is in fuel poverty who must spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on heating their home to a reasonable standard of warmth? That is set out in the amendment. I hope that the promoter of the Bill and the Government will accept the proposal. If not, I will be extremely suspicious that for all the Government"s talk about being keen on reducing fuel poverty, they are actually keen on having a target to reduce something that they are not prepared to define.
      Brian White: My definition was based on that in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess)—not Basildon, as I have written on my crib note. The point about incomes and the more detailed definition of fuel poverty is absolutely right, and it will be covered in reports. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: This is a crucial amendment, and it goes to the heart of whether the Bill is a serious exercise to help the fuel poor or an exercise in trying to claim that we are achieving something that we will not achieve.
      I have some knowledge of this matter, as we had a hearing in the Public Accounts Committee on the basis of the National Audit Office report, "Warm front: helping to combat fuel poverty". We found that even the warm front scheme, on which the amendment is supposed to be based, does not address the fuel poor. It is essential to include a benchmark in the Bill to ensure that those who live in most poverty benefit from its provisions. The NAO report found:
      "The suitability of passport benefits as a proxy for fuel poverty has not been tested systematically, but some limited exercises suggest that there may be significant numbers of fuel poor (perhaps 35–40 per cent) in these vulnerable groups who are not eligible for Warm Front because they are not claiming benefit or are not entitled to the relevant benefits. Similarly, recent work commissioned by the Scheme managers combined with other data indicates that between 40 and 70 per cent of households eligible for Warm Front may not be fuel poor, because they have a reasonable level of income or live in a home which is already energy efficient."
      That brief quote shows the difficulties that are already being encountered with the Government"s warm front scheme, about which we had a long hearing. The very least that we need in the Bill is what is contained in the amendment. At the moment, the provision is so vague that it is virtually unenforceable.
      Mr. Timms: As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) rightly pointed out, the definition reflects that in existing primary legislation, and is the appropriate one to use. I should point out that both the fuel poverty strategy and the Government"s annual report on progress in implementing the strategy provide information on the basis of the two common definitions of fuel poverty. We are therefore ensuring that the information that everybody needs is placed in the public domain, where it can be accessed. By contrast with the previous
      718
      Government, this Government have a very strong commitment to make real progress on this issue, as we are now doing.
      Mr. Chope: I find this incredibly disappointing and frustrating. I am tempted to say, "Let"s divide on this", and see whether we can add the provision to the Bill. At the same time, I am conscious that I want to see this Bill, however inadequate, on the statute book. I find it frustrating that the Government are so pig-headed, particularly on something that is of such fundamental importance to millions of our constituents. I know that some Members are minded to say, "Let"s divide", so if I were to seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment, perhaps they may wish to resist that. However, if we divide on the amendment, we will not be able to discuss any other aspect of the Bill, but perhaps the Government are already intent on destroying it. None the less, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
      "() For the purposes of this section "sustainable energy" is to be regarded as including nuclear power.".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 2, in page 8, line 5, leave out "renewable" and insert "sustainable".
      No. 3, in page 8, line 10, leave out "renewable" and insert "sustainable".
      No. 4, in page 8, line 11, leave out "or nuclear fuel".
      Mr. Chope: This group of amendments deals with the nuclear industry. There has been a fundamental failure by the Government to incorporate anything sensible about nuclear power in the White Paper. If we are to be serious about reducing carbon emissions, we must recognise that we cannot do away with the 20 per cent. of electricity that is generated by nuclear and replace it with the energy generated by windmills, because not enough windmills will be built quickly enough to replace the energy that would not be generated if our existing nuclear generating capacity were closed. If the Government are to be serious about global warming, they must be much more serious than they have been in recognising that there is and should be a role for nuclear in the future.
      The Nuclear Industry Association"s newsletter, "IndustryLink", of June-July 2003 contains an article headed "Grand vision-small promises". It says:
      "The Government's long-awaited energy White Paper was published on 24 February. It expounds a grand vision, but promises to deliver very little.
      The cornerstone of the White Paper is the ambitious objective of reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent. from 1990 levels by 2050".

      719
      It then says that that aim is not capable of achievement.
      The same document refers to what has been happening in Switzerland, where 40 per cent. of electricity is generated by nuclear. Recently, there have been referendums in Switzerland and people have shown their support for nuclear energy when faced with the possible alternatives and their concern about carbon emissions. In Finland, there has been a great development of nuclear power, so why cannot we have a similar vision from the Government here if they are to be serious about energy issues? Some 20 per cent. of our electricity is currently generated by nuclear, but they are keen to phase it out and they have no proposals for an alternative. In the meantime, our nuclear generating industry is losing its best scientists and experts. They are forced to go overseas because they do not see a future for themselves in this country.
      This is a serious issue, and the amendments would ensure that its seriousness is brought home to the Government regularly through the legislative procedure contained in the Bill.
      Brian White: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need a nuclear debate in this country similar to the one that has just been held in Finland. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would be quite right to object if we tried to slip that debate in at 20 minutes past 2 on a Friday afternoon. We need such a debate. Both pro and antinuclear people support the Bill. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment but to join me in calling for a proper nuclear debate.
      Mr. Timms: We set out clearly in the energy White Paper our policy on nuclear. It is currently an important source of carbon-free electricity, but its economics are not attractive at present and major issues about nuclear waste are still to be resolved. That is why we have not made any proposals to build new nuclear power stations, but we do not rule out the possibility that, at some point in the future, new nuclear build might be necessary. As my hon. Friend rightly said, there would need to be full public consultation before such a decision was made. Indeed, we have undertaken to publish a further White Paper setting out our proposals if we decide to go down that road. I hope that the House will not accept the amendments.
      Mr. Chope: Again, that was a totally unsatisfactory response from the Minister. Why do we need a further White Paper to discuss nuclear in the future when we already have all the information before us? What is missing is the Government commitment to endorse nuclear as a means of enabling us to reduce carbon emissions. I again express my grave dissatisfaction with the Government"s approach.
      A letter from one of my constituents says that replacing nuclear with renewables would result in an enormous bill to the taxpayer that would be far in excess of what would otherwise be necessary. It says that nuclear electricity accounts for about 25 per cent. of total electricity output, and that if British Energy had
      720
      been supported to the same extent as renewables, its shares would be worth more than £10 each today rather than the 4p at which they currently stand. That shows that the Government have discriminated unfairly against the nuclear industry, including through the climate change levy. I again express my dissatisfaction, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      ENERGY EFFICIENY OF RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION: SECRETARY OF STATE
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 7, at end insert
      "in respect of residential accommodation and at least one energy efficiency aim in respect of office accommodation.".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 10, in page 2, line 10, leave out "residential".
      No. 11, in line 20, leave out "residential".
      No. 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 38, at end insert
      "in respect of residential accommodation and at least one energy efficiency aim in respect of office accommodation.".
      No. 13, in page 2, line 41, leave out "residential".
      No. 14, in page 3, line 8, leave out "residential".
      Mr. Chope: The amendments identify a lacuna in the Bill. The Government sit on an enormous office estate. Those of us who occasionally visit it know that it is overheated, badly designed and wasteful of fuel and energy. However, the Government are prepared to accept only obligations on people with individual houses, which is unsatisfactory. If the Government were to accept the amendments, it would demonstrate that they are serious about their desire to improve energy efficiency.
      Brian White: I had to draw the line in the Bill somewhere. Many people wanted me to include provisions on many things, such as transport. I drew the line where I drew it and although I have sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Timms: I have several problems with the amendments, not least the lack of a clear definition of office accommodation in the Bill, which would cause considerable problems with the Bill"s implementation if they were accepted. I hope that the House will resist the amendments.
      Mr. Chope: I presume that the Minister is saying that he will amend the Bill accordingly when he has a definition of office accommodation. That may be done

      721
      in the other place if the Bill receives its Third Reading today, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Brian White.]
      2.27 pm
      Mr. Chope: I shall not object to the Bill receiving its Third Reading, but I hope that the Government are suitably ashamed of the way in which they have destroyed the will of the House by holding the Bill's promoter to ransom and destroying it in Committee so that it is now a pale shadow of its original form.
      2.28 pm
      Brian White: May I thank the Ministers, their civil servants and the Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokespeople who have helped me greatly to put the Bill together? I thank the sustainable energy partnership and various members of the industry for their work. The Bill does not represent as large a step forward as I would have liked. It is not a panacea but it has useful aspects, and I commend it to the House.
      2.28 pm
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: In view of the time, this must be the briefest debut as a Front-Bench spokesman that the House has ever known. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) on promoting the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has raised extremely important points and I, too, regret the fact that the Bill is considerably weaker than it was when it began its passage through the House. Nevertheless, the official Opposition want the Bill to be passed, as do many people throughout the country.
      2.29 pm
      Mr. Timms: I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) to his position and congratulate him on his brief first contribution to our debates. I especially congratulate and commend my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) on his skill and patience while piloting the Bill. I commend to the Bill to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  High Hedges (No. 2) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
  High Hedges (No. 2) Bill
    Clause 1

      COMPLAINTS TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES
      2.29 pm
      Mr. Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 1, line 7, after "on", insert `adjoining".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 77, in page 1, leave out lines 9 to 20.
      No. 2, in page 1, leave out lines 9 to 22.
      No. 92, in page 1, line 14, after "on", insert "adjoining".
      No. 55, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
      "No complaint shall be made under this Act in relation to a high hedge by the owner or occupier of a domestic property if that property was constructed after the hedge was established.".
      No. 71, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
      "This Act shall not apply to any land situated within a conservation area".
      No. 60, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
      '() Nothing in this Act shall apply to a hedge growing in a National Park'.
      No. 62, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
      "() Nothing in this Act shall apply to a hedge growing in a cemetery or burial ground".
      No. 68, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
      '() This Act shall not apply to any land situated within a rural area".
      No. 70, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
      '() This Act shall not apply to any tree which is protected by a tree preservation order".
      No. 59, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
      "() Nothing in this Act shall apply to a hedge growing in public open space".
      No. 61, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
      "() Nothing in this Act shall apply to a hedge growing within the curtilege of a school or other educational establishment".
      No. 58, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
      "() Nothing in this Act shall apply to a hedge situated within 3 metres of any public highway.".
      No. 51, in page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (4).
      No. 41, in page 1, line 22, at end insert—
      "() This Act shall only apply to hedges which were planted or otherwise came into existence after the commencement of the Act.".
      No. 3, in page 2, line 6, at end insert
      "or prospective owner or occupier.".
      No. 69, in page 2, line 12, at end insert
      ""rural area" means any ward or postcode sector which is outside a settlement of 10,000 or more people".
      No. 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out "wholly or mainly.
      It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.

  Remaining Private Members" Bills

    PREVENTION OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS (ROAD TRAFFIC AMENDMENT) BILL
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Not moved, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Government accepted the substance of my Bill in amendments to the Railways and Transport Safety Bill in another place yesterday.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Not moved is sufficient.

    EMERGENCY BROADCASTING SYSTEM BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.

    TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS (RAILWAYS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members:Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.

    EQUALITY BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.

    LOCAL COMMUNITIES SUSTAINABILITY BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members:Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.

    CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.

    GOVERNMENT POWERS (LIMITATIONS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members:Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.

  GM Public Debate
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]
  2.32 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: In the GM public debate, which, to their credit, the Government have organised and which the Public Debate Steering Board has chaired extremely ably under the supervision of Professor Malcolm Grant, there are four central issues on which the Government need to give a response, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will do so today.
  First, and most crucially, are the options available to the Government in reaching a decision about whether or not to commercialise GM crops in the UK. The decision must be taken on the basis of EU directive 2001/18, which, under article 16, allows for GM crops or a particular GM variety to be banned if it can be demonstrated that it would cause harm, either to the environment or to human health. There is another option, however, permitted under the relevant EU legislation and article 5 of the phytosanitary agreement. The Government can invoke the precautionary principle on the grounds that the necessary information needed to reach a sound scientific decision, properly based on the complete range of relevant scientific data, is not yet available. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are looking seriously at that option?
  That leaves open the question whether the available scientific evidence is sufficient on both environmental and health grounds.
  On the environmental side, the Government"s chief scientific adviser is on record as saying that the ambit of the farm scale evaluation trials is extremely narrow in that it is confined to examining the biodiversity impacts of different herbicides. That is undoubtedly right.
  The trials are carefully focused on testing environmental impacts under optimal conditions, and do not reflect how farmers would actually behave under the commercial pressures of the marketplace. They do not address the problems found abroad, such as the incidence of volunteers and multiple gene stacking. They exclude questions about soil residues, direct feeding trials for birds and extra herbicide use under market conditions where the focus is on maximising yields rather than protecting the environment. In addition, they do not take account of the fact that analysis of 100 isolated fields is an inadequate basis for predicting the very different results that would accrue from full-scale commercialisation.
  On the human health front, the absence of the necessary evidence is even more stark. The constant refrain from Government and their scientific advisory committees, notably the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—is that there is no evidence of any greater risk from a GM product than from its non-GM counterpart. But, notoriously, there have been virtually no clinical tests to find out whether that is true. It is just assumed.
  What the biotechnology companies do—it is their claims, not independent public empirical evidence, that is at issue here—is to look at the level of various nutrients, allergens and toxins, and if the GM plant has

  725
  similar levels to the non-GM counterpart, they deem it to be safe in all respects. That is the notorious concept of substantial equivalence, which was originally a marketing term and has no scientific underpinning whatever. It does not involve testing the complete range of side effects, and the British public will not be impressed by it. What they want to know is not whether this GM food or ingredient is substantially equivalent to something else, but rather whether it, not something like it, is completely safe, and whether the gamut of tests has been carried out—tested, re-tested and tested again—until its safety can be established beyond any reasonable doubt. That has not happened.
  Worse still, such systematic testing has not even begun to be carried out. Americans have been eating GM food since 1996—this is often said—but no monitoring of the long-term clinical or bio-chemical impacts has been carried out. However, there is some worrying circumstantial evidence. What is known is that, coinciding with the introduction of GMOs in the United States, food-derived illnesses are believed by the official US centres for disease control to have doubled during the past seven years.
  In those circumstances, I submit that there is only one responsible position for the Government to take in the face of such manifest lack of evidence and huge uncertainty about the long-term effects both on the environment and on human health, and that is to postpone any decision on commercialisation until all the relevant evidence is available. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is the Government"s position?
  The second key issue in the public debate is the question of how the future of the organic sector can not only be fully protected but, as the Government have made clear they intend, substantially enhanced. My hon. Friend—I am glad to say this—can take real credit for the launch of the organic action plan a year ago, which lays the foundations for a major expansion of the organic sector throughout the UK. I was pleased to continue that work when I succeeded as the chair of that group. We then established a Government target to increase the proportion of organic produce consumed in the UK that was grown in the UK from an average 30 per cent. at present to 70 per cent. by 2010. That is a Government commitment. The question that arises is how that is compatible with any decision to commercialise GM crops in the UK. Essentially this comes down to what would be the co-existence rules as between organic conventional on the one hand and GM on the other, if a decision were ever to be made in the UK to allow GM crops to be widely cultivated here.
  As it happens, the European Parliament voted two days ago to allow member states to determine separation distances if they so wished. This represents a complete abandonment by the Commission, under US pressure, no doubt, of any attempt to resolve the issue at EU level, which is clearly needed if there is not to be a patchwork of different and inconsistent regimes throughout Europe.
  Given that the Commission and the European Parliament have now given up on establishing proper co-existence rules, how do the Government intend to exercise the option? Stretching back to 1998, the Government have been beholden to the supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops—SCIMAC—the biotechnology industry representative body, in
  726
  deciding what separation distances should be. Unsurprisingly, SCIMAC wants the minimum separation distances that it can get away with, and the organic sector wants considerably greater distances if its survival is to be assured.
  Up to now, the Government have been wholly subservient to SCIMAC. Is that now to change? If not, how will the Government guarantee, in the face of cross-contamination from commercialised GM crops in the UK—if in the teeth of the available scientific evidence that were to happen—that their target of a greatly expanded organic sector by 2010 will be met?
  My hon. Friend the Minister will know that the organic oilseed rape canola industry has been wiped out in Canada within only a few years as a result of cross-contamination from GM. Again, how do the Government propose to stop the same thing happening here?
  There is a further important question about the protection of the organic sector in the UK. What legal rights for compensation would an organic or conventional farmer have if they were driven out of business, their crop having been contaminated by GM, or if it were perceived to be contaminated by their retail customers with the result that the farmer could no longer sell to his or her normal retail outlet because of the loss of organic accreditation? At present, there is no liability provision in the UK, and there will be no provision for what the lawyers call, somewhat curiously, traditional damage, which means economic loss under the EU environmental liability directive, even if that directive is not—it is currently before Brussels—watered down over the next few years. The only alternative is the Victorian law of nuisance, but everyone agrees that that will not provide the protection required in the different circumstances of GM contamination, which it was never designed to meet. Will the Government give a commitment to introduce an adequate liability provision to give full protection to organic and other farmers before there is any question of commercialising GM in the UK?
  Thirdly, there is the crucial and central question of whether GM is safe to eat. As I have already said, the systematic evidence needed to answer that question is not available. However, what little evidence exists is seriously worrying. In the year 2000, many US food products were accidentally contaminated with GM starling maize. It is now believed to have caused allergic reactions in more than 50 Americans, some serious. According to the Government adviser on the StarLink case, the reactions
  "varied from just abdominal pain and diarrhoea and skin rashes to some patients, a very small group, having very severe life-threatening reactions."
  In this country, the York nutritional laboratory reports a 50 per cent. rise in soya allergies since imports of GM soya started.
  It has also been claimed that GM material, when absorbed into the body, would not transfer to the bacteria in the human gut. However, in the only known trial of GM food on humans, which was carried out last year by the university of Newcastle, seven people were given a meal containing GM soya and it was found that in three of the people, the GM material had moved out of the food and entered their gut bacteria after only one meal. That is disturbing.

  727
  The scientific institutions have expressed their views. The Royal Society, in its report last year, stated that the potential health effects of GM foods should be rigorously investigated before they are allowed to be used in baby food or marketed to pregnant or breastfeeding women, elderly people or those with chronic disease. That was because GM
  "could lead to unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional state of foods".
  The report stated that any baby food containing GM products could lead to a dramatic rise in allergies, and unexpected shifts in oestrogen levels in GM soya-based infant feed might affect sexual development in children. Infants, the report said, are very vulnerable because they have such a narrow diet. If there were any nutritional deficiencies in their food, such as fewer fatty acids, their health would suffer, especially the infant bowel function, since even small nutritional changes could cause bowel obstruction.
  A recent British Medical Association report noted that
  "any conclusion upon the safety of introducing GM materials into the UK is premature as there is insufficient evidence to inform the decision-making process at the moment".
  In its report to the Scottish Parliament six months ago, the BMA stated that
  "there has not yet been a robust and thorough search into the potentially harmful effect of GM foodstuffs on human health … In the UK not enough is known to enable us to give an accurate risk assessment of the health impact of GM crops on the health of local communities".
  Finally, I quote a recent report from the General Medical Council which stated that GM could switch on "silent" genes, as they are called, whose effects we know little about or know to be toxic.
  In the light of all that uncertainty, will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be no commercialisation of GM crops in the UK until all the relevant health checks have been systematically carried out and all the evidence made fully available to the public?
  The last issue that I want to raise is how the Government propose to guarantee to any member of the public who wants to eat GM-free food that he or she will be able to do so. The Government state that they are pro-consumer choice. How will that be delivered if GM were to be commercialised in the UK? The EU labelling and traceability rules that have just been agreed by the European Parliament in Brussels will require that all foods must be labelled if they contain more than 0.9 per cent. GM, so if the consumer finds a food on the supermarket shelf that is not labelled, he or she will not know whether it contains zero GM or up to nearly 1 per cent. GM.
  That clearly does not provide the shopper who wants to eat exclusively GM-free food with the opportunity to do so. I repeat my question: if the Government are genuinely committed, as they say, to consumer choice—I hope they are—how exactly will they deliver the option to the very large number of people, possibly a majority in this country, who want to eat GM-free food and only GM-free food?
  I have asked four clear and specific questions. I would like my hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect, to answer each of them today, but if he cannot or does not
  728
  have time, I insist that the Government have a duty to answer all four questions before the public debate concludes, so that the electorate has the information on which it can make up its own mind on this critical matter now before the country.
  2.49 pm
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) on the very detailed questions that he has asked. I know that he has had a very long interest in the issue of GMs, and that concerns and questions of the sort that he has raised are perfectly reasonable and relevant in the debate that is currently taking place. As he rightly stated, that debate has been encouraged by the Government and by him in his former ministerial role. Of course, some of the questions that he asked are part of that debate and evaluation, and they will feature in relation to the Government"s ultimate response.
  I shall try to answer the questions that I have written down, but I apologise to my right hon. Friend in advance: if I have missed any of the points that he made, I will certainly go through Hansard and ensure that he receives a detailed written response. If, when I have finished my speech, he feels that I have missed something, I encourage him to remind me so that I may address it either now or in writing.
  First, my right hon. Friend asked whether the Government were committed to the application of the precautionary principle. I can certainly confirm that the Government"s approach is based on the precautionary principle. Decisions are taken on the basis of a comprehensive risk assessment in respect of each application and on a case-by-case basis. He is very familiar with the procedure, but it might be useful to explain some it for the record, as it relates to some of the points that he made.
  Where insufficient information is available to enable us to take a decision, we will say so. Indeed, we have said so on a number of occasions. For example, the farm-scale evaluations were designed specifically to address an information gap. It has also been said on a number of occasions that if the evaluations are inconclusive or demonstrate that there are potential problems that require further investigation, that will be undertaken. That is a quite proper and precautionary approach in that regard. That is being built in, and the whole approach must take into account the evidence with regard to the two points that my right hon. Friend mentioned—the effect on people"s health and on the environment.
  My right hon. Friend is right to say that the current farm-scale evaluations are focused on environmental impact. That is absolutely right and I do not dispute it for a moment. It is fair to say, however, that issues such as gene stacking—a very important issue—are taken into consideration. I know that there are certain circumstances, in relation to hybrid maize in particular, in which there is a risk of gene stacking, but we do not have those conditions in this country at the present time. It is important that we learn from the experiences of other countries that have had such problems to ensure that we do not get them here. That must be part of the evaluation and the consideration.

  729
  I know that my right hon. Friend has taken a particular interest in the health issue. He will know that the procedures for assessing the health effects of GM foods are clearly separated from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for very good reasons, as he was part of the campaign to set up an independent Food Standards Agency, as I was. That independent agency, which is accountable to the Department of Health, is the principal body that advises the Government on any health issue relating to such products. Such issues are also examined under the processes carried out by ACRE, as he knows, and by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, so there are detailed examinations.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned the claims that are made, particularly in the US, about effects on people who have eaten genetically modified maize. I am sure that that issue will be taken into account, although one of his examples of the alleged health effects of maize concerned a variety that was not approved for human consumption. Such matters must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I agree that any decisions must be based on an examination of the evidence, and that we should not authorise commercial release until all that evidence has been properly taken into account and considered by the relevant bodies and committees.
  As things stand, we are not in a position to give commercial approval for GM crops because we are in the middle of the process: the farm-scale evaluations are still being considered. I hope that the analysis of the FSEs will be in the public domain—I feel positive in that regard—so that people can see exactly what the outcome of the trials has been and look at the scientific evidence. I understand that ACRE is considering holding a public event where stakeholder groups can come along, look at the FSE process, and make a submission if they have any concerns. I am keen to ensure that the system is open and transparent and that interested parties and stakeholder groups have the opportunity to see the evidence and to comment on it.
  As my right hon. Friend knows, several crops are being considered in other EU countries as part of the EU approval process. To offer him some reassurance, ACRE, which comments on other countries" approval processes, has asked for more information on some cases because it does not feel that it has enough to take a decision. That is right and proper, because one cannot take proper decisions until one has all the relevant information.
  I, too, welcome the recent agreement on labelling between the European Parliament and the Commission. My right hon. Friend mentioned consumer choice. Like him, I believe that consumer choice as regards GM is absolutely essential, particularly as GMOs, although not approved for commercial release in our country, have been in use in other countries for a long time. I was startled to read that 17 per cent. of the global agriculture area is being used to grow GM crops. That poses a dilemma. Because such vast quantities of GM crops are
  730
  being produced, sold, transported and put into food, it is very likely that trace elements will get into a wide range of foods. That is why the general approach to labelling is to apply a threshold in the form of a maximum level of about 0.9 per cent. In the case of some genetically modified products, it is almost impossible to trace the level that they contain. Those will be dealt with under EU regulations in terms of traceability through records. There is a genuine attempt to ensure that, as far as possible, people have the choice.
  I understand my right hon. Friend"s argument that it will be difficult in some circumstances to guarantee that foods that are not labelled as GM do not contain the slightest trace of GMOs. However, that is the point about thresholds. My right hon. Friend knows that the principle also applies to the organic sector, in which it is not possible to guarantee no trace of chemicals. There is therefore a chemicals threshold. The principle is similar. However, as far as possible, we must ensure choice and separation.
  Like my right hon. Friend, I agree that the co-existence rules need to be carefully considered. We must consider the most appropriate separation distances on the basis of good, scientific advice. I do not believe that the Government are subservient to the supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops—SCIMAC. Again, there is an element of precaution through separation and I do not want the organic sector or its viability to be threatened. We must consider that carefully.
  Let us consider liability. There may be some current legal possibilities, but they are not designed to deal with deliberate or inadvertent contamination by a GM crop of a non-GM crop. We must examine that more carefully. We have asked for advice from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. That will help us to formulate our response.
  Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to respond briefly. I appreciate his effort to answer the questions.
  I was not considering the precautionary principle exclusively in terms of assessing a specific GM product or variety, but in terms of its application under directive 2001/18 on commercialisation of crops. That is a third option. Will the Government consider it?
  Secondly, my hon. Friend said today and on other occasions that there was other evidence of direct health trials. He mentioned France and the United States. Could he give me—or preferably Hansard—the evidence from those trials?
  Thirdly, on consumer choice—
  The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at two minutes past Three o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if she will make a statement on the latest position regarding the latest time Royal Mail can collect Members' letters for delivery to constituents the following day. [123812]

  Mrs. Roe
  Senior officials from both Houses are in discussion with the Managing Director of UK Royal Mail with the aim of achieving reinstatement of a later collection of Members' letters for delivery to constituents the following day. I will write to the hon. Gentleman once the outcome of these discussions is known.

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which units will make up 19 Mechanised Brigade as it is deployed to Operation Telic 2; and when deployments will commence. [123573]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following units will make up 19 (Mechanised) Brigade, during its period of deployment to Iraq:

  19 (Mechanised) Brigade Headquarters and Signal Squadron

  The Regimental Headquarters and two Squadrons from the Light Dragoons

  B Squadron, 2nd Royal Tank Regiment

  1st Battalion, the King's Regiment

  1st Battalion, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  1st Battalion the King's Own Scottish Borderers

  4/73 Observation Post Battery from 5th Regiment Royal Artillery

  40th Regiment Royal Artillery

  38th Engineer Regiment (including 100 Squadron, Royal Monmouthshire,

  Royal Engineers (Militia))

  The Brigade will also deploy with a Brigade Support Group, comprising of:

  32 Brigade Support Squadron, from 3 Close Support Regiment. Royal Logistic Corps.

  150 Provost Company, from 3 Royal Military Police

  A Close Support Company, from 5 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  A Close Support Medical Squadron, from 3 Close Support Medical Regiment

  The Brigade has already deployed to Iraq and assumed command from 7th Armoured Brigade or 28 June 2003.
  500W
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sites in Iraq suspected of links to possible covert weapons of mass destruction programmes have been searched by(a) the Iraq Survey Group and (b) other coalition personnel; and how many identified suspect sites have yet to be searched. [121289]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary gave on 26 June 2003,Official Report, column 938W to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn).

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the USA concerning incidences of 'friendly fire' against British troops in Iraq. [108850]

  Mr. Ingram
  We worked closely with the United States to ensure that effective Combat Identification arrangements were in place before the start of operations in Iraq. United Kingdom forces' Combat Identification capability is compatible and comparable with that of our US allies, but regrettably no system can be 100 per cent. fail-safe.

  Both incidents of "friendly fire" that occurred during operations against Iraq involving US and UK forces are the subject of Boards of Inquiry, which have now convened. But we will be looking to ensure that all parties absorb any lessons identified.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what US assistance was(a) requested and (b) provided in deploying logistics as part of Operation Telic. [112030]

  Mr. Ingram
  No United States assistance was requested or provided in deploying logistics from the United Kingdom to the Gulf as part of Operation Telic. However, the US provided the reception process for all troops arriving in theatre and shared UK/US contracts were placed in Kuwait for services including accommodation and ablution facilities.

  A and P Shipbuilders
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 35W, what the value was of each order; how many man hours were required for the completion of each contract; and in which yards the work was carried out in each case. [123741]

  Mr. Ingram
  The yards which carried out the work or the contracts listed in the answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 35W are detailed in the table. The number of man hours required for completion of each contract is not known as companies do not include this information in their tenders.

  Year/vessel

  A&P yard

  1999

  Sir Tristram

  Falmouth

  Brambleleaf

  Falmouth

  Diligence

  Tyne

  Sir Bedivere

  Tyne

  Sir Galahad

  Tyne

  2000

  Oak Leaf

  Falmouth

  Gold Rover

  Falmouth

  Small vessel repair/maintenance

  Southampton

  501W

  Year/vessel

  A&P yard

  2001

  Sir Galahad

  Tyne

  Sir Geraint

  Tyne

  Fort Austin

  Falmouth

  Orangeleaf

  Falmouth

  Grey Rover

  Tyne

  Sir Bedivere

  Tyne

  Sea Centurion

  Tyne

  Sir Tristram

  Tyne

  Sir Percivale

  Tyne

  Sir Galahad

  Tyne

  Sea Crusader

  Tyne

  Small vessel repair/maintenance

  Southampton

  2002

  Fort Rosalie

  Tyne

  Brambleleaf

  Falmouth

  Gold Rover

  Falmouth

  Fort Victoria

  Tyne

  Fort Victoria

  Tyne

  Small vessel repair/maintenance

  Southampton

  2003

  Oakleaf

  Falmouth

  I am withholding details of the value of individual contracts in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Third Party's commercial confidences).

  Combat Aircraft
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF and Royal Navy combat aircraft were available for operations on 1 January 2003; and how many are planned to be available on(a) 1 January 2008, (b) 1 January 2013 and (c) 1 January 2018. [119492]

  Mr. Ingram
  As of 1 January 2003, the RAF and RN combat (fast jet) aircraft Actual Operating Fleet figure was 306 aircraft. The numbers of aircraft available on 1 January 2008, 2013 and 2018 will depend upon our operational requirements at the time.

  European Peacekeeping Force
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which units flagged for deployment with the European peacekeeping force are(a) deployed and (b) undeployable owing to roulement; what proportion by category of unit or establishment this comprises; and if he will make a statement. [123046]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no such force as the "European peacekeeping force".

  Infantry Battalions
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 23 June 2003,Official Report, column 538W, on infantry numbers, whether Ministers have had discussions with the Director of Infantry about disbanding infantry battalions. [122986]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ministers have had no discussions with the Director of Infantry about disbanding infantry battalions.

  Sewel Motions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list Sewel motions passed by the Scottish Parliament since May 1999 that apply to his Department's responsibilities and Government Bills he has sponsored. [120692]

  Mr. Ingram
  Of the bills sponsored by the Ministry of Defence, the Armed Forces Bill was the subject of a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament on 29 March 2001.

  The Sewel motion related to specific provisions within the Armed Forces Bill concerning Ministry of Defence Police that were later included in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

  Trainer Jets
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contractors who have been asked to provide proposals to supply trainer jets to the Royal Air Force; and by what criteria bids will be assessed. [115121]

  Mr. Ingram
  [pursuant to the answer, 2 June 2003, Official Report, c. 42–43W]: The company named should have read Aermacchi and not Finmeccanica.

TRANSPORT

  Road Repairs (Deaths and Injuries)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people working on road repairs and improvements over each of the last three years have been(a) injured and (b) killed working on motorways,(ii) other trunk roads and (iii) all other roads. [120672]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of people injured and killed while working on road repairs and improvements on Motorways and other trunk roads in England over the last three years is shown in the following table. Information for all other roads is not available.

  Reported Casualties at HA1 roadworks (Motorways and Trunk Roads)22000–02: Casualties

  Severity

  Motorway

  Trunk road

  Total

  2000

  Fatal

  1

  2

  3

  Injured

  48

  11

  59

  All

  49

  13

  62

  2001

  Fatal

  3

  1

  4

  Injured

  47

  26

  73

  All

  50

  27

  77

  2002

  Fatal

  1

  5

  6

  Injured

  59

  37

  96

  All

  60

  42

  102

  1Highways Agency.

  2Motorways and Trunk roads in England.

  Source:

  Reports from Highways Agency contractors.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the cost of vehicle excise duty evasion in England, broken down by local authority, in each year since 1997. [121524]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The estimated revenue loss from vehicle excise duty evasion in each year since 1997 in England is as follows:

  Vehicle excise duty evasion

  £million

  Amount

  1997–98

  162.5

  1998–99

  172.5

  1999–2000

  162.2

  2000–01

  169.0

  2001–02

  170.5

  2002–03

  172.1

  A breakdown of the revenue loss from evasion by local authority area could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. These are cash amounts and are not indexed.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abandoned Cars
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will commission research on the technology that would enable abandoned cars to be used in steel production. [122583]

  Mr. Morley
  Recent data obtained by the Department estimate that 93 per cent. by weight of the ferrous metal components of end of life vehicles is recovered for re-use or recycled to the steel industry. Abandoned vehicles are managed in the same way.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she will bring forward for the disposal of abandoned cars. [122584]

  Mr. Morley
  Waste collection authorities are required under section 3(1) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 to remove a vehicle which is abandoned in their area on any land in the open air or on any other land forming part of a highway. Section 4 of the 1978 Act enables waste disposal authorities to dispose of vehicles in their custody which have been removed because they were abandoned. Such vehicles are normally disposed of through either dismantlers or scrap yards.

  The dismantling and recycling of End of Life Vehicles (ELVs) must be carried out in compliance with the conditions of a waste management licence or under a registered exemption from licensing and in a manner which does not pollute the environment and harm human health.

  The End-of-Life Vehicles Directive requires that all ELVs, including those abandoned vehicles which are ELVs, are depolluted and dismantled to specified
  504W
  environmental standards by appropriately-permitted facilities. The permits will replace registered exemptions (unless a site is only carrying out recovery operations on de-polluted vehicles). Regulations to transpose this aspect of the Directive will be laid before Parliament shortly following a joint consultation with DTI which closed on 6 June about implementing parts of the Directive.

  The Directive requires that member states shall set up a system according to which the presentation of a Certificate of Destruction (CoD) is a condition for deregistration of the vehicle. When the Directive is transposed into National law, it is expected that CoDs will only be issued by Authorised Treatment Facilities meeting specified site, storage and operating standards.

  Appointments
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the people appointed to ad hoc posts within her Department bearing the titles of advocate, tsar, adviser, champion and comparable titles since May 1997; what their job title is or was; what their role is or was; whether they were or are being paid; what the total cost of each such person was in each financial year, including expenses and benefits; what the expected cost of each such person is in 2003–04; to whom they are accountable; and if she will make a statement. [112459]

  Alun Michael
  Defra came into being in June 2001 and the following information relates to the period since then.

  The Secretary of State has two Special Advisers: Sheila Watson and Nicci Collins.

  The Department employs an Environmental Adviser, who reports to the Director for Environment Protection Strategy. This post was held by Peter Madden until 2002 and is now held by Stephen Hale.

  The above are paid appointments. Under exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, details of individual salaries are not disclosed in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned. All of these appointees are or were accountable to Ministers for their decisions and actions.

  Ewen Cameron, who is also Chair of the Countryside Agency, is the Rural Advocate, arguing the case on countryside issues and for rural people at the highest levels in Government and outside. While this role has no formal line of accountability Sir Ewen works closely with the Minister of State for Rural Affairs on a range of issues of rural proofing and also has access to the Secretary of State and other senior members of Government.

  Dr Chris Fay holds the title Emissions Trading Champion. Reporting to the Director for Climate, Energy and Environmental Risk, he assisted the Government in recruiting participants to the UK's voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme launched in April 2002, and plays a role in communicating with business on emissions trading issues.
  505W
  Lord Haskins acted as Rural Recovery Co-ordinator during the latter part of the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in 2001. His role was to help local authorities and other agencies plan for the economic recovery of Cumbria, and to consider what lessons were also applicable to other areas affected by the outbreak. Lord Haskins began work on 14 August 2001 and reported to me in October 2001.

  These roles are or were all unpaid.

  Departmental Staff (Derbyshire)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people are employed by her Department in(a) West Derbyshire and (b) Derbyshire. [124013]

  Alun Michael
  (a) There are three staff employed by Defra in West Derbyshire, in the State Veterinary Service Area Office at Bakewell.

  (b) Neither Defra nor any of its Agencies has offices in Derbyshire other than those in Bakewell.

  Departmental Underspending
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the underspend was of her Department in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03, broken down by budget head; and what percentage of the total budget this represented. [123814]

  Alun Michael
  For details of the 2001–02 underspend, I refer the hon. Member to Schedule 1 (page 23) of the Department's 2001–02 Resource Accounts, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the house.

  Actual 2002–03 outturn figures are not yet available.

  Flooding
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in England and Wales are at risk of(a) river and (b) coastal flooding. [122725]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency's indicative floodplain maps published in November 2002 suggest that there are(a) about 938,000 properties at risk of river flooding and (b) about 908,000 at risk of coastal/tidal flooding in England and Wales. These properties are situated within the indicative floodplains and the majority of them are protected by flood defence structures. Approximately nine per cent. of these are commercial properties.

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Rural Payments Agency has made any payment in cases where an animal has been presented for the Over-30-Months Scheme with a worn or defective ear tag. [123320]
  506W
  Alun Michael
  While over six million animals have entered the Over-30-Month Scheme since it started in 1996, the Rural Payments Agency is not aware of any instances where payment has been made on a tag that was worn to the extent that it was partly illegible. If an instance came to light the Agency would look to instigate recovery action in respect of any moneys paid.

  Tags which are so worn that they are partly illegible, have been ineligible for the OTMS since the onset of the scheme in 1996. This has been stressed in numerous Trader Notices issued over the years and is also set out in Part B of the OTMS Producer's Handbook.

  Pesticides
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what system is in place to enable the assessment of the impact on the environment from the interaction of pesticides individually approved for use. [123830]

  Alun Michael
  Possible synergistic effects of pesticides on the environment are addressed by looking at the toxicity of pesticide products that contain more than one active ingredient.

  The Pesticides Safety Directorate has also examined the possible effects on the environment of the interaction of pesticides on a more general level. In 1995 a literature review was undertaken on the possible ecotoxicological implications for the Directorate's wildlife risk assessment of the possible synergistic effects of pesticides.

  As a follow-up to the literature review, and in response to reported wildlife incidents, the Directorate has commissioned research into the synergistic effects of insecticides and fungicides on honeybees. The research is due to be completed later this year when the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides will consider it.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many appeals against derogations on maps under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 have(a) been lodged and (b) succeeded. [123405]

  Alun Michael
  Up to the week beginning 16 June the Planning Inspectorate received 188 appeals in respect of Region 1, the south east of England and 721 appeals in respect of Region 2, the upper north west. So far three appeal decisions have been issued, two of which were successful.

  In addition, 24 appeals have so far been received for Region 3, the central southern region.
  507W
  These figures relate to England. Information on appeals in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many representations she has received on the mapping of land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [123407]

  Alun Michael
  Between 2001 to the end of June 2003, we received around 600 representations on aspects of the implementation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 including mapping.

  Scheme

  1 January

  1 April

  Claims outstanding as at 26 June 2003

  Value of outstanding claims as at 26 June 2003 (£)

  Arable area payments scheme 2002 main payments

  0

  106

  55

  577,120.20

  AAPS 2002 non-food

  0

  309

  20

  61,820.51

  Sheep annual premium scheme

  0

  83

  74

  450,760

  Dairy subsidy schemes

  0

  7

  0

  0

  Non IACS schemes

  37

  80

  38

  8,227

  Trader schemes

  0

  0

  114

  4-

  ERDP

  0

  0

  7,858

  4-

  Slaughter premium scheme (SPS)

  174,167

  156,673

  2138,606

  6,885,946

  Beef special premium scheme (BSPS)

  135,278

  125,414

  257,230

  24,093,540

  Suckler cow premium scheme (SCPS)

  116,257

  19,816

  212,407

  33,993,594

  Extensification payment scheme (EPS)

  n/a

  122,467

  216,783

  30 million (estimate)

  1claims with an outstanding advance payment representing 80 per cent. of the
  payment due which could have been made from 16 October 2002.

  2Claims with an outstanding balance and or advance payment.

  32003-04 financial year

  4Values not available

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the value of compensation payments to farmers as a result of late payments by the Rural Payments Agency was in each year since it was created. [122842]

  Alun Michael
  Since the Rural Payments Agency was created on 16 October 2001, payments of compensation because of late payments has been made under the Bovine Schemes and the Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS)

  In 2003–04 £383,013.36 was paid to 3,439 bovine producers whose 2001 subsidy claims were paid in full after the statutory payment deadline of 30 June 2002. The delays had been caused by the need to crosscheck all subsidy information against the Cattle Tracing System database as required by EU legislation.

  Under the AAPS producers have been compensated for a number of reasons included late payments. The total amount of compensation payments in each year since 16 October 2001 is:

  £

  2001/02

  11,945.79

  2002–03

  35,804.70

  2003–04

  9,666.70

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many Rural Payments Agency claims were outstanding(a) on 1 January, (b) 1 April and (c) on the latest date for which figures are available; and what sums were outstanding in each case. [122522]

  Alun Michael
  The number of Rural Payments Agency claims outstanding on 1 January, 1 April and 26 June 2003 are as shown in the table.

  Satellites
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many satellites are(a) owned and (b) leased either in whole or part by her Department, giving (i) the purpose of their use, (ii) their initial cost and annual running costs and (iii) from whom they were purchased or leased in each case. [117337]

  Alun Michael
  This Department does not own or lease any satellites, but Defra does have a significant interest in a payload instrument (AATSR—Advanced—Along Track Scanning Radiometer) on board the European Space Agency's satellite ENVISAT, which was launched in March 2002. Defra represented the UK as the lead agency in the AATSR project, with some components of the instrument being supplied by the Australian Govern went, and an in-kind contribution from the Natural Environment Research Council.

  (i) The Advanced Along-Track Scanning Radiometer (AATSR) instrument is the third in the ATSR series. It is designed to measure sea surface temperature to a high level of accuracy, in order to enable the detection of trends in climate.

  (ii) The capital cost of the design and build of the instrument was £11 million. In 2002–03 operational costs incurred amounted to £400,000; now that the

  509W
  instrument is successfully commissioned, future annual running costs are expected to be approximately half this amount.

  (iii) The instrument was manufactured by Astrium (formerly Matra Marconi/British Aerospace) and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL). Project management and technical management advice was provided by Leicester University and Vega Space Systems up to the launch date. There will be continued advice (but to a lesser degree) as part of the operational in-flight support. In-flight operation and maintenance is provided by RAL with data validation undertaken by Leicester University.

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff the Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which the Department is responsible had in each year since 1997; and what the cost of those staff was in each of those years. [122263]

  Alun Michael
  Data on staffing levels in the civil service are collected from departments and agencies twice yearly, in April and October. Headline figures are published under National Statistics guidelines via a press notice. Those for October 2002 were published on 27 February 2003.

  A copy of the press notice, accompanying media brief and supporting tables is available on the worldwide web at www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics. Copies of these documents are also placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  More detailed information on the civil service is published annually in 'Civil Service Statistics', copies of which are laid in the Libraries of both Houses. The last edition, based on April 2001 data, was published in June 2002. The next edition, based on April 2002 data, is due to be published at the end of July 2003.

  The Cabinet Office publishes information on non-departmental public bodies in its annual publication 'Public Bodies'. The information includes details of the number of staff employed by each NDPB at 31 March each year. "Public Bodies 2002" was published in January 2003. Copies of "Public Bodies" published each year since 1997 are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Information on staff costs for Defra and its agencies is available in the Defra departmental report and the agencies' annual reports. Information on staff costs for non-departmental public bodies is available in each body's published accounts.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what 510W
  discussions he has had with the Defence Secretary regarding the role of provincial reconstruction teams for Afghanistan. [123661]

  Hilary Benn
  The concept of Provincial Reconstruction Teams was agreed at ministerial level earlier this year, with the Ministry of Defence being asked to take overall responsibility for delivering the agreed objectives of the PRT. These objectives were set out in the statement to Parliament made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 8 May 2003;Official Report, column 38WS.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what measures the Government are taking with their international partners to reduce the price of antiretroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS treatment imported to poor countries. [123048]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK Government are working to improve access to new and existing medicines, for poor people in developing countries, including for HIV/ AIDS. The factors recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) that can improve poor peoples' access to medicines are: affordable pricing, sustainable financing, reliable health and supply systems and the rational selection and use of existing drugs.

  Clare Short chaired a High Level Working Group on Increasing Access to Essential Medicines in the Developing World, which examined these issues in detail. The Working Group made a series of recommendations for action which are being taken forward by a number of stakeholders.

  We need to work with others to tackle the issues affecting access, if we are to make progress. The recent G8 Summit at Evian also secured commitment to action on access to medicines. The G8 Health Action Plan is in line with the Working Group's recommendations and provides a good basis for future collaborative action with a range of stakeholders, including the pharmaceutical industry. We are devoting significant effort to taking this forward, particularly at country level.

  The Government have also supported efforts within the European Union to put in place an EU Regulation that will prevent the diversion or 'leakage' of cheaper products from developing countries back to the EU. This is to encourage companies to offer their medicines (including anti-retrovirals) at significantly lower prices to developing countries.

  With regard to generic production in particular, the UK is trying to find a solution to the outstanding issue from the Doha Declaration on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and Public Health, i.e. how countries with insufficient or no manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector can make effective use of compulsory licensing procedures within the TRIPS Agreement.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the
  511W
  Government's policy is on the appointment of an EU AIDS Ambassador to help co-ordinate the fight against the disease. [123049]

  Hilary Benn
  We are unaware of any plans to appoint an EU AIDS Ambassador. We welcome the opportunity of increased spending on HIV/AIDS from European Commission financial instruments, including the new budget line to fight poverty-related diseases and the EC contribution to the Global Fund to fight HIV/ AIDS, TB and Malaria. We continue to call for EC spending to be more poverty-focused and to be better co-ordinated.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what discussions his Department has had with the Governments of Sub-Saharan Africa regarding the need for agricultural institutions to respond to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. [123646]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has held extensive discussions with African Governments over this issue; these have covered involvement in poverty reduction strategy working groups and the design and implementation of programmes to combat HIV/AIDS, as well as donor coordination groups and negotiations connected with the design and implementation of agricultural sector support programmes. DFID has also financed relevant research programmes that involve African institutions and supported analytical work on the links between HIV/AIDS and recent food insecurity in southern Africa.

  Liberia
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the health situation in Monrovia, Liberia. [123662]

  Hilary Benn
  Our information on the health situation in Monrovia is provided by the UN, and international agencies maintaining a presence there, and the current assessment is that the situation is critical. In those areas that can be reached by humanitarian agencies, conditions are very poor. It is likely to be far worse in those areas of the country that cannot be reached. Only one hospital is functioning in Monrovia, currently run by ICRC, and a few additional clinics have been set up there following a lull in the fighting this week. Sanitation is virtually non-existent and water supplies are inadequate. A major cholera outbreak is likely in these conditions; health NGOs that remain operational are preparing to respond to this. Their activities have been hampered by looting of vehicles, fuel, drugs and medical supplies.

  We have committed a total of £2.5 million for humanitarian activity in Liberia this year, including £1.5 million in response to the recent upsurge in fighting. We have provided £1,050,000 to support ICRC and £450,000 to Medecins Sans Frontieres, for secondary health care. These are the only two agencies maintaining expatriate medical teams in the country. We have also recently provided £374,000 to support a MERLIN emergency health programme in Monrovia. We still have available a balance of £626,000 for humanitarian interventions in Liberia which we intend
  512W
  to allocate to strengthen the geographical and sectoral coverage of the relief programme. We are in close touch with the UN and other agencies working in Liberia. We will meet with them on 8 July 2003 to review the position.

  Uganda
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation and recent actions by the Lord's Resistance Army in Teso, Uganda. [123731]

  Hilary Benn
  We are concerned by the impact of the recent LRA attacks. We remain in close contact with agencies operating in this area and in conjunction with them have been carefully monitoring the situation. We have indicated to these agencies our willingness to assist, and are considering a number of requests for humanitarian assistance.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the abduction of children by the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda; and what steps his Department is taking to prevent this from happening. [123724]

  Hilary Benn
  It is estimated that over 20,000 children have been abducted by the LRA since the conflict began some 17 years ago. Of these, approximately 8,000 have been abducted in the past 12 months. DFID continues to provide support to UNICEF and other agencies involved in the reintegration of returning abductees and to provide shelter for those displaced by the LRA's activities. We continue to lobby the Ugandan Government to use all means to bring this conflict to a peaceful end and to protect those most vulnerable to LRA attacks.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many internally displaced people there are in northern Uganda; and how much aid his Department is giving to help them. [123725]

  Hilary Benn
  It has been estimated that there are around one million internally displaced people in Uganda. Over the past 12 months, we have allocated £2.5 million towards their needs and will shortly be releasing a further £1 million through the Uganda Red Cross and UNICEF to help with the deteriorating situation in northern Uganda.

  Street Children (Central America)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many street children there are in Central America, broken down by country; and how many street children there are in each country. [123740]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government fully share the hon. Member's concern about the plight of street children in Central America. The rights of children worldwide are a central part of our human rights policy. We maintain a constant dialogue with the Central American authorities and NGOs on this issue; as does the EU. However, the

  513W
  nature of the problem is such that it is very difficult to know precisely how many street children there are in the individual Central America countries.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new entrants to the civil service were employed in his Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 or over. [119829]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply provided by Cabinet Office on 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 658W.

  Departmental Employment Costs
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average cost of an employee working in his Department has been in each year since 1997. [119434]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The average cost of an employee in my Department based on mean basic pay, superannuation and employer's national insurance contributions since 1997 is given in the table.

  £

  2002–03

  30,500

  2001–02

  29,000

  2000–01

  26,800

  1999–2000

  25,900

  1998–99

  25,300

  1997–98

  24,700

  1996–97

  24,000

  For the period 1996–97 to 2000–01 (the period for which comparisons are available), this shows a 12 per cent. increase in average cost for the Department. This compares to a 21 per cent. increase in average salary for the labour market as a whole over the period and a 19 per cent. increase in average salary for teachers in London over the same period.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many of his staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year. [111966]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply provided by Cabinet Office on 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 662W.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate her Department has made of the annual cost to business of employers'514W
  liability compulsory insurance in the last five years; by how much it has increased since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [120387]

  Mr. Browne
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is possible to estimate the annual cost to business of employers' liability compulsory insurance by looking at the total premiums written by insurers.

  Gross written premiums earned (£million)

  1997

  1,151

  1998

  993

  1999

  906

  2000

  821

  2001

  1,093

  It is important to note that the amount raised in premiums will depend on a range of factors including number of staff employed and average earnings.

  Figures are not yet available for 2002. However, it is clear that insurance premiums have risen significantly over the last two years.

  I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement that was given on 3 June 2003, Official Report, columns 1–2WS, announcing the publication of the report that looked at the issue.

  Renewable Energy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what price control mechanisms will be necessary to ensure the Government's renewable energy targets for 2010 are met. [122575]

  Mr. Timms
  Ofgem sets price controls for all transmission and distribution companies, usually every five years. A review is currently in progress to reset the price controls on electricity distribution businesses from April 2005.

  The price controls for the two Scottish transmission licensees are due to be reviewed from April 2005, and NGC's electricity transmission price control is due for review from April 2006. These price controls will need to encourage the investment in the transmission and distrilbution infrastructure necessary to achieve the Government's 10 per cent. renewable energy target by 2010.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what improvements to the National Grid will need to be made to ensure the Government meets its renewable energy target of 10 per cent. by 2010; and how these improvements will be financed. [122576]

  Mr. Timms
  Improvements will have to be made to the transmission grid by all of the Transmission Asset Owners (National Grid Transco, Scottish Power, and Scottish & Southern) for new renewable generation stations. The Transmission Issues Working Report published in June 2003 estimated the costs of these works.

  Planning works for the initial upgrades have been started by both Scottish Power and Scottish & Southern, following agreements made with Ofgem earlier this year. This was in response to requests from

  515W
  renewable energy generators (wind farms) to be connected to the transmission system. These upgrades will be treated as additions to the Regulatory Asset Base, with appropriate charges made to the generators according to the connection agreements offered.

  The Transmission Issues Working Group will continue to monitor the progress of this work.

  Royal Mail Deliveries
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she was first informed that the Royal Mail would terminate their contract for deliveries of mail by rail with EWS from April 2004. [R][123772]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department had been aware for some time that negotiations between Royal Mail and EWS were proving difficult. Royal Mail informed the Department on 2 June that while the final outcome was not yet settled, it expected to make an announcement about the termination of EWS rail services later in the week.

  Negotiations between EWS and Royal Mail are a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on the transfer of Royal Mail deliveries from rail to road; and what model has been used for Royal Mail deliveries in its transfer. [R][123773]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has received a number of representations about Royal Mail's decision to withdraw from rail. These include the rail unions and the all party Rail Group.

  Decisions about transport operations are a matter for the Royal Mail Board. Royal Mail has advised that its model is based on a model developed by New Zealand Post. This software was modified to meet Royal Mail's specific needs, including the potential use of rail transport as part of its network.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the impact of the Working Time Directive on delivery of mail by road from April 2004. [123822]

  Mr. Timms
  Compliance with the Working Time Directive is an operational matter for the Royal Mail Board. I understand that Royal Mail has fully assessed the impact of the Working Time Directive on its future transport network. Where necessary Royal Mail will take appropriate measures, such as trailer swaps, vehicle swaps and dual manning of vehicles, to ensure compliance.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to extend employment protection rights in respect of unfair dismissal to people over 65. [123299]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: Under current legislation employees cannot generally complain of unfair dismissal if they have reached their employer's normal retirement age for their job, or, if there is no normal retirement age, the age of 65. The
  516W
  public consultation on age discrimination launched on 2 July, 'Equality and Diversity: Age Matters', proposes changing these provisions so that employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed can seek redress at any age, but retirement at a justifiable retirement age will be a fair reason for dismissal. A final decision will be made in the light of responses to consultation.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Minister of State for Energy and Construction has visited facilities which extract energy from municipal waste in the past two years; and what plans he has for such visits. [122506]

  Mr. Timms
  My hon. Friend the then Minister for Energy and Construction visited CPS Civic Ltd.'s energy from waste plant in Sheffield in March this year. He also met with representatives from Compact Power in London in March.

  I have no immediate plans for such visits, although I am always interested to hear the industry's views. However my officials have regular meetings with representatives of the waste management industry, and have played an active role in the development of good practice initiatives by the National Resource and Waste Forum.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Media Training
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was to her Department of media and voice training for Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123139]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department does not provide training for Ministers.

  DCMS ran a leadership programme in 2001–02 which covered the use of the voice. The programme cost £20,531.

  In 2002–03, DCMS ran courses on presenting with confidence, which also covered use of the voice. These cost a total of £6,350.

  Sport England
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 447W, on Sport England, from which budget money for redundancy and early retirement of Sport England staff in 2003–04 will come. [122156]

  Mr. Caborn
  40 per cent. will come from Sport England's grant in aid and 60 per cent. will come from Sport England's Lottery income. This reflects the current payment of salaries from each budget.

SCOTLAND

  Special Advisers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many special advisers were employed in the Scotland Office on 11 June 2003. [123575]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Two.

WALES

  EU Regulations
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by his Department in each of the last five years. [120743]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 7 May 2003,Official Report, column 728W.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he gave evidence to the Bain Inquiry into current working practices in the Fire Service; and if he will make a statement. [123419]

  Peter Hain
  No. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister submitted written evidence on behalf of the Government.

  Media Training
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the cost was to his Department of media and voice training for Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123123]

  Peter Hain
  The Wales Office was created in July 1999 and has incurred no expenditure on these forms of training.

  Richard Commission
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will give evidence to the Richard Commission. [123418]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 1 July 2003,Official Report, columns 257–58.

  Sunset Clauses
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to include a sunset clause in all new legislation unless a specific case can be made to exclude a sunset clause. [120745]

  Peter Hain
  The revised Regulatory Impact Assessment guidance, "Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment", was published on 28 January 2003. It advises policy officials to consider time limiting or sunsetting at an early stage of policy development and gives specific examples of where sunsetting may be appropriate.
  518W
  The Wales Office actively promotes the better regulation agenda and the use of sunsetting where appropriate.

  Sunsetting will not always be appropriate. When we do regulate, we aim to do so in a light touch way. We are not going to apologise for introducing the minimum wage, bringing in parental leave, giving millions of employees the right for the first time to paid holidays, or tackling discrimination.

  Tourism
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the tourist industry in Wales to discuss current issues; and what discussions he has had with the First Secretary on this subject. [117524]

  Peter Hain
  I last met with Mr. Philip Evans, the Chairman of the Wales Tourist Board, in January 2003 and was briefed on the then current position of tourism in Wales. The First Minister and I have regular bilateral meetings, and tourism is one of the many subjects we discuss.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) pursuant to his answer of 11 June2003,Official Report, columns 925–26W, on housing benefit, how much money was claimed in council tax benefit in Scotland in 2002–03, broken down by local authority; [120131]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2003, Official Report, columns 786–87W, on housing benefit, how much money was claimed in housing benefit in Scotland in 2002–03, broken down by local authority. [120133]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available.

  However, national estimates of housing benefit and council tax benefit expenditure during 2002–03, as well as details of expenditure by local authority in 2001–02 can be found in "Budget Report 2003: Benefit Expenditure Tables", a copy of which is in the Library.

  British Sign Language
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his statement of 18 March 2003,Official Report, column 41WS, what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive regarding support for British Sign Language; and what proportion of the funding announced will be used to support the use of British Sign Language in Scotland. [122174]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department is in regular contact with the Scottish Executive over a range of issues.

  We have said that all parts of Great Britain will benefit from the initiatives to be funded from the additional £1 million we have made available to support the statement on British Sign Language. We have established a BSL working group with representatives from key organisations of and for Deaf people with

  519W
  remits across Great Britain. They are charged with ensuring that initiatives reflect needs across GB including Scottish interests.

  Carers Allowance
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the status is of carer's allowance during a period when the cared-for person is in respite care; [121714]

  (2) what the effect is on a person on carer's allowance of a period of illness. [121715]

  Maria Eagle
  Carers can continue to receive carer's allowance during breaks from caring which amount to no more than 12 weeks in any 26 week period, provided that they had been caring for at least 14 weeks out of the previous 26 weeks. The breaks from caring which count for these rules include breaks which arise because the cared-for person is in respite care or because the carer is in hospital.

  Child Support
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the scheme to remove driving licences from people who fail to pay child support has cost, including initial start-up costs. [121220]

  Mr. Pond
  The operation of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. David Willetts, dated 4 July 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask how much the scheme to remove driving licences from people who fail to pay child support has cost so far including initial start-up costs.
  I am unable to disaggregate the costs for removing driving licences from people who fail to pay child support from the Agency's overall administration costs, as this information is not available.
  However, I can tell you that the Agency's initial start-up cost was £25,000 and was in respect of a transfer of funds to the DVLA for changes required to their computer system.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff are employed within the Child Support Agency on transition between the old and new systems of assessment. [118311]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Peter Duncan, dated 4 July 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask how many staff are employed within the Child Support Agency on the transition between the old and new systems of assessment.
  520W
  Work on the transition permeates almost all areas of the Agency, and it's not possible, with accuracy, to identify the number of staff with some involvement. I can however say that under the new arrangements this is around 1500. These staff are working not only on new cases but on the many linked cases among the existing client base.

  Children with Disabilities
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on devising strategies which ensure that children with disabilities are encouraged to have the widest possible career paths, from the earliest opportunity. [117651]

  Maria Eagle
  As part of its role in supporting all 13 to 19-year-olds, the Connexions Service has a particular role to play in supporting young people with disabilities making the transition from compulsory education. Personal advisers will work with young people to help them identify their aspirations, including on careers, and how to work towards them. Government guidance to the Learning and Skills Council makes it clear that, in making its decisions on funding post-16 education and training provision, it should take account of any assessment made by the Connexions Service. We have made legal provision for Connexions support to continue up to the age of 25 for those young people with disabilities who are not in a position to receive appropriate support from adult guidance services. Given its importance, we are monitoring closely the impact Connexions is having in this area.

  Crisis Loans
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the cost of crisis loans has been in(a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) the UK in each year since 1997;[119119]

  (2) what the average value of a crisis loan has been in (a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) the UK in each year since 1997; [119121]

  (3) how many crisis loans the Department has awarded in (a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. [119124]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available by constituency, local authority or metropolitan authority areas. The available information, for the Gateshead and South Tyneside Jobcentre Plus (previously Social Security) district and Great Britain is in the tables.

  Crisis Loan Awards, Expenditure and Average Awards in the Gateshead and South Tyneside District

  Year

  No. of initial Awards

  Expenditure on Initial Awards (£)

  Average Value of Initial Awards (£)

  1997–98

  8,200

  420,000

  51

  1998–99

  10,100

  490,000

  49

  1999–2000

  12,500

  660,000

  53

  2000–01

  13,200

  780,000

  59

  2001–02

  12,800

  990,000

  77

  2002–03

  14,700

  1,200,000

  82

  521W

  Crisis Loan Awards, Expenditure and Average Awards in Great Britain

  Year

  No. of initial Awards

  Expenditure on Initial Awards (£)

  Average Value of Initial Awards (£)

  1997–98

  802,900

  51,560,000

  64

  1998–99

  866,000

  55,850,000

  64

  1999–2000

  938,700

  58,250,000

  62

  2000–01

  930,200

  61,040,000

  66

  2001–02

  991,200

  70,610,000

  71

  2002–03

  1,064,200

  80,080,000

  75

  Source:

  DWP Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System.

  This source is slightly unreliable for the number of Crisis Loan awards for 1999–2000, so the figure for Great Britain has been taken from a scan of the Social Fund Computer System while that for Gateshead and South Tyneside has been estimated.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for initial awards only and do not include awards following review.

  2. Numbers of awards are rounded to the nearest £100.

  3. Expenditure is rounded to the nearest £10,000.

  4. Average award size is rounded to the nearest £1.

  5. Social security in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Departmental Procurement
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department's procurement policy includes timber used on and in the construction of departmental building projects; and if he will make a statement. [119129]

  Maria Eagle
  It is the Department's Policy to specify that all timber used throughout the Department is supplied from legal and sustainable sources. It is also our policy to seek documentary evidence of this. Our major Estates Partner has supplied us with comprehensive details of timber used across DWP and this is being independently verified. The Department will use the lessons learned from this report to work closely with our Estates Partners to ensure that any areas of concern that are identified are rectified quickly to ensure that they comply with Government Policy.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on the payment of disability living allowance to UK citizens who emigrate(a) within the EU and (b) outside the EU. [121619]

  Maria Eagle
  It has always been Government policy that social security benefits like disability living allowance, which are funded by the taxpayer and do not depend on contributions, should be available only to people who are resident in the United Kingdom. The situation differs depending upon whether Community law applies.

  Disability living allowance was listed in the EEC Regulation 1408/71 as a non-exportable, 'special noncontributory' benefit from 1 June 1992, so that new awards could not be payable to someone living
  522W
  permanently in another Member State. The regulation also applies to non-EU states which are within the European Economic Area (EEA) and to Switzerland.

  However, those in receipt of benefit before 1 June 1992 can continue to receive their benefit if they are living permanently in another Member State, providing they were covered by EEC Regulation 1408/71 prior to 1 June 1992. This applies not only to those who had worker status, but also to those who are members of the family of a worker who is an EEA national and thereby come within the personal scope of the regulation.

  For people who emigrate to countries outside the application of EEC Regulation 1408/71, there are no circumstances in which disability living allowance can continue in payment.

  Energy Efficiency
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets he has on improving energy efficiency in(a) his Department and (b) agencies sponsored by his Department; what steps he is taking to achieve these targets; and if he will make a statement. [119125]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department, including its Executive Agencies, is covered by the interim, cross-Government target of a 1 per cent per annum reduction in (weather corrected) CO2 emissions. A dedicated Energy Manager is based within the Sustainable Development Team, who works closely with Estates Partners to achieve this target. A number of projects are under way to install energy efficiency measures across a range of buildings on the Estate. In addition, the Sustainable Development Team undertake regular campaigns to highlight to staff the important contribution that they make to achieving this target.

  Fraud (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the estimated cost of(a) council tax benefit fraud and (b) housing benefit fraud in Scotland was in each year since 1997, broken down by local authority; [119712]

  (2) if he will estimate the cost of housing benefit fraud in Scotland, broken down by local authority, in each year since 1997; [119877]

  (3) how many instances there were of council tax benefit fraud in Scotland, broken down by local authority, in each year since 1997; [119878]

  (4) how many instances there were of housing benefit fraud in Scotland, broken down by local authority, in each year since 1997. [120134]

  Mr. Pond
  All the information requested is not available. However, the National Housing Benefit Accuracy Review of 1997–98 estimated that between 0.7per cent. and 2.9 per cent. housing benefit claims in Scotland were fraudulent in 1997–98, with a further 1.2 per cent. to 3.7 per cent. strongly suspected of fraud and 0.2 per cent. to 0.8 per cent. mildly suspected of fraud. These figures cannot be broken down to individual local authority level.
  523W
  We have now begun, for the first time, an ongoing review of fraud and error in housing benefit. National estimates of fraud and error for 2002–03 are expected to be published in December 2003 with further, more detailed, analysis following in early 2004. However, the sample sizes used may allow estimates to be broken down to regional level but not local authority level. Due to improvements in methodology and definitions used in the Housing Benefit Review it is unlikely that meaningful comparisons will be able to be made with the 1997–98 Review.

  Information on the cost of fraud and error is not available separately for council tax benefit. The measurement of fraud and error is complex and expensive and therefore it is concentrated on benefits with the highest expenditure and risk of loss, such as housing benefit. However, the measures that we are taking to fight fraud and error in housing benefit will also serve to improve the accuracy of council tax benefit.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on 20 May 2003,Official Report, columns 749–50W, on incapacity benefits, how many people claimed both incapacity benefit and income support in each year since 1995. [121256]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is in the table.

  People claiming incapacity benefit (IB) who are also in receipt of income support (IS)

  As at 30 November

  Number

  1995

  768,900

  1996

  794,400

  1997

  864,800

  1998

  872,800

  1999

  911,500

  2000

  970,300

  2001

  1,013,800

  2002

  1,057,100

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and are subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  2. Figure includes cases where people are claiming incapacity benefit but receiving national insurance credits only.

  Source:

  Figures are based on 5 per cent. samples of the incapacity benefit and income support computer systems, and exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of his staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year. [111943]

  Maria Eagle
  Between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003, 79 staff within the Department for Work and Pensions retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems.
  524W
  This information comes from British Medical International Health Services (BMI).

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the proportion of claimants for pension credit who will receive payment at the commencement of the scheme. [115397]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have a Public Service Agreement target that pension credit should be in payment to at least three million pensioner households by 2006. The current 1.8 million recipients of MIG will be automatically converted to pension redit and will start to receive payment from when it is introduced in October 2003. In addition we are writing to 20 per cent. of pensioner households inviting them to make advance claims and expect the vast majority of successful claims to be in payment by October 2003. No-one will lose out because they have not made an advance application. All those who apply before October 2004, if they're entitled will receive payment as though they had claimed at the very start, or to the first day they could have qualified, if later.

  Pensions
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his response of 7 May,Official Report, column 701W, whether his Department will assess the submission to his Department's Pensions Green Paper made by the Pensions Policy Institute on this issue. [119217]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions has assessed all of the comments and feedback received during the Green Paper consultation period and benefited from the many people and organisations who responded. This was the biggest ever consultation on pensions—during which we received some 800 responses from a wide range of groups and individuals. On 11 June, we published "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement. Action on occupational pensions" (Cm 5677) setting out action we will take to improve the security of occupational pensions and make it easier for employers to provide pensions. The document also signposts progress on the rest of our programme of reform on which we will make further announcements in due course.

  All of the comments received during this exercise have been assessed.

  Sewel Motions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list Sewel motions passed by the Scottish Parliament since May 1999 that apply to his Department's responsibilities and Government bills he has sponsored. [120689]

  Maria Eagle
  No bill sponsored by this Department has been the subject of a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament.

  Sustainable Development
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the departmental strategy for
  525W
  sustainable development will be published; and if he will make a statement on steps that (a) are being taken and
  (b) are planned to take forward the strategy. [119126]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions has already published some extracts from its Sustainable Development Strategy, as responses to the published targets from the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. The full strategy is currently being developed by the Department's dedicated Sustainable Development Team in consultation with officials from across DWP and its Executive Agencies. It is intended that the strategy will be published using the web site by the beginning of 2004, with subsequent additions being made as further targets are published under the Framework.

  There is already in place a Sustainable Development Steering Group who have overall responsibility for the delivery of the objectives contained within the DWP Sustainable Development Policy Statement. They will have strategic control of the strategy and ensure that it remains on course to deliver real improvements.

  A further group of officials—the Sustainable Development Network Group—have a more practical role to play in actively working within their areas and Business Units, on a day to day basis, to deliver the targets contained within the strategy.

  Water Bills
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the percentage of income a single person on jobseeker's allowance pays towards the average water bill in(a) Stoke on Trent, (b) the West Midlands and
  (c) England. [116377]

  Mr. Pond
  The information requested is not available.

PRIME MINISTER

  BP-TNK
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he sought advice concerning the signing ceremony of the joint venture between BP and the Russian oil company TNK; on what basis he has included the signing ceremony in the schedule of events during President Putin's state visit; and what representations he received from BP relating to the signing ceremony. [121940]

  The Prime Minister
  A state visit aims to strengthen the relationship between nations. President Putin and I welcomed the opportunity on 26 June to recognise the importance of the energy sector to our relationship by opening a major joint event "Russia-UK Energy: Long Term Partners".

  Such occasions provide opportunities to mark significant commercial developments, to the benefit of UK companies and to the benefit of the nation. Following advice from the Department of Trade and Industry, and with the support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I agreed that President Putin and I should be present at the signing of an agreement
  526W
  between BP and Alfa Group and Access-Renova (AAR) in the margins of the conference. My office discussed the practical arrangements with the two main sponsors of the event, Shell and BP.

  Children's Endowment Fund
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government department will have responsibility for administering the recently announced Children's Endowment Fund. [122129]

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to the Child Trust Fund. The Inland Revenue will administer the Child Trust Fund.

  EU Fraud
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations the Government have received from staff seconded to the European Communities with respect to instances of(a) fraud and (b) irregular activities within the institutions; what action he has taken in response; and if he will make a statement. [123045]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 2000, the UK Government have had a representation from one individual seconded to the EU Institutions. We recommended that they take their information to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and/or the appropriate police authorities, since these are the bodies which have responsibility in this area. The UK has no remit to investigate allegations of fraud or other corruption within the institutions of the European Union.

  Systems are in place for EU officials to submit evidence where they see wrongdoing. The UK has also supported Commission Vice-President Neil Kinnock's wide-ranging reforms to improve accountability and transparency within the EU Institutions. These include a Whistleblower's Charter; revised staff regulations; and the new Financial Regulation which radically reforms the accounting framework and systems.

HEALTH

  Allergies
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the prevalence of allergies was in the last 10 years; how many specialist allergy clinics there are; what research he has done to ascertain the reasons for the changing prevalence of allergies; what plans he has to increase the number of specialist allergy clinics; and if he will make more training places available for allergy specialists. [122632]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) estimate in their report into allergies published on 25 June, that at least 15 per cent. of the population is affected by some form of allergy. Additionally, the following table shows the number of prescription items for the treatment of allergies dispensed in the community in England between 1991–2002.
  527W

  Number of prescription items for treatment of allergies dispensed in the community in England, 1991 to 2002

  (000s)

  BNF sections

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  3.4.1 Antihistamines

  5,641.0

  6,116.7

  6,048.8

  6,184.3

  6,180.5

  3.4.3 Allergic emergencies

  10.6

  12.9

  15.5

  28.0

  38.0

  12.2.1 Drugs used in nasal allergy

  2,704.2

  3,233.4

  3,543.3

  3,748.0

  3,770.7

  Grand Total

  8,355.8

  9,363.0

  9,607.6

  9,960.4

  9,989.2

  (000s)

  BNF sections

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  3.4.1 Antihistamines

  6,125.9

  6,172.4

  6,616.3

  7,086.0

  7,407.1

  3.4.3 Allergic emergencies

  46.0

  51.0

  59.4

  64.5

  74.8

  12.2.1 Drugs used in nasal allergy

  3,872.6

  3,905.0

  4,104.7

  4,226.7

  4,221.8

  Grand total

  10,044.4

  10,128.4

  10,780.4

  11,374.2

  11,703.7

  (000s)

  BNF sections

  2001

  2002

  3.4.1 Antihistamines

  7,952.2

  8,356.6

  3.4.3 Allergic emergencies

  79.2

  103.3

  1 2.2.1 Drugs used in nasal allergy

  4,320.7

  4,433.9

  Grand total

  12,352.1

  12,893.8

  The British Allergy Foundation's (BAF) report refers to the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI)'s 2001 handbook of national health service allergy clinics, which lists 86 NHS consultant led clinics in the United Kingdom as well as two nurse led services run by BSCAI members. There were an additional 15 clinics run by NHS consultants identified by BAF in the handbook. Six of these 101 clinics offered services led by a whole-time specialist allergist.

  Regarding plans to increase the number of speciality clinics, it is the role of strategic health authorities, in partnership with primary care trusts, to decide what services to provide for their populations including those with allergies. They are best placed to understand local health needs and commission services to meet them.

  A range of research projects on the epidemiology of allergies are completed or on-going. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) was formed in 1991. Phase One measured the prevalence of childhood asthma, hayfever and atopic eczema for international comparisons. Phase Two began in 1998 and involves more intensive studies in a smaller number of countries. The Department of Health funded the UK contribution to Phase Two.

  The Food Standards Agency is currently funding a £0.5 million project which aims to establish how common food allergy is among children between birth and 15 years of age. King's College London is leading a £2.1 million EC-funded prospective study of the incidence and prognosis of allergy, allergic disease and low lung function in adults living in Europe. Also, The University of Manchester is leading a £1.2 million EC-funded investigation of the prevalence, pathogenesis, treatment and prevention of sun allergy across Europe. Sun-provoked skin reactions are one of the commonest forms of allergy.
  528W
  Concerning training place availability, for 2003-04, trusts will have the opportunity to create up to five locally funded Specialist Registrars (SpR) training opportunities in allergy. Central funding will also be distributed to support the implementation of one additional SpR posts in immunology and trusts will also have the opportunity to create up to five locally funded SpR training opportunities.

  Aphasia
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that all people with aphasia receive support from a multi-disciplinary team including a neurologist, psychologist, physician, speech and language therapist, social worker and others. [123391]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The majority of people who acquire aphasia have had a stroke. Our major vehicle for improving standards for stroke services is through the older people's national service framework (NSF) which sets specific milestones for improvement by 2004 of stroke services in primary care trusts (PCTs), specialist services and general hospitals that care for people suffering from a stroke. Our document, Improvement, Expansion and Reform, which sets for the national health service a Priorities and Planning Framework for 2003–6, makes clear that implementation of the older people's NSF is a top priority, and that the 2004 milestone around specialist stroke services is a key target.

  It is the role of strategic health authorities, in partnership with PCTs, to decide what services to provide for their populations including those with aphasia.. They me best placed to understand local health needs and commission services to meet them.

  Rheumatologists
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many rheumatologists there are in(a) South Sefton, (b) Southport and (c) Formby per 85,000 people. [122240]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of rheumatologists per 85,000 population in the South Sefton, Southport and Formby is not available.
  529W
  However, the table shows the number of hospital medical staff within the rheumatology specialty for the South Sefton, Southport and Formby areas.

  Hospital medical staff within the rheumatology specialty for specified trusts

  Number (headcount)

  As at 30 September 2002

  All staff

  Of which: Consultant

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  11

  3

  Southport and Ormskirk Hospitals NHS Trust

  2

  2

  source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Bone Scanners
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bone scanners there are in England; and how they are distributed around the country. [122321]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information about the number of bone scanners is not collected in the format requested. However, the National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency estimates that there are approximately 345 scanners across the United Kingdom.

  Carers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) quantity and (b) length of respite breaks for carers was provided by local authorities in England for (a) families caring for people with learning disability and (b) all forms of respite in 2002–03. [123439]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the quantity of respite breaks for all carers and specifically those caring for people with learning disabilities in 2002–03 will be available towards the end of the summer. Information on the length of breaks is not collected centrally.

  Children
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the national service framework for children; and how many children were involved in the consultation process. [122462]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The first module of the children's national service framework (NSF), "The Standard for Hospital Services", was published on 10 April 2003, in conjunction with an Emerging Findings consultation document setting out the direction of travel for the whole NSF. The main NSF report is due to be published in 2004.

  In line with the principles laid out in the Department of Health action plan "Listening, Hearing and Responding", the views and opinions of a number of children and young people have been sought as part of the NSF development process, by the external working groups working with various voluntary organisations. These consultations have included children and young people in a range of settings and from varied ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds, and include children and young people in rural/urban areas, groups of children in hospitals and in schools, looked-after children and disabled children. Organisations such as the National
  530W
  Children's Bureau, Contact A Family and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have involved hundreds through various consultation processes, which included questionnaires and group discussions, though we have not been able to calculate the exact number.

  Commission for Social Care Inspection
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Commission for Social Care Inspection will be required to give notice of its intention to conduct an inspection under clause 76(6) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122912]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Bill provides that the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) may exercise its powers of entry and inspection at any reasonable time. Whether it would be reasonable to give advance notice of an individual inspection would be a decision that the CSCI would have to make in the light of the particular circumstances.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the Government will stipulate a time period in which the report must be published under clause 76(7) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; [122913]

  (2) what the criteria will be for a decision to be taken as to whether the publishing of a report is appropriate under clause 76(7) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122914]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The intention behind this clause is that the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) will always publish a report following an inspection, although it will have the discretion to determine the content of that report. We will be tabling amendments at report in order to make this intention clear.

  CSCI will also be responsible for determining the appropriate time period in which a report should be published. This may vary, depending on such factors as the length and complexity of the review or investigation that has been carried out.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government will stipulate a time period in which the CSCI must inform the Secretary of State of its decision to award the lowest performance rating under clause 77(2) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122915]

  Dr. Ladyman
  No. As an independent inspectorate, this will be a decision for the Commission for Social Care Inspection.

  It is implicit that the Secretary of State will be notified as soon as possible.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the Secretary of State will make public the recommendations that the CSCI have put forward under clause 77(2) and (3) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; [122916]
  531W
  (2) whether the CSCI will be required to make the notice public under clause 77(4(a)) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; [122927]

  (3) where the CSCI finds a local authority is failing to discharge any of its social service functions to an acceptable standard, whether the CSCI will make their findings public under clause 77(3) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122917]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Under clause 77 (now clause 75 following amendments made in committee) the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) will issue advice and make recommendations on a wide variety of subjects. Some of these may be appropriate for publication. However, in other cases, such advice may contain confidential information. It will be a matter for CSCI with the Secretary of State as appropriate, to decide if its advice and recommendations should be published.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines the Government will issue requiring the CSCI to report to the Secretary of State that a local authority is failing to discharge any of its social service functions to an acceptable standard under clause 77 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122918]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Secretary of State for Health has no powers under the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill to issue such guidelines to the Commission for Social Care Inspection. In fulfilling its duty under clause 77 (following amendments made in committee, this is now clause 75), it will be the Commission's responsibility to develop appropriate reporting mechanisms for informing the Secretary of State that a local authority is significantly failing to discharge any of its functions to an acceptable standard.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional functions the CSCI is to have under Clause 80 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122929]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The social care sector and the methods of delivery of local authority social services are constantly changing, with new initiatives emerging that might necessitate giving additional functions to the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Such additional functions cannot yet be identified and therefore cannot be dealt with on the face of the Bill itself or described here.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under Clause 82 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, what the procedure is for lodging a complaint against the CSCI; who will be responsible for investigating complaints against the CSCI; whether complaints against the CSCI will be made public; whether the Secretary of State will make public a direction in writing when the CSCI has failed in its discharge of functions; and whether the Secretary of State is able to remove the chief executive where a significant failure of a discharge in the CSCI's functions has occurred. [122930]
  532W
  Dr. Ladyman
  Complaints about the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) would in the first instance be made to CSCI itself, which would carry out an internal investigation of the complaint. It would be for CSCI itself to develop detailed protocols for how such complaints should be managed. If the complainant remained dissatisfied with the outcome of such an investigation, then their complaint could be referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The Bill would not place a duty upon CSCI to make public complaints that have been made against it. However, in its annual report to Parliament CSCI would have a duty to report on the way it has exercised their functions over the course of the year. This report would be expected to give general details of the number and type of complaints that have been made.

  The Bill would not place a duty upon the Secretary of State to automatically make public any direction that he issues to the CSCI. He would decide on a case by case basis whether it would be appropriate to publish such a direction.

  Schedule 6(5) of the Bill makes clear that CSCI would have responsibility for the appointment of its own chief inspector. The Secretary of State would no powers to appoint, nor to remove, the chief inspector.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the specified factors which may be taken into account when a fee is to be determined under Clause 83(3)(c) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122932]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Under clause 83(3) (now 80(3)) the Secretary of State may specify in regulations the factors that Commission for Social Care Inspection must take into account in determining any fee payable under section 83(1) (now 80(1)). The detail of these regulations is yet to be developed, and we will be consulting on these in due course.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the terms of reference are for the independent person or panel under Clause 83(b) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; and who will be responsible for appointing the independent person or panel. [122933]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Section 80(6) (formally section 83(6)) will allow the Secretary of State to appoint under regulations an independent person or panel to review fees payable in particular classes of cases under section 80(1). These regulations may also include any terms of reference the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines the Government have set out for CSCI to devise criteria for the annual reviews of local authority social service departments under Clause 75 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; [122935]

  (2) when the Government will publish the criteria the CSCI has devised for the annual reviews of local authority social service departments. [122936]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) will publish the criteria. This cannot happen until the CSCI has been created, and has devised the criteria, and they have been approved by the
  533W
  Secretary of State. The Secretary of State does not have any powers under the Bill to issue guidelines to the body in respect of those criteria.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what remedies the Secretary of State has if the CSCI fails to take into account the guidance issued to local authorities under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c42) under Clause 75 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; [122937] s

  (2) what remedies the Secretary of State has if the CSCI fails to take into account the standards prepared and published under section 23 of the Care Standards Act 2000 under Clause 75 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122938]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill provides under Clause 82 (first print of the Bill) that, where the Secretary of State considers that the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) is failing to a significant extent to discharge its functions, he may give it a direction in writing, with which the CSCI is obliged to comply.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government expects CSCI to give notice where it intends to carry out an inspection of an authority under Clause 75(7) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122939]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Bill provides that Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) may exercise its powers of entry and inspection at any reasonable time. Whether it would be reasonable to give advance notice of an individual inspection would be a decision that the CSCI would have to make in the light of the particular circumstances.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what standards the CSCI will apply to ascertain whether a local authority social service department has improved under Clause 72 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; [122945]

  (2) what standards the CSCI will apply to ascertain the effectiveness of measures taken by local authority social service departments to carry out services listed in 2(a)-2(f) under clause 72 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122946]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Commission for Social Care Inspection will devise criteria against which to assess the effectiveness, and improvement, of local authority social services departments. These criteria will take into account any statutory requirements that exist for local authorities, guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section seven of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and, where appropriate, standards prepared under section 23 of the Care Standards Act 2000.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria the CSCI will use to assess the economy and their value for money on services under Clause 72 of the Health and Social Care Bill. [122947]
  534W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The Commission for Social Care Inspection will devise the criteria it will use to assess the economy and value for money of local authority social services under clause 72 (now clause 70 following amendments made in committee) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government plan to require the CSCI to consult and involve the service users in its work at(a) national and (b) local level under Clause 72 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122949]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on Monday 23 June 2003,Official Report, columns 573–74W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the CSCI will keep the Secretary of State informed of provision of services, and how frequently, under Clause 73 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122950]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In general, the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) will determine how, and the frequency with which, it will keep the Secretary of State informed about the provision of local authority social services in accordance with its obligation under clause 71 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill.

  Specifically under subsection (4) of that clause, the CSCI, when requested by the Secretary of State, must give him advice or information on such matters connected with the provision of English local authority social services as he may request.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the maximum fine payable is under Clause 87(4) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; [122957]

  (2) what the maximum fine payable is under Clause 88(3) of the Health and Social Care Bill [122959]

  (3) what the maximum fine payable is under Clause 86(5) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122964]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The penalty on summary conviction of an offence under clauses 86, 87 and 88 of the Bill (as introduced, now clauses 83, 84, 85) is a fine not exceeding level 4 (£2500) on the standard scale, as set out in the Explanatory Notes.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, under Clause 88(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, who is responsible for deciding what constitutes a prescribed person; under what circumstances the Government would expect the CSCI to consider an explanation necessary; and whether it would expect the CSCI to lay down the prescription required for such times and places as an explanation may be required. [122958]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The definition of a prescribed person and the prescription of times and places at which an explanation will be required will be set out in regulations which will be made by the Secretary of State.
  535W
  It will be for the Commission for Social Care Inspection to decide where an explanation is necessary or expedient but this might include where it finds discrepancies within data it has received or where information it has obtained provides evidence of potential failure on the part of a local authority.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government will put in place safeguards to ensure that vital equipment is not removed without prior agreement under Clause 86(1)(b) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122961]

  Dr. Ladyman
  No.

  We expect the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) will normally obtain any information or other material such as technical equipment it may need by agreement. The power to remove equipment may be necessary where inspectors suspect, for example, tampering of either data or equipment has taken place or that service user safety is being put at risk. It is right in such circumstances that CSCI are able to remove such equipment for examination without having to negotiate first for its release.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government will put in place safeguards to ensure that only records, with particular reference to those held on computer, which are relevant to an investigation are inspected and that an individual's right to privacy is protected under Clause 86 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122963]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Subsection (1) of clause 86 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill (first print) establishes that the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) may access records that it considers are necessary or expedient for the purpose of its functions under chapter 5 of the Bill. It will be for CSCI to decide what information is relevant to its inspections.

  This will ensure that CSCI will not be able to inspect records unless it considers that they are relevant to the exercise of its functions. A body will have recourse to the courts if CSCI exercises its powers in an inappropriate way.

  Congenital Heart Disease
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the estimated change in the occurrence of congenital heart disease is over the next 10 years; [122394]

  (2) what the estimated change in the number of children born with congenital heart disease is over the next 10 years. [122395]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It is estimated that for every thousand live births there will, sadly, be eight children born with congenital heart disease. This rate is not expected to increase. However the Government Actuary's forecast for the number of live births predicts a small increase in the birth rate over the next ten to fifteen years. This means that the overall incidence of congenital heart disease is set to rise slightly; that is, from 4,577 children in the year 2002 to an estimated 4,723 children to be 536W
  born in 2014. The prevalence of congenital heart disease; that is, the total number of people living with the disease, will continue to rise, as treatments continue to become more successful.

  Dementia/Alzheimer's
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding the Government put into researching Alzheimer's disease and dementia in the last 12 months. [122891]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The main Government agency for research into the causes and treatments of disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding from the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology. The MRC's expenditure on research into Alzheimer's disease, general dementia and related conditions in 2001–02 was £6.6 million. A figure for 2002–03 is not available.

  The Department of Health funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in health and social care. The Department spent £1.6 million on research into Alzheimer's disease and dementia in 2002–03.

  Doctors (Minority Ethnic People)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of NHS doctors who are from the black and ethnic minority community; and if he will list the percentage for(a) consultant and (b) non-consultant grades. [121313]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): All medical and dental staff by Ethnic Category England at 30 September 2001

  All Staff

  All medical and dental staff

  73,846

  2001 Population Census Ethnic Group Categories

  All Ethnic Groups

  28,003

  White

  17,661

  Black or Black British

  918

  Asian or Asian British

  5,928

  Mixed

  478

  Chinese

  538

  Any Other Ethnic Group

  1,473

  Not Stated

  1,007

  Earlier Ethnic Group Categories

  All Ethnic Groups

  45,843

  White

  31,015

  Black

  1,906

  Asian

  8,472

  Any Other Ethnic Group

  3,744

  Not Stated

  706

  Note:

  From 1 April 2001, newly appointed staff have been asked to classify themselves using the ethnic categories listed in the 2001 population census. Existing staff will be reclassified over time but data returns currently include a mixture of 2001 categories and older information based on 1991 population census categories.
  537W

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): All medical and dental staff by Ethnic Category

  Percentage

  Of which:

  All staff

  Consultants

  All other medical and dental staff

  All medical and dental staff

  100

  100

  100

  2001 Population census ethnic group categories

  All Ethnic Groups

  37.9

  30.9

  41.6

  White

  23.9

  24.6

  23.5

  Black or Black British

  1.2

  0.6

  1.6

  Asian or Asian British

  8.0

  3.4

  10.5

  Mixed

  0.6

  0.3

  0.8

  Chinese

  0.7

  0.3

  0.9

  Any Other Ethnic Group

  2.0

  1.1

  2.5

  Not Stated

  1.4

  0.6

  1.8

  Earlier ethnic group categories

  All Ethnic Groups

  62.1

  69.1

  58.4

  White

  42.0

  55.7

  34.7

  Black

  2.6

  1.9

  3.0

  Asian

  11.5

  6.5

  14.1

  Any Other Ethnic Group

  5.1

  4.4

  5.4

  Not Stated

  1.0

  0.6

  1.2

  Notes:

  1. From 1 April 2001, newly appointed staff have been asked to classify themselves using the ethnic categories listed in the 2001 population census. Existing staff will be reclassified over time but data returns currently include a mixture of 2001 categories and older information based on 1991 population census categories.

  2. General practitioner data, by ethnic category, is not collected by the Department.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Epidemics
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what preparations his Department has made in the event of an outbreak of(a) tularaemia, (b) viral haemorrhagic fever, (c) plague and (d) botulism. [122099]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Guidance on the management and control of viral haemorrhagic fevers was produced by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) in December 1996.

  The Department of Health published specific guidance in October 2001 concerning the public health response to a deliberate release of botulism, plague or tularaemia. This advice is available on the Department's website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/epcu/cbr/response/introph.htm

  It is complemented by operational guidance and advice for professionals and the public, developed in conjunction with the Health Protection Agency and hosted on their website at http://www.phls.org.uk/ topics_az/deliberate_release/menu.htm

  In preparing to respond to a deliberate release or large outbreak involving these agents, the Department holds a national stockpile of antibiotics and anti-toxin required for treatment of plague, tularaemia and botulism.

  Farmed Salmon
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has collated in respect to the 538W
  discovering of radioactive pollution from technetium 99 in farmed salmon; and what discussions he has had on the discovery with the chairman of the Food Standards Agency. [122280]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA), in conjunction with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, has obtained samples of salmon from 15 fish farms in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The preliminary results of the analyses of these samples show that the concentrations of technetium 99 are very low. The FSA has published data on technetium 99 in other marine species in its annual "Radiation in Food and the Environment" reports.

  I have had no discussions with the chairman of the FSA on this matter.

  Fruit and Vegetables
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of(a) men, (b) women and (c) children who eat five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. [122463]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Health Survey for England in 2001 estimated that 24 per cent. of men, 28 per cent. of women and 13 per cent. of children ate five portions or more of fruit and vegetables a day. One portion is 80 grams (it is estimated that eating at least five portions a day of a variety of fruit and vegetables would reduce overall deaths from chronic diseases by a fifth).

  General Practitioners
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether GPs will be required to make payments to hospitals under the plans to recover NHS costs from compensation settlements. [122377]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Subject to parliamentary approval, the proposals in Part 3 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will mean that anyone who makes a compensation payment to another in respect of a personal injury will also be liable to pay associated national health service costs if the injured person receives NHS hospital treatment for the injury. This will apply to general practitioners in the same way as it will to anyone else. Any NHS costs payable will be in addition to the compensation payment made, not recovered from it.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what powers a local pharmaceutical committee has to remove the right of a general practitioner to dispense; [122500]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the powers to reclassify areas covered by dispensing doctors from rural to urban under the NHS Pharmaceutical Regulations Act 1992. [122501]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  National health service primary care trusts (PCTs) determine whether an area is rural in character, which is a key element in deciding whether or not a doctor can provide pharmaceutical services to certain of their patients. Such determinations can be appealed.
  539W
  A PCT can revisit a determination at any time where a substantial change of circumstances affecting the relevant area takes place. Otherwise, if the PCT has not considered a particular area for five years, either the local medical committee or local pharmaceutical committee can require the PCT to re-consider the area and make a fresh determination, which can likewise be appealed.

  Head Injuries
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people suffered head injuries in(a) the UK and (b) Sefton in each year from 1993 to 2003; [124101]

  (2) what percentage of people in (a) the UK and
  (b) Sefton who have suffered brain injury in the past 10 years have recovered completely. [124102]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Data on the incidence of individual conditions is not collected centrally. Research evidence, however, suggests that around 1 million people a year suffer a head injury and, of those, around 100,000 receive an injury severe enough to require hospital treatment.

  Data on treatment outcomes for individual patients is not collected centrally. Research evidence suggests that many patients never make a full recovery and are left with life long disabilities. It is estimated that there may be up to 75,000 people in that situation.

  Separate information is not available for Sefton.

  The national service framework on long term conditions will have a particular focus on the needs of people with neurological disease, brain and spinal injury, as well as some of the common issues faced by people with a long-term condition such as rehabilitation. It will set standards of improvement in treatment and care for people with head injury.

  Hip Fractures
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many primary care trusts have adopted an osteoporosis prevention strategy. [122320]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We do not collect information on how many primary care trusts have adopted an osteoporosis prevention strategy.

  We are taking osteoporosis forward through the falls section of the national service framework for older people. This requires local health and social care systems to establish an integrated falls service by 2005. These services must include appropriate interventions and advice to prevent osteoporotic fracture.

  HIV
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) deaths there were from human immunodeficiency virus and (b) new cases were diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus in each year since 1980. [122449]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested for England is shown in the table for deaths in people diagnosed as HIV infected, by year of death and new diagnoses of HIV infection, by year of diagnosis.
  540W

  Year

  Deaths in people diagnosed with HIV

  New HIV diagnoses

  1980

  0

  27

  1981

  1

  35

  1982

  7

  99

  1983

  18

  216

  1984

  48

  836

  1985

  146

  2,922

  1986

  292

  2,425

  1987

  387

  2,238

  1988

  441

  1,758

  1989

  678

  1,980

  1990

  801

  2,373

  1991

  962

  2,489

  1992

  1,117

  2,544

  1993

  1,422

  2,392

  1994

  1,527

  2,363

  1995

  1,529

  2,440

  1996

  1,308

  2,472

  1997

  652

  2,505

  1998

  447

  2,612

  1999

  416

  2,864

  2000

  424

  3,609

  2001

  340

  4,724

  2002

  290

  5,037

  Note:

  Numbers, particularly for recent years, will as further reports are received.

  Source:

  Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Health Protection Agency, data to end of March 2003.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 676W, on mental health, what the ages are of the children cared for by adult mental health services in Mersey Care National Health Service Trust area. [122039]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As at 25 June 2003, the number of under 18-year-olds being treated by adult mental health services in Mersey Care National Health Service were 13 who were aged 16 years and eighteen who were aged 17 years.

  Muscular Dystrophy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of hospitals treat muscular dystrophy. [122453]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the configuration of hospitals and the diseases that they treat is not held centrally. There is no specific treatment for any of the forms of muscular dystrophy. Physical therapy and corrective orthopaedic surgery may be needed to improve the quality of life in some cases. This treatment may be delivered in either a primary or secondary care setting depending on the clinical needs of the patient.

  Myeloma
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of delays in the diagnosis of myeloma. [122027]
  541W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The NHS Cancer Plan sets out our strategy to reduce waiting times for cancer patients. A two week out-patient waiting time standard was introduced for all urgently referred cases of suspected cancer from 2000. Myeloma is included in leukaemia waiting times and in the last quarter, January-March 2003, 98.7 per cent. of all urgently referred cases of suspected leukaemia were seen within two weeks. From 2001, a maximum waiting time of one month from urgent referral to first treatment was introduced for urgently referred cases of suspected leukaemia and in the last quarter 98.6 per cent. of patients were treated within a month of referral. Data on all current cancer waiting times targets are published on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/cancerwaits.

  Neurological Registrars
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) funded and (b) un-funded specialist neurological registrars there were in each NHS region in (i) 1997-98 and (ii) the most recent year for which figures are available. [121622]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the number of hospital medical staff within the registrar group in neurology by national health service region in 1997, 1998 and the latest year available, 2001.

  Hospital medical registrar group within the neurology specialty by region

  Number (headcount)

  England at 30 September

  1997

  1998

  2001

  England

  159

  149

  162

  Northern and Yorkshire

  18

  11

  23

  Trent

  15

  15

  12

  West Midlands

  8

  10

  15

  North West

  15

  19

  19

  Eastern

  12

  8

  15

  London

  77

  72

  60

  South East

  8

  9

  11

  South Western

  6

  5

  7

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  The funding arrangements in 1997 and 1998 required Postgraduate Deans to fund 50 per cent. of the cost of a new specialist registrar (SpR) post and trusts would fund the remaining 50 per cent.

  SpR posts are now funded in two ways; either through central funding (100 per cent. funding) or local funding, in which trusts either convert existing training posts or remap money into the training levy to pay for the post. This process of funding was established in 2001–02.

  In 2001–02, central funding was provided to support the implementation of five additional SpR posts in neurology and eight additional posts were funded locally.

  In 2003–04, central funding is being provided to support the implementation of 10 additional SpR posts in neurology. Trusts will also have the opportunity to create up to 20 locally funded SpR training opportunities.

  NHS Counter Fraud Service
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls to the NHS Counter Fraud Service there were in each of the last three years; and(a) how many and (b) what percentage of calls resulted in a successful prosecution. [118776]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (NHS CFSMS) receives numerous telephone calls. The total number of call is not recorded. Where a call indicates the possible existence of fraud or corruption within the NHS, it is referred to a counter fraud specialist for assessment. Following the assessment, and where sufficient information or evidence is provided, the matter is investigated and termed a referral. Details of the numbers of referrals received in the last three years, along with cases where fraud was found to be present, are shown in the tables.

  Number

  Number of referrals

  1,646

  Closed cases

  1,244

  Cases where fraud present

  454

  Figures shown as percentage

  36.5

  The presence of fraud can only be finally determined once a case has been closed and the investigation completed. Four hundred and two cases remain open and are currently under investigation or awaiting sanction. In addition to the 454 cases where fraud was found to be present, fraud was found not to be present in a further 790 cases.

  The sanctions available to CFSMS where fraud has been proven are the criminal prosecution and the civil and disciplinary sanction. The figures for the last three years are shown in the table.

  Number

  Cases where fraud present

  454

  Cases where sanction sought

  358

  Figures shown as percentage

  78.85

  Cases where sanction applied

  330

  Figures shown as percentage

  92.17

  Sanctions have not been sought in 105 cases where fraud was found to be present. It may not be in the public interest to progress an investigation to the sanction stage for evidential, cost or for medical reasons.

  Criminal prosecution and civil and disciplinary action are only part of the sanction process. The CFSMS also seek to recover, wherever possible, moneys that have been fraudulently obtained. The figures for the last three years are shown in the table.

  Number

  Cases where sanction applied

  330

  Criminal prosecutions

  137

  Civil and disciplinary sanctions

  193

  Financial recoveries (£ million)

  11.7

  Obesity
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were diagnosed in(a) England, (b) each region and (c) each LEA as being clinically obese in each of the last 10 years. [121063]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Figures for the numbers of children diagnosed as being clinically obese are not available. Obesity is normally measured in terms of body mass index (BMI). There are emerging international standards to define childhood obesity but they were developed among a population that was not representative of English children. An alternative method monitors the percentage of children who are above the 95th percentile of the 1990 BMI reference data. According to this method, five per cent. of children in 1990 had a BMI above this level and were thus classified as obese.

  Increases over 5 per cent. in the proportion of children who exceed the reference 95th percentile over time indicate an upward trend in the prevalence of obesity. When applied to Health Survey for England data, this method suggests that between 1996 and 2001 the percentage of children (aged 6–15) with a BMI above this threshold (representing the prevalence of obesity) increased by 3.5 percentage points, from 12.1 per cent. in 1996 to 15.6 per cent. in 2001.

  There is no data available by region, using this definition. Regional comparisons of the percentage of children in BMI quintiles were published in "The Health Survey for England—The Health of Young People 95–97", table 3.17, a copy of which is available in the Library. No information is available by local education authority.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of(a) men and (b) women were classified as (i) obese and (ii) overweight in each year since 1980. [121064]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Figures for all years since 1980 are not available but the table shows estimates from a population survey, the Health Survey for England, from 1991, when the survey began. Although earlier surveys have information on overweight and obesity comparisons are difficult because of different survey methodologies. The Health Survey covers ages 16 and over.

  Body mass index(BMI), 1991–2001—Aged 16 and over—BMI (kg/m2)

  Obese (%)

  Overweight (%)

  Men

  1991–921

  12.0

  42.0

  1993

  13.2

  44.4

  1994

  13.8

  44.3

  1995

  15.3

  44.0

  1996

  16.4

  44.6

  1997

  17.0

  45.2

  1998

  17.3

  45.5

  1999

  18.7

  43.9

  2000

  21.0

  44.5

  2001

  21.0

  46.6

  Women

  1991–921

  16.0

  29.0

  1993

  16.4

  32.2

  1994

  17.3

  31.4

  1995

  17.5

  32.9

  544W

  Body mass index(BMI), 1991–2001—Aged 16 and over—BMI (kg/m2)

  Obese (%)

  Overweight (%)

  1996

  18.4

  33.6

  1997

  19.7

  32.8

  1998

  21.2

  32.1

  1999

  21.1

  32.8

  2000

  21.4

  33.8

  2001

  23.5

  32.9

  1The samples sizes in 1991 and 1992 were smaller than in subsequent years and for reporting purposes the estimates from both years were combined.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government has to review the role of the food industry in reducing obesity levels. [118964]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The effective prevention and management of obesity requires an integrated, cross-government approach, working with a range of partners on programmes to improve diet and increase physical activity levels. The Department of Health, together with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and other Government departments, are working with the food industry—producers, manufacturers, retailers and caterers—to improve the overall balance of diet, including salt, fat and sugar in food.

  The Department of Health is leading the development of a cross-Government food and health action plan. Although the plan will be Government led, it will aim to include actions bya range of organisations including the food industry. The plan will address food production, manufacture and preparation, access to healthier food and provision of information for consumers about healthy eating and nutrition. The plan will address healthy eating at all stages of life and will build on existing work to improve diet and nutrition.

  The FSA has commissioned a review on the evidence available on the effect of promotional activities on the eating behaviour of children. This will critically appraise the available evidence and draw conclusions on their effect relative to other influences on eating behaviour.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice the Government issues to healthcare professionals regarding the health risks of obesity. [118966]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Action to address obesity in England is being taken forward through the national service frameworks (NSFs) for coronary heart disease, older people and diabetes. The forthcoming NSF for children will address the health and social care needs of all children and will include the promotion of healthy eating and physical activity.

  The Health Development Agency (HDA) is setting out the evidence base for effective interventions on the prevention and treatment of overweight and obesity, and the maintenance of weight loss. The HDA is also undertaking "evidence into practice" work following their review of effective interventions.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has issued guidance on the anti-obesity drugs orlistat and sibutramine, treatment with which should be accompanied by specific concomitant advice, support and counselling on diet, physical activity and

  545W
  behavioural strategies. In July 2002, NICE also issued guidance which confirmed that surgical intervention was an appropriate treatment in some cases for the treatment of morbid obesity, when other options have proved unsuccessful. There is also a national quality assurance framework for exercise referral systems to promote physical activity.

  The Department of Health has also supported the development of guidance for professionals in primary care on weight management in children and adolescents, and contributed through the Section 64 Grant Scheme to the funding of the charity Weight Concern to develop a "toolkit" on obesity, for professionals to use with patients in a group setting.

  Childhood Obesity
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which primary care trusts authorise the use of orlistat to children in the treatment of obesity. [122407]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance issued to the National Health Service states that orlistat should only be prescribed for people between the ages of 18 and 75 years. Orlistat is prescribed to children at the discretion of the local clinician and primary care trust (PCT). In 2002, 541,400 prescription items of orlistat were dispensed in the community in England. Of that total approximately 3,000 were dispensed for children.

  Information is not available on how these 3,000 items for children were spread across PCTs. However, orlistat prescriptions (not just for children) were prescribed in general practitioner practices in all PCTs in 2002.

  Prison Dental Treatment
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting time is to receive dental treatment for(a) those in pain and (b) those requiring routine treatment at (i) HMP Acklington, (ii) HMP Albany, (iii) HMP/YOI Altcourse, (iv) HMP Ashford, (v) HMP Askham, (vi) HMP/YOI Aylesbury, (vii) HMP Bedford, (viii) HMP Belmarsh, (ix) HMP Birmingham and (x) HMP Blakenhurst. [122399]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Those prisoners experiencing dental pain receive treatment without delay, where necessary accessing outside services. Information about routine dental treatment is not comprehensively available. For specific treatments, prisons report waiting times of between one and 55 days. Routine appointments typically take longer.

  Carers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to monitor the peformance of local authorities in England in the provision of respite care breaks. [123443]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on 19 June 2003,Official Report, column 427W.

  Sensory Impairment
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients suffered from sensory impairment, in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by sense. [122408]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Figures are not held centrally showing how many national health service patients with a sensory impairment are treated for conditions other than their impairment. The table shows the number of finished consultant episodes in 2001–02, for which the primary diagnosis was sensory loss. The figures given are very much an underestimate because they relate specifically to sensory loss. Many other conditions may well cause sensory loss, but that is not the primary diagnosis. For example, there were 265,123 finished consultant episodes in the same period for patients whose primary diagnosis was 'disorders of the lens', including cataracts.

  Finished consultation episodes, 2001–02

  Sense

  Number

  Hearing

  3,285

  Sight

  424

  Taste/smell

  74

  Touch

  1,562

  Notes:

  1. A finished consultant episode is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes or be admitted several times within the year.

  2. Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of hospitals had(a) hearing volunteers to assist hearing impaired patients and (b) sight volunteers to assist sight impaired patients in the last year for which figures are available; [122409]

  (2) what percentage of hospitals used sign language interpreters for hearing impaired patients in the last year for which figures are available; [122410]

  (3) what percentage of hospitals used written communications designed for deaf-blind patients in the last year for which figures are available; [122411]

  (4) what percentage of hospitals had access to (a) Type Talk and (b) Minicom services for hearing impaired patients in the last year for which figures are available; [122412]

  (5) what percentage of nurses were trained in communicating with sensory impaired patients in the last year for which figures are available; [122413]

  (6) if he will introduce a protocol for communicating with sensory impaired patients. [122445]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In 1999, the Department of Health issued "Doubly Disabled: Equality for Disabled People in the New NHS Access to Services", to chief executives of health authorities and national health service trusts. This includes a section on providing good quality services for deaf and hard of hearing people. The NHS University (NHSU) is leading on the design and delivery of a disability equality training strategy for the NHS
  547W
  workforce as part of the wider Department of Health human resources directorate's equalities and diversity delivery plan. As part of this work, NHSU will consider a protocol for communicating with sensory impaired patients. This strategy will also influence the strengthening of disabilities awareness within health professional education and training. Statistical information on the strategies adopted by hospitals in communicating with patients who have sensory impairments is not collected centrally.

  Strokes
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average age is for(a) men and (b) women suffering strokes; and what the main causes of strokes are. [122392]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Around 110,000 people in England and Wales have a first stroke each year and the majority affect people over 55. Around 10,000 strokes a year occur in people under the age of 55.The summary report of the National Sentinel Stroke Audit, published in July 2002, showed that the mean age for stroke was 73 in men and 79 in women. A breakdown of these figures is shown in the table.

  Age in years Percentage <65

  Age in Years Percentage 65–74

  Age in years Percentage 75+

  Mean

  Male

  23

  28

  49

  73 year

  Female

  11

  19

  70

  79 year

  There are two main types of stroke, and each has different causes. The first type, an ischaemic stroke, occurs when a blood clot blocks an artery serving the brain, disrupting blood supply. The second main type of stroke is a haemorrhagic stroke, when a blood vessel in or around the brain bursts, causing a bleed or haemorrhage. Main risk factors for stroke include:

  Previous stroke

  High blood pressure

  Irregular heart beat

  Other cardiovascular disease

  Narrowing of a carotid artery

  Diabetes

  High cholesterol

  Obesity

  Alcohol misuse

  Poor diet

  Low levels of physical activity

  Smoking

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support the Government give to stroke clubs and other organisations helping people who have suffered from strokes; and if he will make a statement. [123399]

  Dr. Ladyman
  At present, no Government funding is supplied specifically to stroke clubs. Our main source of funding to the voluntary sector is the Section 64 grant scheme. In 2002–03 £22 million was awarded to 394 different organisations. Application forms for the 2004–05 bidding round will shortly be available from 548W
  the grants unit. Voluntary organisations which organise stroke clubs will be able to bid for these funds. Other organisations receiving Government grants may be helping people who have had strokes, but we do not hold this information centrally.

  Vitamins and Minerals
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the handling by the press office of the Food Standards Agency of the publication of the Expert Group's Report on Vitamins and Minerals; and if he will make a statement. [122194]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 142W.

  Vulnerable People
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government intend to include the need to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of(a) mentally ill adults and (b) older people under Clause 72 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122948]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Bill makes provision for the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) to have special regard for the most vulnerable group in society, children, but singling them out for such particular attention does not mean that other vulnerable groups will not have their rights and welfare promoted by CSCI.

  CSCI will have the responsibility to look at the provision of services for all people, including mentally ill adults and older people.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Experiments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much he has spent on researching alternatives to animal testing in each of the last 20 years; [122654]

  (2) how much he has spent on animal test research in each of the last 20 years. [122655]

  Caroline Flint
  Since the financial year 1988–89, the Home Office has made a budget available to the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) for the development and promotion of alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used, or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering. Work aimed at improving the environmental conditions in which laboratory animals are kept and transported has also been sponsored. Details of completed research are published in the annual reports of the Animal Procedures Committee, which are available from The Stationery Office and, for recent years, on the Committee's website. The budget provided to the APC and, where available, the actual expenditure, in each year since 1988–89 was as follows.
  549W

  Animal Procedures Committee budget

  £

  Financial year

  Budget allocated

  Actual spend

  1988–89

  60,000

  70,000

  1989–90

  120,000

  n/a

  1990–91

  122,000

  n/a

  1991–92

  215,000

  n/a

  1992–93

  253,000

  n/a

  1993–94

  308,000

  n/a

  1994–95

  273,000

  n/a

  1995–96

  253,000

  n/a

  1996–97

  242,000

  242,000

  1997–98

  182,000

  181,621

  1998–99

  259,000

  257,141

  1999–2000

  259,000

  275,000

  2000–01

  265,000

  170,203

  2001–02

  280,000

  173,906

  2002–03

  280,000

  272,104

  The Home Office has no regulatory requirement for animal test data and does not incur expenditure on such research. Nor do Home Office records show any expenditure on any one-off research projects requiring such data.

  Charity Commission
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what requests for information the Charity Commission has made of Mr. Robert Winter of Wendover, Bucks, in respect of the activities of(a) Solutions RMC Ltd, (b) Breast Cancer Research Scotland and (c) Breast Cancer Relief; [121199]

  (2) if he will request the Charity Commission to conduct an investigation into the affairs of Breast Cancer Relief in Manchester. [121201]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  These are matters for the Charity Commission as the Government department responsible for the regulation of charities in England and Wales. The Director of Operations will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Volunteering
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how effective the Experience Corps (TEC) project has been to date; how many people have participated; what the average age is of participants; what range of placements they are assisting with; what benchmarks are being used to determine the effectiveness of the project; how much money has been allocated to the scheme each year; what TEC activity exists in the Government Office North East region; and if he will make a statement. [121642]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Experience Corps is a national initiative with the aim of encouraging more people aged 50 and over to become or to remain active in their local communities.

  The latest figures supplied by the Experience Corps show that around 111,560 volunteers have been recruited since the initiative began and that they have placed over 70,000 volunteers. They report that the average age of the volunteers is just under 61. They have over 423,000 opportunities available in a wide range of
  550W
  roles, for example driving for the Red Cross, helping out it Dorset based cricket clubs, or acting as ground crew volunteers for the Great North Air Ambulance.

  The effectiveness of the Experience Corps will be determined by the extent to which they achieve targets set in respect of the recruitment and retention of volunteers. The main one is that by 2004 they should recruit 250,000 volunteers reflecting the diversity of people over 50.

  The Home Office has allocated the Experience Corps a total of £19.9 million, broken down as £5.5million/ £7.2million/£7.2million for the three years to March 2004. A recent evaluation of the Experience Corps raised some concerns surrounding their figures on volunteer recruitment. In the light of this we are currently considering options for funding beyond that date.

  The Experience Corps report that they have just under 10,000 people actively involved in projects in the north-east. They work with a number of partner organisations in a variety of projects which demonstrate the intergenerational aspects of their work; they are a recruiter for HANE (Housing Action North East) launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last November with some 400 volunteers supporting homeless people throughout the region taking up tenancies for the first time; and they work with the Sikh and Hindu communities in Newcastle and Sunderland, for example holding a SEVA event at a Hindu temple.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Gateway
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the open standards compliance of the digital signing system used in the Government Gateway. [123636]

  Mr. Alexander
  As part of our drive to ensure that central infrastructure meets open standards, work is being carried out to upgrade the signing capability of the Government Gateway so that in due course it will meet the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standard.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what playing fields he is responsible for; and what his policy is on their disposal. [123336]

  Mr. Alexander
  I am not responsible for any playing fields.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of houses built in rural areas in the south-east in each year since 1992 were affordable housing. [123576]
  551W
  Keith Hill
  The proportion of houses built by Registered Social Landlords and local authorities is shown in the table and is based on the 16 local authorities in the south-east classified as rural. Figures on completions in rural areas will include all land in the local authority area, including that within defined settlement boundaries.

  Year

  Proportion affordable (%)

  1992

  10

  1993

  18

  1994

  19

  1995

  16

  1996

  12

  1997

  11

  1998

  11

  1999

  7

  2000

  9

  2001

  12

  2002

  7

  Source:

  P2 returns to ODPM.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how many new entrants to the Civil Service were employed in his Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 or over. [119830]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South on 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 657W. A copy of the table mentioned in his reply is already available in the Library of the House.

  Council tax requirement—unitary authorities

  Change

  Unitary authority

  2000–01 Own council tax requirement £ million

  2003–04 Own council tax requirement £ million

  Amount £ million

  Percentage

  Bath and North East Somerset

  48.8

  60.3

  11.5

  23.6

  Blackburn with Darwen

  33.6

  41.3

  7.7

  23.0

  Blackpool

  29.1

  44.1

  14.9

  51.3

  Bournemouth

  40.0

  58.0

  18.0

  45.0

  Bracknell Forest

  27.7

  35.5

  7.7

  27.9

  Brighton and Hoveh

  63.6

  86.8

  23.2

  36.5

  Bristol

  112.5

  127.8

  15.3

  13.6

  Darlington

  20.9

  29.4

  8.6

  41.1

  Derby

  49.5

  60.8

  11.2

  22.7

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  92.3

  110.8

  18.5

  20.0

  Halton

  23.7

  33.4

  9.8

  41.3

  Hartlepool

  24.2

  28.9

  4.8

  19.6

  Herefordshire

  44.5

  62.3

  17.8

  40.1

  Isle of Wight council

  37.7

  51.9

  14.2

  37.7

  Kingston upon Hull

  48.0

  61.3

  13.3

  27.7

  Leicester

  56.6

  67.9

  11.3

  20.0

  Luton

  36.1

  47.5

  11.4

  31.7

  Medway

  52.4

  69.0

  16.6

  31.7

  Middlesbrough

  30.7

  37.7

  7.0

  22.8

  Milton Keynes

  50.7

  67.5

  16.8

  33.1

  North East Lincolnshire

  38.6

  48.8

  10.3

  26.6

  Council Tax Revenue
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the change in the amount
  raised from council tax for each county council and unitary authority between 2000–01 and that
  expected in 2003–04. [123743]

  Phil Hope
  The information requested is tabled as follows:

  Council tax requirement—county councils

  Change

  Shire countries

  2000–01 Own council tax requirement £ million

  2003–04 Own council tax requirement £ million

  Amount £ million

  Percentage

  Bedfordshire

  98.1

  132.6

  34.5

  35.1

  Buckinghamshire

  128.4

  171.9

  43.5

  33.8

  Cambridgeshire

  118.0

  157.8

  39.8

  33.7

  Cheshire

  183.6

  229.3

  45.6

  24.9

  Cornwall

  106.0

  138.4

  32.4

  30.6

  Cumbria

  114.7

  148.8

  34.1

  29.7

  Derbyshire

  174.5

  223.7

  49.2

  28.2

  Devon

  169.2

  241.7

  72.5

  42.8

  Dorset

  107.5

  147.1

  39.6

  36.9

  Durham

  99.0

  131.8

  32.7

  33.0

  East Sussex

  128.5

  181.7

  53.2

  41.4

  Essex

  315.5

  448.8

  133.3

  42.3

  Gloucestershire

  128.1

  175.4

  47.3

  36.9

  Hampshire

  299.6

  401.2

  101.6

  33.9

  Hertfordshire

  255.7

  357.6

  101.9

  39.8

  Kent

  321.1

  430.9

  109.8

  34.2

  Lancashire

  275.9

  345.7

  69.9

  25.3

  Leicestershire

  136.9

  178.5

  41.6

  30.4

  Lincolnshire

  128.5

  173.1

  44.7

  34.8

  Norfolk

  174.1

  242.9

  68.8

  39.5

  North Yorkshire

  130.1

  177.3

  47.2

  36.3

  Northamptonshire

  126.0

  169.3

  43.4

  34.4

  Northumberland

  76.4

  100.7

  24.3

  31.8

  Nottinghamshire

  186.3

  241.5

  55.2

  29.6

  Oxfordshire

  144.8

  196.7

  51.8

  35.8

  Shropshire

  63.3

  88.3

  25.0

  39.5

  Somerset

  111.9

  156.8

  44.9

  40.1

  Staffordshire

  160.9

  223.3

  62.4

  38.8

  Suffolk

  142.7

  209.0

  66.3

  46.4

  Surrey

  288.1

  401.8

  113.7

  39.5

  Warwickshire

  122.7

  162.8

  40.1

  32.7

  West Sussex

  187.7

  264.6

  76.9

  41.0

  Wiltshire

  103.5

  140.4

  36.9

  35.6

  Worcestershire

  118.5

  163.7

  45.2

  38.2

  553W

  Council tax requirement—unitary authorities

  Change

  Unitary authority

  2000–01 Own council tax requirement £ million

  2003–04 Own council tax requirement £ million

  Amount £ million

  Percentage

  North Lincolnshire

  44.1

  49.8

  5.7

  12.9

  North Somerset

  48.6

  69.4

  20.9

  43.0

  Nottingham

  61.0

  74.0

  13.0

  21.4

  Peterborough

  36.2

  46.2

  10.0

  27.6

  Plymouth

  50.3

  68.2

  18.0

  35.8

  Poole

  38.1

  51.6

  13.5

  35.4

  Portsmouth

  36.3

  51.9

  15.6

  43.0

  Reading

  40.1

  51.6

  11.5

  28.6

  Redcar and Cleveland

  41.0

  42.0

  1.0

  2.4

  Rutland

  12.0

  14.8

  2.8

  23.4

  Slough

  24.3

  33.6

  9.3

  38.0

  South Gloucestershire

  66.0

  86.5

  20.5

  31.1

  Southampton

  42.2

  62.0

  19.8

  47.0

  Southend-on-Sea

  38.8

  50.1

  11.3

  29.0

  Stockton-on-Tees

  44.7

  53.8

  9.1

  20.4

  Stoke-on-Trent

  46.6

  60.6

  14.1

  30.2

  Swindon

  40.3

  59.6

  19.3

  47.8

  Telford and the Wrekin

  33.2

  44.6

  11.3

  34.1

  Thurrock

  30.1

  44.3

  14.2

  47.0

  Torbay

  32.2

  44.0

  11.8

  36.7

  Warrington

  45.6

  58.7

  13.2

  28.9

  West Berkshire

  45.6

  58.7

  13.1

  28.6

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  43.8

  53.4

  9.6

  22.0

  Wokingham

  50.1

  63.6

  13.5

  27.0

  York

  41.8

  51.9

  10.1

  24.3

  Isles of Scilly

  0.6

  0.8

  0.3

  48.1

  The tables show the council tax requirements for each English unitary authority and county council in 2000–01 and 2003–04. These are not the same as the amounts actually collected. In any given year, the amount actually collected in-year is slightly lower than the council tax requirement. In addition, amounts of council tax are also received in respect of previous years.

  Housing Associations (Rents)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what arrangements are in place to control rent increases charged by housing associations. [123574]

  Keith Hill
  The Housing Corporation's rent influencing regime for implementing the rent restructuring framework sets out the requirement that in any one year an individual rent does not change by more than £2 a week, in addition to the guideline limit of Retail Price Index plus 0.5 per cent. So the maximum rent increase for a housing association tenant in any one year is RPI plus 0.5 per cent. plus £2 a week.

  New Buildings (Competition)
  David Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had to assess the effect of competition in building control upon the standard of surveying of new buildings; and if he will make a statement. [123217]

  Phil Hope
  Starting in 1997, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, then Minister for Construction, had discussions on building control with the Local Government Association, the Construction Industry Council and the Association of Corporate Approved Inspectors. These discussions led to the issue, in July 1999, of the Departmental publication, "Building 554W
  Control Performance Standards", and to the setting up, in May 2000, of the Building Control Performance Standards Advisory Group.

  In October last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), met representatives of the LGA Public Protection Executive to discuss a range of building control issues. My hon. Friend made it clear that the Office is always willing to hear from the LGA, and from other member bodies of the Advisory Group, with any concerns about standards of building control, and suggestions for improvements.

  Planning Enforcement
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will finish his analysis of the responses to his consultation paper, Review of the Planning Enforcement System in England; and when he plans to make an announcement on what action he is going to take as a result of the consultation process. [123742]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to complete analysing the responses to the consultation paper and announce the outcome of the review of the planning enforcement system in the autumn.

  Unauthorised Camping Guidance
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he intends local authorities will be given the powers indicated within the 'Managing unauthorised camping guidance' consultation paper to remove unauthorised encampments where transit camps are provided within the fast track provisions; and if he will make a statement. [123366]
  555W
  Keith Hill
  The proposed new powers to move illegally camped Gypsies and Travellers to authorised sites will only be available to police services. The power will also be dependent on local authorities providing adequate sites in their areas to enable the police to move Gypsies and Travellers on to.

  The new power has been included in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, which is due to be read a second time in the other place on 18 July. However, the new police powers will not replace existing legislation currently under Section 61–62 and 77–79 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the proposals within the 'Managing unauthorised camping guidance' consultation paper will be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [123367]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office are currently considering the responses to the consultation paper on managing unauthorised camping. Once concluded, the new joint guide will be published and made available for use by local authorities and police services by the end of the summer.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Jubilee Medal
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Jubilee Medal awarded to fire officers will be presented; and whether all officers and their families will be invited to attend the ceremony. [123501]

  Angela Smith
  The first Golden Jubilee Medals were presented at Brigade Headquarters on 2 July 2003. The remainder have been issued to Area Commanders for presentation. There were no families at the presentation on 2 July, and it will be for each Area Commander to decide on the dates and other arrangements for the local presentations.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Tibet
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of human rights abuses committed by the Chinese against the Tibetan people. [123647]

  Mr. Rammell
  We remain concerned about the human rights situation in Tibet and continue to urge China to enter into dialogue with the Dalai Lama's representatives.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing on 25 June 2003.

  Global Conflict Prevention Pool
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his 556W
  answer to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) of 12 May 2003, Official Report, columns 77–8W, what the total annual budget is for the Global Conflict Prevention Pool; whether the GCPP will have a role in (a) Iraq and (b) other war zones; whether the report on the activities of the GCPP will list all its current projects; and when the report is due to be published. [123093]

  Mr. Rammell
  For the three year Spending Round 2003/04–2005/06, the Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP) has a programme budget of £74 million each year.

  The funds allocated to the 14 strategies in the Pool for 2003–04, as set in March by a Ministerial Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, total £87.96 million. This figure is higher than the budget mentioned above, because it incorporates funds carried over from previous years under End Year Flexibility arrangements, as well as an element of over programming built into the individual strategies to provide in-year project management flexibility.

  For a full list of the strategies and their allocations I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Foreign Secretary to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on 10 June 2003, Official Report, column 798W. The country/regional strategies are: Afghanistan, Belize/Guatemala, Central and Eastern Europe, India/Pakistan, Indonesia/East Timor, Middle East and North Africa, Nepal, Russia/Former Soviet Union, Sri Lanka, the Balkans. Programmes in these areas cover conflict prevention and reduction, support to peace processes and post-conflict reconstruction.

  A new strategy to support reconstruction and conflict prevention in Iraq is being developed by the three departments which jointly manage the GCPP. An allocation has not yet been set, but funds are available in the GCPP Reserve, and urgent projects for Iraq will be considered for funding from the GCPP Quick Response Fund (QRF) in the meantime.

  We expect to publish a Report on the GCPP in September and copies will be sent to Members and also placed in the Library of the House. It will give an overview of the operation of the GCPP strategies and the projects which are being funded under them, but it will not include a comprehensive list of all projects, as they are too numerous.

  Colombia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the treatment of trade unions in Colombia; and what representations he has made on the matter to the government of Colombia. [123423]

  Mr. Rammell
  The embassy in Bogota has contacts with trades union representatives in Colombia and receives representations directly and on their behalf from NGOs working in Colombia. I stressed to the Colombian authorities, most recently during my visit to Bogota, the need to provide adequate protection to union activists in order that they may go about their union business safely. In my speech of 25 June at the
  557W
  Amnesty International UK Trade Union Network Reception I explained that I had called on the Colombian government to make clear their support for the work of all sections of civil society, including trades unions, stressing that civil society is part of the solution to Colombia's problems.

  Correspondence
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British High Commission in Tanzania will respond to the letter sent by Jasvir Jutla & Co Solicitors, concerning Dinesh J. Vithlani, ref PAF/APP & CON39/7. [122792]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our High Commission in Dar es Salaam has received three letters from Jasvir Jutla and Co concerning Mr. Dinesh J. Vithlani. The letters were dated 17 December 2002, 14 March 2003 and 17 June 2003. The High Commission replied on 23 December 2002, 31 March 2003 and 26 June 2003 respectively.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what clerogations will apply to the Republic of Cyprus on accession to the EU in the event of(a) no settlement in Cyprus by the date of accession and (b) a settlement close to the date of accession; and if he will make a statement. [R][123210]

  Mr. MacShane
  The derogations and conditions which apply to the Republic of Cyprus on accession to the EU are laid out in the EU Accession (Cm 5805), which is available in the Library. I refer my hon. Friend to Protocol 10 of the Command Paper.

  Drug Trafficking (Afghanistan)
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support is being given to the Iranian government to help combat drug trafficking from Afghanistan. [123295]

  Mr. Rammell
  Since 1998, the UK has contributed £3.9 million to the strengthening of Iranian drugs law enforcement capacity. In addition, the UK and Iran are jointly training Afghan border guards in Mashad.

  France
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK lorry drivers have been acquitted in France of drug-related matters in each year since 1999. [122872]

  Mr. Mullin
  We do not record statistics on the points raised by my hon. Friend. It would incur disproportionate cost to provide the information requested. However, our Consulates in France have manually checked records for the last year, and we are aware of one case of a British lorry driver being acquitted in France of drug related charges.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with the Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of China regarding article 23 of the basic law of Hong Kong during his visit here. [123023]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed our concerns about Article 23 legislation with the Chinese Foreign Minister on 25 June.

  These concerns were outlined in a press statement about Article 23 legislation that I issued on 30 June.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Authority Business Growth Incentives
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  The Government have today launched a consultation into how they might use s.71 of the Local Government Bill currently before Parliament to allow local authorities to retain business rates revenues. This consultation is being conducted jointly between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and HM Treasury.

  The new Local Authority Business Growth Incentives scheme will affect all English local authorities—except fire and police—and will start in April 2005. It will give local authorities an incentive to encourage business in their areas, and will reward their contribution and encourage strong and successful partnerships between local authorities, business and other local and regional players.

  The current Local Government finance structure does not fully recognise or reward local authorities' contribution to economic growth. Local authorities bear many of the costs of economic development although they do not benefit from the increased revenues it generates. Since 1990 business rate revenues have been paid into a central pool so that local authorities get no direct individual or local benefit.

  This consultation sets out a scheme for reforming this arrangement by allowing local authorities direct retention of some business rate revenues. This scheme introduces incentives for local authorities to lead the economic development of their community by encouraging strong and successful partnerships with business and other local and regional players.

  We are convinced that all local authorities irrespective of their economic circumstances, should be able to benefit from the scheme. The proposals therefore balance the need to maintain a strong incentive for existing high growth authorities with the need to provide greater incentives and benefits to deprived and low growth authorities. In particular, the scheme provides local authorities with a clear opportunity to tackle the enterprise gap in their areas and to integrate enterprise with the regeneration of their communities.

  The proposals in this consultation provide a real opportunity for authorities to secure additional resources. No authority will lose, and there is no question of extra revenue from this scheme being offset against other income.

  We are also committed to devolving more decision making to a local level. Therefore, benefits from the scheme will not be ring fenced and local authorities and their electorate will be free to decide whether and how to respond to the incentives created by the scheme.
  38WS
  The consultation document sets out the principles and concepts that will guide the design of the scheme. Having considered the responses from the consultation the Government will draw up the appropriate secondary legislation and will hold a further consultation on this in 2004. This secondary legislation will then be introduced into Parliament in time for the scheme to be introduced fully from the 1 April 2005.

DEFENCE

  RAF Brize Norton, Lyneham and St. Mawgan
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  On 9 November 2001 I announced a Strategic Review of the future roles of RAF Brize Norton, RAF Lyneham and RAF St. Mawgan, anticipating the arrival of the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft and the A400M around the end of the decade. The introduction of these modern aircraft will provide enhanced operational capability whilst creating spare capacity at RAF Brize Norton and RAF Lyneham. The airfield at RAF St. Mawgan was included in the Review as it too was recognised as having spare capacity.

  The first stage of the Review was the selection of a base for the A400M. I announced on 16 August 2002 that I had accepted the Study team's recommendation that RAF Brize Norton represented the best use of Defence assets in this respect, at the optimum cost to the taxpayer. Prior to this, I announced to the House on 13 February 2002, Official Report, columns 363–64W, that the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft would also be based at Brize Norton.

  I am now able to inform the House that the second stage of the review, looking at the future use of the three stations in the light of these earlier decisions, has now concluded. I have considered the recommendations and have decided that the RAF's Air Transport and Air Refuelling fleets should be based at RAF Brize Norton by 2012. This includes the Hercules C130J aircraft currently based at RAF Lyneham which will transfer to RAF Brize Norton. We intend that the C130K fleet will remain at RAF Lyneham until the aircraft goes out of service by 2012, after which, if no further Defence use is identified for RAF Lyneham, the Station will be closed and disposed of. The Tactical Communications Wing, currently located at RAF Brize Norton, will be relocated to an alternative site by 2006. Concentrating the aircraft fleets at RAF Brize Norton will enable us to make the most efficient and effective use of the Defence estate and allow the adoption of modern working practices.

  In respect of St. Mawgan, where only the airfield was under consideration, I have concluded that this should be retained, subject to further work to explore the commercial opportunities for its use and so offset the cost of its operation to Defence.

  The net effect of these changes, when complete, will be a reduction of around 1780 Service and 360 MOD civilian posts together with a move of around 620 personnel of the Tactical Communications Wing. Approximately 580 lost posts relate directly to the

  39WS
  closure of RAF Lyneham with the other manpower reductions a result of the introduction of the new manpower-efficient aircraft. At RAF Brize Norton, MOD manpower numbers will remain much as they are now. The number of contracted personnel has yet to be determined.

  I understand that this decision will be disappointing for the dedicated military and civilian personnel at Lyneham who have contributed so much to recent operations. I recognise too the disappointment that will be felt by those in the local area who give the Station much-valued support. RAF Lyneham has a long and proud history. However we must make best use of Defence resources, including by regular review of the Defence Estate to ensure we retain no more than is required to meet Defence needs.

TREASURY

  Customs and Excise
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  In a written statement to the House on 26 November 2002,Official Report, column 9WS, I announced that the Attorney-General and I would be asking a High Court judge to review the current practices and procedures relating to disclosure, associated investigation techniques and case management in HM Customs & Excise's criminal cases.

  We received the report of the hon. Mr. Justice Butterfield yesterday and are now considering it. We plan to publish his findings before the House rises for the summer recess.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 2003
11.5 a.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am very pleased to introduce the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 2003, which will help to protect the marine environment. Ships generate waste—of various kinds—in the course of their voyages. They have to dispose of that waste. If ships cannot rely on being able to discharge their waste at a reception facility in port, they may resort to discharging their waste at sea. Therefore, one sure way of reducing pollution of seas and coasts is to make certain that waste reception facilities are available in ports, and that they are easy to use and cost effective.
This is not a new idea; it has been widely recognised within the international community of maritime states for some years. The provision of adequate waste reception facilities in ports is one of the requirements of the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution by Ships (MARPOL 73/78).
The United Kingdom introduced its own legislation several years ago to put this principle into effect in the Merchant Shipping (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No. 3018), which successfully govern the UK′s existing port waste management planning regime. The UK′s existing regulations apply to all United Kingdom ports, using the term "port" to apply to all ports, harbours, terminals, marinas, piers and jetties. The UK′s waste reception regime is based on plans that are based, in turn, on consultation.
Subsequently, a proposal for European Community legislation was also initiated. The UK played a very active role in developing the EC measure—Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues—which was published in the official journal of the European Communities on 28th December 2000. These regulations transpose the EC directive. In addition, because the UK′s regime has worked well since its inception, the regulations are designed to retain most of the elements of the existing UK regime which are consistent with the directive.
1146
The directive introduces three significant new requirements in addition to those already in the UK′s regime. The first additional requirement is for ships to provide notification, prior to their entry into port., of the waste that they will discharge at that port, including information about types and quantities of waste. The second requirement is for ships to deliver their waste to port reception facilities before leaving port. There is, none the less, provision for ships to keep their waste on board and proceed to the next port of call if they have sufficient dedicated storage capacity for the waste which has been, and will be, accumulated during the voyage.
The third significant additional requirement is for a mandatory fee to be collected from ships in respect of the costs of port reception facilities for ship-generated waste, with a charging system that is designed so that it provides no incentive to ships to discharge their waste into the sea. The directive also makes other consequential or minor changes. I commend these regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
11.9 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the new regulations on merchant shipping waste reception facilities, which obviously we support. We welcome any measure that reduces pollution at sea. I have a few questions for the noble Baroness. If, however, she would prefer to answer some of them in writing, that would be perfectly acceptable.
First, Regulation 4 refers to,
"ships normally using the harbour or terminal".
Is there any way in which "normal" is defined? Obviously, some ships will come in occasionally and some will come in on a regular basis. Is there any guidance on that?
Secondly, the Minister said that these were EU measures, which I accept; that is fine. Will they he implemented in a similar fashion? In other words, will each of the European ports have the same system and charge fees to enhance these new regulations, or is there discretion within each member state to decide to apply and finance the requirement in whatever way it considers relevant to its state?
Thirdly, can the Minister confirm that the "significant contribution" towards the cost of such facilities under Regulation 14 will be kept to a minimum? Further, will that contribution vary in each port within the UK? I understand from the regulation that that may depend on the amount of waste discharged, but will there be a sliding scale? How will that be achieved? Again, that is not defined in the regulation. These are small, but important points.
The regulations make it clear that the charges should be kept to a minimum since a modest charge would lessen the risk of dumping at sea. What form of risk assessment has been undertaken of that? Unfortunately any charge is likely to encourage dumping at sea, which is the last thing anyone wants.

1147
Regulation 14(2) states that the charge,
"may take into account the category, type and size of the ship".
I should be grateful for further clarification on that. Regulation 21(4) refers to the unreasonable detention of a ship if it has abused the regulations in any way. Again, is there any quantifiable language to cover the use of the word "unreasonable"? A definition would be of help to us.
I understand that the costs are to be small, but can the Minister say whether the costs charged to the harbour will go towards paying the Maritime and Coastguard Agency′s monitoring and enforcement unit, which I understand may incur additional costs of around £43,000, or will that sum be sponsored directly by the Government, so that the charges levied on ships entering the port will be relevant only to the facilities being provided by the individual port? Again, that point is not made clear in the regulations.
As I have said, these are only small points, but they are important. If the Minister is not able to respond to them all at this point, I shall be happy for her to write to me.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I rise simply to say that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches agree with the regulations.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall seek to respond to all the questions put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, but I shall of course write to her on any points that I do not cover.
The compliance costs to industry seem likely to be small, assuming that the 154,000 arrivals into UK ports in 2001 may be taken as a guide for future years. The Department for Transport estimates that the costs of these processes may be in the order of £500,000 per annum; that is, representing a cost of £3 per arrival—around 0.1 per cent of the average costs to a ship.
The increased costs will be met from the fees charged and no additional taxpayers′ money will be spent. All EC ports will apply the directive, but there will be variations between states because these are allowed under the terms of the directive.
The noble Baroness asked about the "reasonable" or "unreasonable" detention of a vessel. That is a matter which ultimately would have to be addressed by the courts. The term "normal" is not defined; it is a term that is normally assessed against reasonable behaviour. However, I appreciate that it may need a little further clarification.
There will be administrative costs to the harbour authority and terminal operator. Nevertheless, all the indications suggest that the new provisions stemming from the directive will place only a small additional compliance cost on the UK ports industry. As regards the detailed point put to me by the noble Baroness about enforcement costs and the Coastguard Agency, I shall write to her.
1148
I thank both noble Baronesses. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Bill
11.15 a.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am very glad to be taking this Bill in your Lordships′ House. It is a small but very important piece of legislation for the families concerned. I am grateful to my honourable friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green for introducing the Bill and for his successful stewardship of it through the other place. I read with interest the debates held there and was pleased to note the very broad cross-party support generated for the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will similarly feel able to support it.
It is a short Bill with simple intent. It is limited to a single objective which is largely compassionate in nature. Its purpose is to allow a man′s name to be entered as the child′s father on the birth register and on the birth certificate when a child has been born following fertility treatment after the man has died. In my view, this measure is long overdue. I hope your Lordships agree that it is not a controversial proposal.
That is not to say that there are no contentious issues underlying or associated with these matters. There are enormously important and difficult ethical and legal matters in this area. It could hardly be otherwise when we are talking about something so fundamental as human reproduction. The names of noble Lords on the speakers′ list for the debate remind us of that. However, the Bill is not deeply involved in those issues and debates. It seeks only to make a simple and straightforward change for the purposes of birth registration.
I accept that the deeper philosophical and ethical issues should be thoroughly debated—there is no doubt about that—and that they should be kept constantly under review, especially given the pace of technological advance in this area. That does not mean that consideration of the Bill is the appropriate place to resolve those issues, important and emotive though they are.
The law currently is that when a man dies during a pregnancy he may be treated as the father of the child with all the legal rights which follow from that. But under Section 28(6) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, a man may not be treated as the father of a child for any purpose where his sperm or an embryo created using it was then used after his death. For example, it may be the case that a couple were undergoing fertility treatment, but the man died before that treatment was completed. Or it may be that a man′s sperm, or an embryo created using that sperm, was put into storage while he underwent treatment for a condition such as cancer, during which he tragically died, and the sperm or embryo was subsequently used

1149
in fertility treatment for his wife or partner. I am also aware, and I believe many noble Lords will know this, that many servicemen who served in the recent military action in the Middle East took the same precaution.
In these cases there is no doubt that the child was wanted by both parents, and no doubt about who is the father. Nevertheless, the current law prevents the man′s name being recorded as the father. The legislation was originally framed in this way to prevent difficulties in winding up a man′s estate. Because sperm can be stored for up to 39 years—although the statutory storage period is only 10 years—there is no doubt that if rights of inheritance or succession were to arise, this could be a substantial problem.
The aim of the Bill therefore is to give only a symbolic recognition in law to children who, as the law stands, have no legal father. I wish to make it very clear that its purpose is no more than that. The Bill is not concerned with matters of inheritance, nationality or any other legal status. It is deliberately limited to allow the name of the father to be put on a child′s birth certificate where currently the law insists there must be a blank space. I know your Lordships will understand that a blank space on a birth certificate is distressing for a child. It is an unfair situation which should never have arisen. We now have a chance to put matters right.
The Bill outlines four circumstances in which deceased men may be registered as fathers. The first relates to a situation where a couple were married before the man′s death and the woman uses his sperm, or an embryo created by using his sperm, to conceive a child after the man′s death. This is covered by proposed subsection (5A) within Clause 1. The second circumstance is where a couple were not married but were being treated together before the man′s death and the woman uses his sperm, or an embryo created by using his sperm, to conceive a child after the man′s death is listed. This is covered by proposed subsection (5B).
The third circumstance is where the couple were married and the embryo was created before the man′s death using donor sperm and the woman used the embryo after the man′s death to conceive. This is covered by proposed subsection (5C). The final circumstance is where the couple were not married but were being treated together and where an embryo was created using donor sperm which is used after the man′s death to conceive a child. This is covered by proposed subsection (5D).
I am sure that your Lordships will know of mothers and children who have found themselves in such circumstances and who have campaigned long and hard for a change in the law. I pay tribute to them for their determination. It is doubly unfair that they have had the tragic loss of their husband or partner compounded by this injustice to their child or children.
The Bill is retrospective in so far as its provisions deal not only with future cases but also with existing ones. I believe that it is right that it should do so. It applies to cases where the sperm or embryo was used on or after 1st August 1991, which is when the 1990
1150
Act came into force. I understand that there are between 30 and 40 children in this situation today and that the number will grow by perhaps 10 every year. So we are talking about very small numbers.
The Bill is of great importance to the mothers of these children. It will be of increasing importance to the children themselves as they grow up and begin asking questions about who they are and where they have come from. The Bill will give them a symbolic recognition of their legitimacy where they currently have none.
As your Lordships will know, it is unusual to make legislation retrospective. I would understand any Member of your Lordships′ House feeling uneasy at the prospect. However, I believe that in this case it is right to do so.
The Bill also makes very clear the need for proper consent. This is made explicit in the circumstances contained in proposed subsections (5A) to (5D), which I have outlined. Except in the case of men who died before the provisions of the Bill came into force, it is required that the man who is to be registered as the father must have consented in writing and not have withdrawn his consent. This means consent to the use of his sperm, or an embryo created by using his sperm, after his death by his wife or his partner. It also means consent to being regarded as the father of any resulting child on the birth certificate. Where donor sperm is used, the man must have consented in writing, and not have withdrawn his consent, to the placing in the woman of the embryo after his death. Again, he must also have consented to being regarded as the father of any resulting child on the birth certificate. This is a clear safeguard in the Bill in terms of consent.
In addition, the registrar will require proof of the treatment undertaken in the form of a certificate of a registered medical practitioner. The registrar may also require other documentary evidence if it is considered appropriate.
I have tried to give an outline of a tightly focused Bill which seeks to correct an injustice which I am sure all noble Lords recognise. I have referred to symbolic recognition. I do not under-estimate the importance of what is symbolised or signalled in the House. If the Bill becomes law, it will signal a proper recognition of the rights of children who are growing up today and provide a clear process for such cases in the future. While narrow in scope and consequence, as I have emphasised, the Bill will make a real difference to mothers and children who find themselves in a situation where, as the law stands, there is no legal father.
Your Lordships may be aware of a declaration of incompatibility of the law as it stands with human rights legislation. In my view, that provides an additional impetus to change the law. But, fundamentally, the Bill represents the right thing to do, the decent thing to do, for those mothers and their children who find themselves in these tragic circumstances. It represents an opportunity for Parliament to put right its earlier attempts to legislate in this area. It would be of great comfort to a child′s

1151
wider family, and to future generations of the family, that the truth should now be recorded. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Pitkeathley.)
11.26 a.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I rise warmly to support the Bill and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on the clarity with which she has set out its provisions.
As she said, the main provision of the Bill is that a posthumous child, born as a result of using the frozen sperm of his dead father, may be registered as a child of that father, with the father′s name appearing on the birth certificate, without thereby the child being able to claim any legal rights or legal status in consequence. I am pleased that the legislation should be retrospective. That is absolutely fair. It will not cover a very large number of children; it will cover those born from 1991 onwards.
It seems such a simple and satisfactory provision that I can only wonder why the committee of inquiry, of which I was chairman and the report of which led to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, did not think of it at the time. I believe that it is absolutely right that the name of a child′s biological father should, wherever possible, be part of the registration of the child′s birth.
The committee of inquiry was fairly strongly opposed to the use of assisted conception to bring about the birth of a posthumous child largely on the grounds of the possible psychological damage that might be caused if, for example, a widow who had remarried and had other children decided to use her first husband′s sperm and to have a child by that husband after all.
Looking back, it seems to me that the committee spent a great deal of time inventing these kinds of rather fanciful cases in order to protect its back and to prevent people bringing them up later. It was trying to forestall criticism. However, such objections seem to be rather fanciful now.
We were also alarmed by the thought that if a posthumous child were, so to speak, lying in wait to be born, it would be impossible to wind up the father′s estate or to settle the succession to a title or whatever else might be at issue. We therefore recommended that its paternity, if it was ever realised, should be disregarded altogether. That recommendation became part of the 1990 Act.
We never even thought of separating the registration of the biological father from the legal implications of his paternity. To make that separation now seems to me an admirable and simple solution, as it preserves the crucial aim of registration; namely, to record the historical truth.
However, I have reservations about one aspect of the Bill, contained in proposed new subsections (5C) and (5D) of the proposed amendment to the 1990 Act.
1152
Those provisions allow for the dead man′s name to appear on the register of births as the father, when the sperm used to produce the posthumous child was not his but that of a donor. That is when the embryo is a result of AID, the dead man having been himself infertile. I strongly believe that in any case of AID, the birth certificate of the child should bear the words, "by donor". However, I fully understand that the Bill is not concerned at all with the general moral considerations on which my objection to these clauses rests, but is far more narrowly focused—and properly so.
I have no doubt that when, later, the issue of the status of donors, whether of sperm or eggs, falls to be discussed, if Parliament were then to decide that the words "by donor" or "by donation" should appear on the birth certificate of a child born by donation, the present Bill could be suitably amended. My anxiety about those provisions is therefore in a way irrelevant to the present debate. I mention them only as a marker for an issue that may come up for debate in future, in the hope that the outcome will not seem to have been pre-empted by these clauses in this Bill. Meanwhile, I hope that the Bill has a swift passage.
11.32 a.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly on a Bill which, as the noble Baroness, Lady, Warnock, said, was introduced very ably and with great clarity by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. My noble friend made it clear to us that this was not an appropriate occasion to deal with the enormous underlying moral and ethical considerations involved in IVF and assisted conception. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, made the same observation. Like her, however, I shall put a marker down on one issue that is of concern to me.
At the beginning, however, I want to make it clear that it is absolutely appropriate that the Bill should deal with the anomaly in question. I fully support the introduction of the Bill. Unusually, for a legislator, I welcome the retrospective nature of it and am in some ways more comfortable with those retrospective provisions, as my concerns are for the future. Those children and families already exist; from all we have heard, there is undoubtedly a strong feeling among those families that the paternity of the children involved should be properly recognised. They want the compassionate cases in relation to human rights legislation to be recognised, and it is absolutely appropriate on this occasion that we should act retrospectively.
I wish to address the issue of consent, and to flag up that I was reassured that consent was dealt with so comprehensively in the Bill, as it was not in earlier versions of the legislation. I am concerned about consent because of the momentous nature of the decision involved in deliberately bringing into the world a posthumous child. I speak with great trepidation, because those of us who have not experienced the pain of infertility or bereavement, let alone the agony of the combination of the two, should tread very delicately when it comes to dictating to others what they should do. I would not want to do

1153
that in any way, but these are enormously difficult as well as momentous decisions. They have tremendous implications for the children who will be born and need to be considered in every aspect. Therefore, an assurance for the children who eventually ask about their origins—that the decision was taken not only by the widowed mother but by the potential father—is an important safeguard that should be in the Bill.
Equally, I would not wish there to be taken from what is an appropriate piece of legislation to ensure that we do not mistreat children in this situation an assumption that the healthy, normal and absolutely expected course of action were someone to be found in these terrible circumstances would be to go ahead. In the late 1980s, I served on the ethics committee of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that was set up to examine the issues and prepare evidence for the committee on which the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, served. In my own mind, I found that a helpful way in which to consider the issues was that the purpose of assisted conception treatment should be to enable people whose choices had been taken away from them to have the same choices as those whose fertility was normal. That always helps me with the issues relating to very late—post-menopausal, for example—pregnancies.
Exactly the same is true in this case. The choices should be available, but we have an overwhelming concern with the welfare with the child. We acknowledge that existing families come in all shapes and sizes and that spectacularly good parenting goes on in single-parent families. Equally, however, we have a concern that when society puts an imprimatur of ethical acceptance on a practice, the deepest consideration should be given. It is wrong to lecture people about how they would behave, because of course that very small number of people who are in this desperate situation will have that consideration. Equally, however, we know that in the first flush of bereavement and distress, people are always told not to make decisions, not to decide for 12 months where they are going to live or make major life changes.
We are talking about an enormous and major life change, not only for the widow but also for the child to come. I believe that the climate in which those decisions are made by individuals, by their clinicians, the HFEA and ultimately by us as legislators should be one in which we give the utmost scrutiny to individual decisions. For me, it is very important that the consent provisions in the Bill are so clearly laid out. On that basis, I welcome it.
11.39 a.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly following three very eloquent speeches in support of the Bill. First, I am grateful for the excellent appraisal given by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, who introduced the Bill with clarity and eloquence. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and my noble friend Lady Hayman for their support of the Bill.
1154
It is clear that currently there is discrimination between children born by artificial reproductive means and those conceived naturally. Clearly that is wrong and needs to be sorted by the Bill, as it will be. These are not common instances. In my own unit at Hammersmith, which is a major cancer centre, we possibly deal with more of these patients than anywhere else in the south-east of England. In one year we might see one or two cases at most in which, during the course of treatment or subsequently where there are embryos or sperm in store, a husband has died of a cancer partly because treatment has not fulfilled its entire purpose. Therefore, this Bill is to be greatly welcomed on their behalf.
Like my noble friend, I have no problem at all with the retrospective aspects of the legislation, dealt with in Clause 3(6)(a) to (c). That seems to me utterly sensible.
Perhaps my only criticism of the Bill is that it has taken so long for it to be presented to Parliament. Some of us recall that the issue really came to public attention in 1995 with the death of Stephen Blood, his wife′s valiant attempts to try to get fertility treatment, which clearly accorded with the wishes of her late husband, and the difficulties she went through. Apropos what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, says, in retrospect perhaps we could say that Diane Blood was dealt with in a very heavy-handed fashion. It might have been better had our regulatory authority paid more careful attention to what she was actually trying to tell it. However, that is now past history. I am very glad that this anomaly can be sorted out.
I wish to address one point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. Although it is not part of this Bill, we should certainly debate the issue of donor insemination again in this Chamber. There is considerable disquiet about the nature of parenthood. It is a very complicated issue. However, with all due respect, I do not think that it is very easy simply to put on a birth certificate, "Father by donor". In fact, that might inhibit parents telling the truth to their children. Curiously, it could have exactly the opposite effect to that desired.
There is a real problem, I think, in openness. I agree with what the noble Baroness says about donor insemination. But many parents who undergo donor insemination are increasingly hesitant about telling their children the truth. Therefore, anything we can do to persuade people of the openness of the family relationship and the nature of conception must be in the child′s interest. Otherwise the child may find out by mistake, usually at puberty or when a marriage breaks up, that there is a problem. For that reason, it would be welcome if we could debate this issue in some detail. It teases out many important issues about parentage.
This Bill will be welcomed by all of my profession—by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which has no problem with it, but particularly by the practitioners who see these difficult cases every day. I very much hope that the Bill′s parliamentary passage will be concluded as speedily as possible.
11.43 a.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, like every other speaker I should like first to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on introducing the Bill so powerfully and clearly. For that matter, I should also like to congratulate the Government, through the Department of Health, who have clearly sponsored the Bill although it is in the form of a Private Member′s Bill.
I should begin by declaring an unusual professional interest. I was a legal midwife to two posthumous children of Diane Blood—I am glad that she is in the Gallery today—in the sense that I represented her in the original proceedings against the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. I believe, as I shall now explain, that this Bill really should be known as the Diane Blood Bill. There is no question but that, without her efforts, this Bill would never have been introduced or, I hope, enacted.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, has already referred to the somewhat heavy-handed approach of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in that case. Noble Lords may recall that what happened was that Diane Blood was prevented from proceeding as she wished because of the statute and the absence of written consent by her late husband Stephen. We brought legal proceedings which eventually ripened into a judgment by Lord Woolf of Barnes—one of those rare judges who makes both parties feel they have had a fair hearing, the loser as much as the winner. In a compassionate and humane judgment, Lord Woolf essentially said that European Community law would come to Diane Blood′s rescue, that she could go to Belgium in order to obtain the treatment denied to her under English law. She went to Belgium and as a result of that she was able to give birth to her two bonnie boys, Liam and Joel.
That must be one of the most creative enterprises that I as a lawyer have ever been involved with. For once I indirectly helped forensically to create human life. It is good to know that one sometimes can do that. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, as he will recall, was ready to give expert evidence in that case as well. So it was a kind of family occasion. Unfortunately the authority, having lost the case on that aspect, to my astonishment asked for legal costs against Diane Blood. That I thought at the time was a bleak judgment on the authority′s part. Her father had had to mortgage his house in order to pay for those proceedings.
The next phase of her heroic struggle was that she then sought to be able to register Stephen as the father on behalf of her children. That was refused. However, the Department of Health, entirely properly, eventually after the McLean report, introduced a Bill like this one which failed only because of lack of parliamentary time when the last general election was called. At that point Diane Blood′s lawyers—by this time I was not involved in the case; my colleague Tom de la Mare was involved—had to bring judicial review proceedings and proceedings threatened before the European Court of Human Rights in order to obtain the necessary decision by the Department of Health.
1156
What then happened was quite extraordinary. For two years the Department of Health fought the case tooth and nail, urged that no case be brought before the Strasbourg court, resisted the case in the English courts, and then at the last minute, no doubt instructed by competent counsel, realised that its position was quite hopeless. It was quite hopeless because the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the rights of these children, to their private life and to non-discrimination. So, very late in the day, the Department of Health appeared with counsel for Diane Blood and also Mrs Tarbuck, the other applicant, and they agreed to a consent order.
The consent order consented to the fact that the statute is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It has to be retrospective simply because if it were not retrospective, then Diane Blood and Mrs Tarbuck would have to go to the European Court of Human Rights and the United Kingdom Government would inevitably face condemnation before that court. So there is no doubt that the retrospectivity in this case is not only desirable but absolutely necessary.
The Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, reported on why it considered that there was no human rights issue that needed to be drawn to the attention of Parliament. For those who are interested in reading that report, it is the 8th Report of Session 2002–03, House of Lords Paper 90. I did not take part in those proceedings because I was professionally interested, as the report records.
I have to make two other mild criticisms. One is that, after all this agony and protracted legal proceedings, the question of costs arose. At that point the judge, Mr Justice Sullivan, ordered indemnity costs against the Department of Health. That is a very serious step to take because it means that in the view of the learned judge the department has behaved unreasonably in its pursuit of the legal proceedings.
The other mildly critical remark I need to make is about the Explanatory Notes. I know that this is a Private Member′s Bill and, therefore, no Minister had to sign a compatibility statement under the Human Rights Act that in her or his view it was compatible with the convention. As the Minister will know, however, it is now accepted practice for Ministers to ensure that the Explanatory Notes deal with any human rights convention issue so that parliamentarians can know what they are.
The Explanatory Notes are admirable in explaining the content and general objects of the Bill but they are completely silent about the convention issues. Although the noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred to the convention and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, also referred to retrospectivity and to the declaration of incompatibility, I do think that as a matter of good administration some of what I said in this overlong speech should have appeared in the Explanatory Notes so that at least parliamentarians would know absolutely the full position. I in no way criticise the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, but it seems to me, if I may say so with great respect, that the department ought to have made that all clear.

1157
Noble Lords will now understand, I hope, first, why this is really the Diane Blood Bill and, secondly, why retrospective remedies had to be provided to avoid ultimate international humiliation before the European Court. So speaking as a legal midwife I support the Bill but from the Front Bench on behalf of the Liberal Democrats we welcome the Bill more generally.
11.52 a.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, let me start by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for agreeing to shepherd this Bill through your Lordships′ House. Her commitment to the issues underlying the Bill was made very, very clear in her elegant and clear speech.
This is a Private Member′s Bill from another place and as such is fitted into the margins of your Lordships′ business, but it is a real mystery why this is a Private Member′s Bill at all. In all but name it appears to be a government Bill. For example, the Department of Health prepared the Explanatory Notes. Indeed, it should have been a government Bill.
The Bill does two things which are the Government′s responsibility. First, it implements some of the recommendations of the study by Professor McLean that came out in 1998. Those recommendations were accepted by the Government but not acted upon. Secondly, it responds to the declaration of the High Court on incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, just explained in some detail. The Government could have used the fast track procedure to amend the 1990 Act but chose to sit on the sidelines. It is getting to be something of a habit in the health sphere for the Government to use the private Member′s procedure as a way of supplementing their own programme—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I just point out that the Government could not have used the fast track procedure, at least I do not think they could, because I do not believe that the Human Rights Act would have applied. But in any case, even if it had, certainly the Human Rights Committee would not have regarded this course by speedy Private Member′s Bill as in any way worse than using delegated legislation. So I do not think with respect that that criticism is well founded.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, in such matters I, of course, bow to the immense knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. It was my understanding that the fast track procedure could have been used in this case, but if I am wrong, I certainly withdraw that. However, I still maintain my position that this is a matter that should have been dealt with by the Government in government time.
I was about to refer to the Government′s previous record in these matters, in particular in the health sphere. We had an example of the use of the private Member′s procedure last year when the noble Lord,
1158
Lord Clement-Jones, on the Liberal Democrat Benches did the Government′s job of implementing their policy on tobacco advertising. Now we have a further example with this Private Member′s Bill from another place. I hope that those outside Parliament will see where the Government place their priorities, for example, on attacking the traditions of our nation, whether it is the right to trial by jury or—dare I say it?—abolishing the right to control foxes by age-old methods. Whatever the Minister says today, it is clearly not the priority of the Government to deal with the issues in this Bill.
But let me now turn to the Bill. It affects only a small number of people, all of whose lives have been touched by tragedy. We cannot fail to feel compassion for the plight of the mothers involved and for their fatherless children. Those children are fatherless in their lives in fact and fatherless on paper. There is nothing that we in your Lordships′ House can do about those children being fatherless in fact in their lives, but the Bill does allow us to do something about the paperwork. In that sense, it is a very small measure of symbolic rather than substantive effect. It is hard to object to the Bill in those terms and noble Lords on these Benches do not do so.
I should like in particular to say how much we support the Bill′s reliance, at least so far as prospective cases are concerned, on consent—both the documented giving of consent and the absence of withdrawal of consent. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, underlined the importance of consent. If consent had not been at the heart of this Bill′s provisions, its contents would have been very hard to support.
I have one question for the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and two areas of concern to raise. The first question is the detailed one of why 42 days are allowed for registration in England but only 21 days in Scotland. That seems to me to be an unnecessary distinction between what happens in Scotland and what happens in England. New Section (5E) to the 1990 Act refers to Scotland. Does it mean births in Scotland are affected or births to Scottish mothers? If an English mother happens to be in Scotland when she gives birth—which can happen—does she have 21 or 42 days? I could not work that out from the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, can answer that question.
I turn to my two areas of concern. The first area of concern is the same as that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock; namely, that of allowing a mother to register the name of her deceased husband or partner where an embryo is created using donor sperm after the death of the husband or partner. In my opinion this tends to go into the realms of fantasy because we are not recording any real fact about the parentage of the child by using the man′s name who was not the genetic father. That does not seem to me to be right. I know that was discussed in another place but I have not heard any convincing public policy reason for it. But I fully accept, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Warnock, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, that these matters raise important issues of public policy that go

1159
much wider than the Bill. I do not object to the Bill on those grounds, but I wish to flag the fact that I believe that very serious issues are raised. It is a matter to which I hope your Lordships will be able to return on another occasion.
The second area of my concern is retrospection. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, anticipated that at least one speaker would raise the issue. It is important that we at least raise this area of concern. In general in legislation retrospection is unattractive. It is particularly unattractive in this case because the retrospection is based on different principles from that of Clause 2. Clause 2 is based on consent, which is a very important element of the recording of the father on a birth certificate. But Clause 3 dispenses with any evidence of consent. I am aware of the publicity surrounding particular cases and I do not doubt the sincerity of the individuals involved in those cases for one moment. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, took us through the history of Mrs Blood. However, it is true that the Bill will apply to those mothers different rules from those that will apply to others going forward, in that consent will not be required. I, for one, find that very difficult to take. I remind noble Lords that hard cases sometimes make bad law.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, can the noble Baroness clear up my puzzlement about the position of those on the Conservative Front Bench? As I have explained, the court gave a declaration that the present law was incompatible with the human rights convention. As I have also explained, but for the retrospective provisions we would have faced humiliation and condemnation on the international plane before the European Court, with damages and costs awarded that the taxpayer would have to bear. In those circumstances, I do not understand why the Conservative Opposition should object to providing an effective remedy retrospectively to avoid that mischief.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, as the noble Lord will find, I will not ultimately object to that; I am merely raising the issues of concern.
It is my understanding that the declaration of incompatibility, which required some retrospective change, could just as easily have been made using consent as one of the criteria for allowing the recognition. I may be wrong on that, but my understanding was that there was still an option as to which way retrospective effect could be given to the use of the registration of the father. That is why I drew the distinction between Clauses 2 and 3. Clause 2 uses consent, which is a very important concept, and Clause 3 dispenses with it in the case of retrospection. I understood that it was possible to comply with the European convention but to rest Clause 3 on consent as well, in effect. If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Baroness may not be well informed on the matter. The
1160
problem in the Blood case was not the absence of consent, but that the late husband had not filled in the necessary form. Therefore, there was an absence of written consent.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord′s pardon. I meant an absence of evidence to consent, rather than an absence of substantive consent. The evidence of consent is the important aspect of Clause 2; it requires written consent. I was drawing a distinction between that form of consent and any other form of evidence of consent.
I look forward to listening to the responses of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on those points. I should be clear: noble Lords on these Benches bear the Bill no ill will. As I have outlined, many aspects of the Bill are very welcome, but some aspects cause us concern. We are mindful of the limited impact of the Bill and, for that reason, we have no intention whatever of standing in its way.
12.3 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Government strongly support and welcome the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. Many midwives, metaphorical and otherwise, have spoken, but as the latest midwife she did a brilliant job in delivering this wonderful, bonny baby beautifully, elegantly and without harm. We are very grateful to her for that, and for speaking with such compassion as well as clarity and conviction about why the Bill is so important.
I am grateful that we have had such a very distinguished debate. Everyone who spoke brought a different sort of experience to bear. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, had unique experience of being part of facilitating the ability under the Bill to introduce new rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and above all the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, showed their experience of the history of the humane and improving way in which we treat ethical and medical issues on reproduction. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, is of course a unique asset to this House.
We have had an extraordinary welcome for the debate. I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, welcomed the Bill. I am sorry that we disappointed her and it is not a government Bill, but at least we have the Bill. It has been long in gestation; we are delighted to support it. It was not fast-tracked because the procedure under the Human Rights Act can be adopted only where there has been a declaration of incompatibility. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons before a declaration of incompatibility, so we were out of sequence. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, explained, we have had to deal with it in this way.
I also take the point that markers have been put down around the House about the need for a debate on wider ethical issues to do with reproduction. I am sure that the Government would be intent on listening to what has been said. We shall see what we can do.
The Bill was thoroughly considered and, as a result of that scrutiny, improved in the other place. It is a short Bill, but one that the Government believe

1161
presents an opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of a small number of children and families who find themselves in uniquely tragic circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke movingly of that unique combination of the pain of infertility compounded by the agony of bereavement. Because we are a government who put children very much at the heart of what we do, it is important that we look to all types and conditions of children, no matter how small the numbers are, so that we can, whenever possible, improve circumstances for them and their families.
As my noble friend said, one of the raisons d′être of the Bill is to put right what is inhumane and discriminatory in the present law. We are very glad to do that. In the cases with which we are concerned, there is no doubt about who the father is or that the child was wanted by both parents. It is unfair to deny children who are growing up today a recognition of that fact in law. The Bill would allow for the father′s name to be entered on the child′s birth certificate when the child has been born following fertility treatment after the man′s death.
The unfairness rests in part on inconsistency. As the law stands, if an embryo created through in-vitro fertilisation had been placed in the woman before the man′s death, or if the child had been conceived in the normal way, his name could go on the birth certificate. But if the man dies before the embryo could be placed in the woman, the birth certificate must not record him as the father. That means that the family has to come to terms with not only a tragic loss but with the additional distress caused by the rigidity of the law.
The families affected by that failure have campaigned long and hard on the issue, and I pay tribute to them and to those who have championed their cause, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lester. As my noble friend emphasised, the Bill is of very narrow scope. It is symbolic recognition only, because to do otherwise would make it extremely difficult to wind up a man′s estate. Therefore, the Bill does not propose to allow the child any rights of succession or inheritance, or any other legal status.
Although symbolic, the recognition is very important. Putting the father′s name on the birth certificate will, I believe, be of considerable and lasting emotional value to the children themselves. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said to those of us who have been fortunate in not having to contemplate such circumstances, we can only guess at the significance of that to children as they grow up.
As noble Lords know, the Bill implements a recommendation by Professor McLean, a professor of law and ethics in medicine, in her report published in July 1998, Review of the Common Law Provisions Relating to the Removal of Gametes and of the Consent Provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. As the title suggests, the report was primarily concerned with issues around consent, and rightly so.
1162
As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, consent is a critical issue. Professor McLean also recommended that children born in circumstances considered in the Bill should have a symbolic acknowledgement of their father on their birth certificates.
We accepted that recommendation and are very happy to support the initiative. However, the Bill goes further than the McLean review, for very sound reasons, as my noble friend emphasised. The Government believe that it would be wrong not to recognise the rights of children who are growing up now and their families, rather than merely children yet to be born. Therefore, the Bill will apply to existing as well as future cases. I am particularly grateful to noble Lords who have welcomed the retrospective elements of the Bill and the humane difference that that will make.
I understand some of the reservations spoken about by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I believe that she was comprehensively answered by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. We have given the issue a great deal of consideration and we think that it is the right—the humane—thing to do. It prevents those young people being discriminated against in any way. It confers dignity and it will refer to a very small number of people. We are very careful in the House with issues of retrospection, but we believe that this is an honourable exception and I am very grateful to have the support of Members of the House. I also welcome the emphasis in the Bill on the importance of proper consent—written consent—in prospective cases. It sends an important signal and is an important safeguard.
The Bill will also remedy a declared incompatibility of the current law with the European Convention on Human Rights and sets out a clear process to be followed in future. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that that is a fair cop; I am afraid that we are at fault. It would have helped to explain the context if not the content of the Bill. We will take careful note of this for future reference.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. It is generous. I am sure that it is good housekeeping to do so.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, once reprimanded, in my experience, the Department of Health rarely fails to act.
While it is not possible to guarantee that future human rights challenges will not arise in this area, the Government believe that the Bill strikes the proper balance between the rights and interests of all the parties involved—father, mother and child. Above all, it is about the truth of relationships, which is extremely important.
I am happy to welcome and support my noble friend′s Bill. I congratulate her on the way she introduced it and on commanding the support and respect of the House in so doing. I very much hope that the Bill will receive cross-party support through its remaining stages.
12.12 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken this morning—they are distinguished in this field and made distinguished contributions. It was tremendously important that we were reminded of the history of this issue and given important perspectives—I refer to human fertility and reproduction, medicine and the law, and our view as legislators and midwives. It was also important to be reminded that although this is a very narrow measure, it sits in the context of much broader debates concerning public policy. I am sure that the Government and other noble Lords take note of the importance of debating and resolving some of those issues at a later stage.
I shall answer a couple of questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It appears that it is the place of birth that determines the given period of time; where the baby is born is the point. In Scotland, the mother has 21 days because that reflects the time in which birth must be registered, according to current registration procedures.
There were very interesting contributions on the issue of retrospection, and I am grateful to noble Lords for accepting that this is a very unusual case for registration. In response to the noble Baroness′s question, I am not sure that I can help any more in that regard. However, she indicated that in this case she does not object to the principle, although she understands that it may have been done in a different way.
I do not want to keep noble Lords long or to comment on other contributions. Above all, I thank noble Lords for the compassion with which they approached this issue. That reminded us that families in this situation need the utmost support and that there should be the utmost scrutiny and safeguard of the law. When the Bill finally goes through your Lordships′ House, a small but important group of people will be very grateful.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Community Care Plans (Disapplication) (England) Order 2003
12.15 p.m.
Baroness Andrewsrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order being debated this afternoon is designed to disapply the requirement for councils in England to produce a community care plan under Section 46 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Community care plans covered community care services for all client groups. Their primary purpose has been to ensure that councils have a robust planning process to manage their community care responsibilities and that they work with health bodies and housing and other agencies. The plans have also
1164
proved a useful means of conveying important public messages about the direction of community care policy.
Since April 2002, however, local authorities have not been legally required to submit community care plans. This forms part of a wider initiative between central and local government to rationalise and streamline planning processes and to promote more joint working by health and social services.
Directions were passed disapplying the requirement to produce a community care plan for each of the years 2002–03 and 2003–04. The order before us is aimed at making this change permanent. It also consequentially removes Section 46 from the list of social services functions, in relation to England, which is found in Schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.
Those changes were driven, first, by a determination to simplify planning processes, and, secondly, to ensure that national priorities were more effectively delivered at local level. Let me briefly explain the background. In 2001 the Government commissioned a review of the plans they required councils with social services responsibilities to submit for scrutiny. It was widely accepted across local and central government that the then planning requirements constituted a heavy burden on local authorities. Social services alone were contributing to at least 40 plans each year, equating to more than 6,000 plans nationwide. Furthermore, the plans did not constitute a coherent whole from a local perspective. They took a variety of forms on a variety of timescales and were required by a variety of sources. A recurring theme was that the current process failed to make clear what the national priorities were, with each planning requirement concentrating on its own set of priorities. It was an unsatisfactory position that we attempted to address.
For example, one of the arguments for the original introduction of community care plans in the 1990s was that integrated community care packages were not developing on a sufficient scale and that the whole process needed much greater impetus. The introduction of community care plans helped to achieve that. I should add that councils had also been given the option of incorporating the essential elements of community care plans into their joint investment plans and health improvement plans, or they could remain as stand-alone plans. We were looking for change and best practice.
The 2001 study acknowledged that local authorities were drowning in planning bureaucracy, and suggested that a new framework was needed to assure Ministers that national policy priorities were being successfully translated into local action. The department accepted the report′s recommendations and, as in many other areas of government policy, where joint working has been strenuously developed in recent years, the past two years have seen the introduction of more integrated and streamlined planning processes within both local authorities and NHS bodies.
Most significantly, a new planning framework for health and social services, which came into effect this April, now means that the majority of current planning requirements will be replaced by a single, integrated three-year local delivery plan for health and social care. Just as the community care plans helped to inform the joint investment and health improvement plans, so they have informed the development of the local delivery plans. All aspects of the community care plan have been incorporated into the new planning framework, which is linked to health, as appropriate. I am sure that noble Lords will applaud the fact that the plan also has the advantage of having fewer national requirements and fewer targets.
The focus and coherence of community care plans have provided a strong basis for what we consider to be a more responsive and rigorous planning structure. The functions and the profile of community care will, we anticipate, be enhanced as the partnerships gear up towards a new generation of planning and service delivery. But we are also looking to better community care planning in terms of both the national service frameworks—for example, in the National Service Framework for Older People and the National Service Framework for Mental Health—and the local community strategies themselves, which bring together all aspects of community development.
I want to make a few additional points. First, when the department embarked on a consultation process in August 2001, it sought the views of all chief executives of health authorities, directors of social services and selected voluntary groups on removing the legal requirement to produce the community care plans. We were very pleased with the response. Ninety per cent of respondents were supportive of the proposal because they argued, as we had, that in many cases community care plans had failed to reflect user views, they were considered to be time-consuming, much of the work was replicated within other planning documents, partnership working had progressed and, indeed, other options had been found for meeting the needs of diverse groups.
However, they raised two important concerns, which I want to conclude by addressing. The first was that the needs of users and carers should be reflected positively in the existing planning processes, and, secondly, that the needs of vulnerable groups should not be "lost" in the plethora of planning reports. The issue of inadequate information and confusion was raised repeatedly as being a barrier to the involvement and participation of service users. Frequent references were made, in particular, to the needs of minority ethnic groups, people with sensory and physical impairment and people with learning disabilities.
In the light of the comments received, the Department of Health issued a response which stressed the need for clear sign-posting for service users to ensure that minority groups′ needs were addressed. It also stressed that health and local authority partners needed to identify and address any gaps in provision and that local authorities and health partners needed to own as well as develop their joint plans.
Since then, many actions and developments have taken place. Local authorities have indicated that they are providing "sign-posts" for service users, demonstrating the range of plans, and, where there are gaps in addressing specific service requirements, the local authority, together with its health partners, will now have to address how best to reflect those in what they do. Many local authorities are also preparing an annual publication, which will provide an additional sign-post to plans, together with a co-ordinated statement for smaller groups of service users where the needs were not accounted for in the main plans. I hope that all that will be seen as a positive response to the problems which we picked up.
We have drastically reduced the number of plans required to be submitted to the department from 30 to two. We are convinced that, by replacing the community care plans with the local delivery plans, we shall strengthen the focus. We shall be addressing and identifying proper priorities for care, with all client groups involved, and the coherence which is needed will be enhanced. I should say that only the local delivery plans now have to be submitted to central government.
Therefore, the order addresses different kinds of realities. In particular, it addresses the fact that Section 46 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 still requires councils to produce community care plans, which is why we seek the disapplication. The proposed change was consulted on in autumn 2001 and was subsequently approved with the full involvement of Ministers. The proposal for the order has lain in the House of Commons and the House of Lords for the required 60 days without comment from either House. Therefore, I hope that suggests that we shall have the support of all parties. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Andrews.)
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for introducing the order and for explaining it in her customary clear and comprehensive way. At first blush, the order looks completely straightforward but I have a few questions for the Minister.
First, perhaps I may deal with the timing of the order. Consultation took place between August and November 2001. Since then, there has been no action on the order other than the ad hoc removal of the obligation to produce annual community care plans. Can the Minister say what was the cause of the delay between November 2001 and July 2003?
Secondly, and related to the subject of timing, the consultation was completed 20 months ago. The Minister outlined some of the findings of that consultation. Are the Government clear that nothing has changed in the meantime? What procedures have the Government followed to ensure that the decision to abolish the annual community care plans remains valid?

1167
Thirdly, the abolition of annual community care plans is, of course, welcome if it relieves local authorities from a burden without loss of value to the community. When considering the burden on local authorities in this area, I looked for the subject of community care plans on the department′s website and discovered the following non-exhaustive list of plans and planning mechanisms that local authorities engage in with regard to the areas covered by the plans. It includes: local strategic partnerships; local health partnership and modernisation boards; health improvement and modernisation plans; joint investment plans; national service framework local action plans; better care higher standards; local community strategies; carers′ strategies; and best value plans.
As I said, I am told by the Department of Health′s website that that is a non-exhaustive list. "Frightening or what?" for local authorities, I say to that. I am tempted to say that the Department of Health has on its hands a far bigger task in relation to simplification than this modest measure before us today. The noble Baroness talked about reducing the number of plans submitted to the centre. But, if the Department of Health website is to be believed, significant burdens are still left on local authorities.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions relating to this area. First, how can the Government be sure that, in moving away from annual community care plans to a plethora of planning mechanisms, usually on longer planning timescales, sight will not be lost of short-term developments? Three years can be a very long time on the ground in dealing with needs.
Secondly, how can the Government be sure that the needs of all groups—especially minority groups—are taken care of? That was a particular strength of the way that community care plans were developed and it was one of the strong messages received in the feedback from the consultation exercise carried out by the department.
The Minister talked about sign-posting and how some local authorities carry that out. I fully accept that. But can she say how the department ensures that local authorities make it clear how all groups—in particular, minority groups—can make their views heard and have them fed into the process? It is not enough simply to issue guidance about sign-posting; we must be sure that it is happening in practice in the way that it did happen to engage groups under community care plans. We do not oppose the order but we believe that these are serious questions that require answers.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the way that she introduced this very welcome disapplication order. She did so in her customary thorough manner.
In this House, we do not have a habit of giving our speeches titles. But, if I had the opportunity to do that, I would like to steal the title from an event that I attended a couple of weeks ago. It was entitled "More
1168
than Sandwiches and Samosas". It reflected the experience of older people being involved in consultation on all these plans. I want to talk very much from the user point of view.
The order is welcome because it reflects the increase in joint planning and joint consultation which has been taking place over the past two years. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, questioned whether the department′s actions had, in fact, reflected reality. They have, and I say that as someone who is, from time to time, involved in helping users and stakeholders to become involved in this issue. There has been an explosion in consultation meetings and consultation mechanisms. That is a huge problem. If local authorities are drowning in the consultation requirements placed upon them, just think what it is like for small community organisations. The truth is that they cannot manage to keep up.
One concern is not addressed by the order, but it is a real one all the same. The requirement for consultation carries with it no resources. Small organisations are being required to take part in consultations but they do not have the time, money or staff to do so. I happen to work for a large and well-established voluntary organisation, one which is strong at local level. One of the people I worked with now works in the North West. She calculates that she works one week in four on consultation for statutory authorities. She is not paid for that, nor is her organisation. Frankly, small community organisations are not going to be able to undertake it.
One of the lessons that has been learnt from the process of community care planning is that the most beautiful of plans means nothing if that is the only involvement that stakeholders have in it. During the years social services have become good at producing plans which have some meaning. But the NHS, which is increasingly involved in joint implementation plans in health and patient care, has a long way to go in its ability to make the processes work, never mind the outcomes.
A couple of months ago, I was told about a consultation meeting for older people which took place somewhere in London. The consultation meeting was set up for nine o′clock on a Monday morning in a hospital site not on a public transport route and without transport laid on. The health authority was surprised when no users turned up. The authorities are beginning to improve, but only slightly.
The order will assist in one other aspect. People say they are burnt out by consultation. We have a race of super pensioners who have a great time. They are professional pensioners who go to consultation meeting after consultation meeting. But even they are having enough of the sandwiches and samosas. In Age Concern recently, we had an application from a bunch of pensioners who have become firm friends. They have been to so many consultation meetings that they have got to know each other. They applied to us for some money and they were most specific in their requirements. They wanted money to have outings and

1169
treats because they did not want to have to go to an event and sit and listen to yet another boring speech before they got the sandwiches.
A noble Lord: They would not do very well in here!
Baroness Barker: No, they would not do very well in here! The Minister is right. There are other mechanisms. Better governance for older people is an interesting one to look at. The better governance for older people programme has left a good legacy of involvement of older people, but sustaining it at local level now that the national funding has disappeared is proving to be difficult and much of the good work done under that programme is being dissipated.
The noble Baroness was right to talk about the importance of local development plans. They are important locally, as are health improvement plans. But they will only be as good as the data they produce. During the past 10 years or so of community care plans, a great deal of effort has gone into the process of writing the plans but I have yet to find anyone who has been able on a sustained basis across an area to say what has resulted from them.
One of my colleagues at Age Concern used to have the delightful job of going through every community care plan in London trying to find out what it said about older people. That was a job in itself. Now that she has retired, I am not sure that we have any better information about service planning. Therefore, in welcoming the rationalisation, I ask the Minister whether, when we are down to one or two planning mechanisms, they will have the resources to be real and where the data they generate can be found. It is hard enough finding the processes on the Department of Health′s website. Finding the results is even more difficult.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome which the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Barker, have offered the order. I shall deal with a few of their questions in turn. Yes, it has taken us a little time to come forward with the order, but we introduced the disapplication directions which gave the clearest possible steer to people that we did not want them to duplicate effort. In the interim, the planning process has not changed.
However, it has been a period of considerable development. For the first time we have tried to be serious about the delivery of joint working on the ground in health and social care. It is a major challenge following the Health and Social Care Act 2001. We have put a great deal of effort into ensuring that what can work on the ground is what happens.
We are certainly not complacent, but during the past three years we have not had a hiatus in development or delivery. We have introduced local delivery plans which are better and integrated and address some of the issues that were ignored. I am not surprised that when the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, looked at the website she found so many examples. I am sure the
1170
search was not exhaustive, but it is a measure of how much has been devolved to local policy. So much integration and local strategy is being put in place. That is where we find the requirement to consult and to be serious and intent upon it.
There is an issue about the annual community care plans and their time-scale, but the local delivery plans are living documents. They are not set in stone for three years and they can be amended. Corrective action can be taken if delivery goes off course, or if there are new and urgent priorities or opportunities. Although I understand why the noble Baroness raised the question, we can have confidence that there will be flexibility.
On the seriousness about consultation, I shall address the issues which came from different parts of the House. I am delighted that we have had an incredibly proactive impact on the people concerned, whether they are the elderly, parents without work, or whatever. The idea of consultation overload is a little daunting and I hope that we do not inhibit people from coming forward. I believe that the challenge is to find ways of involving and identifying the people whose voices are never heard.
We have some opportunities in initiatives such as Neighbourhood Renewal for involving people. We are undertaking similar work in drug action development. My noble friend Lady Massey recently spoke about drug action teams talking to small groups of mothers in very deprived areas where there are big drug problems. They talk to small groups in order to get them involved as the voices of their community. There is no doubt that we have not been very successful and there are better ways of doing it. I take the warning she offered. It is the greatest disappointment to involve people at the early stage of a process and never to be able to show them how their words, influence and expertise made no difference to the outcome.
Section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 places a specific duty on local authorities to ensure that the service users and carers are involved in the planning process. The technical guidance that is issued on local delivery plans, which I would be happy to pass on to the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Noakes, operates to a standard template. There is a lot of detail about what we expect to see. The guidance must summarise how key partner organisations have been engaged in the process, how supportive they are of service proposals and, indeed, how they will be affected. We are getting serious about the audit trail of involvement and outcome. I would be very happy to circulate the guidance. It is extremely important that we involve such organisations throughout the process. I take the point about resources for voluntary organisations. One encouraging aspect is the contact that has been set up between government and the voluntary sector, which may make a difference in some centres.
I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords that we have addressed some of the issues which spring from the changes that we ask the House to support. I

1171
should be happy to reply further in writing to noble Lords. In the meantime I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fireworks Bill
12.41
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Before dealing in detail with this Bill, I should like to pay tribute to my honourable friend Bill Tynan and to staff and colleagues for the time and effort which was devoted to the wide-ranging consultations in the preparation of this Bill and to the indefatigable way he successfully steered the Bill through all its stages in another place.
The unusually large numbers of MPs from all parties who participated in the discussions and supported the Bill in another place bore witness to the enormous amount of public concern which has been presented to them both from their constituents and from involved organisations of all kinds. Hundreds of thousands of people have signed various petitions on this issue and a large number of newspapers throughout the country have campaigned for fireworks control.
A recent report from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (CoSLA) on the issue of fireworks is one of the most comprehensive of its kind and clearly exposed the inadequacy of the current system of controlling fireworks and laid out the main issues disturbing the public.
There is the issue of noise and nuisance. All over the UK there is the clear perception that fireworks have become louder and their use extended, both throughout the year and into the night hours. Fireworks are part of celebrations now for religious festivals as well as personal celebrations such as weddings and birthdays and there are no formal decibel limits. There is also a disturbing increase in what can be called anti-social and even criminal use to destroy property and to harm people and animals.
There is also the question of injuries. Statistics show that after a decrease following the 1997 regulations and fireworks safety campaign, the past five years show the figures rising rapidly towards their previous peak. Of course the figures are recorded only for the four weeks around 5th November and so do not include injuries in the ever-increasing periods of current fireworks use such as New Year.
The BMA has written to me stating that it supports the Bill to improve fireworks safety as a necessary public health measure and expresses the hope that the Bill′s provision will help to prevent the needless pain and misery of those suffering injury each year from the misuse of fireworks.
An upsetting aspect of the misuse of fireworks is the increase of injuries to both domestic and farm animals, some from deliberate attacks and others from the
1172
visual and aural effects of unexpected explosions of fireworks in their vicinity. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which has been at the forefront of the active supporters of the Bill, and to which I am particularly grateful for all its help and support, reports that currently throughout the year it has to retire prematurely, retrain or sedate many guide dogs because of fireworks. Some four to six are retired every year. As many as 50 others need retraining and hundreds more have to be sedated to help them cope with the problem. In addition to the distress to the dogs and their owners, this entails a considerable financial cost to the charity since the lifetime cost of each dog is around £35,000.
The question of control of licensing and storage is highly unsatisfactory. On payment of about £13, an annual licence for the storage of fireworks can he obtained. The local authority or, in metropolitan areas, the fire authority, cannot refuse to grant a licence and has no powers to revoke it. Over 95 per cent of fireworks in the United Kingdom are imported. There are estimates that between 9 to 13 per cent of those imported do not pass to legally-licensed storage but are stored illegally or container loads are quickly and surreptitiously split up to circumvent the laws on storage.
The existing law on fireworks is based on a number of diverse pieces of legislation: the Explosives Act 1875; the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; the Noise Act 1996; the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912. In other words, the current law is a mix of an archaic 125 year-old law and other pieces of legislation dealing with issues such as consumer protection and noise, which have been tangentially applied to the issue of fireworks misuse.
A voluntary code has existed between the DTI and representatives of the fireworks industry since 1975 but in addition to it being wholly voluntary, there are differing interpretations of what has been agreed in a number of key areas and mixed opinion about the code′s influence. In the light of all that, it is little wonder that the concern both of the general public and the directly involved organisations has led to an amazingly comprehensive and wide-ranging list of organisations which are in support of the Bill. Twelve leading animal charities and organisations have agreed a common position in support of the Bill. Most of your Lordships will have received information from some or all of them. They are: Blue Cross; Guide Dogs for the Blind Association; National Canine Defence League; Battersea Dogs Home; RSPCA; SSPCA; PRO Dogs; National Dog Wardens Association; Pet Care Trust; Wood Green Animal Shelter: Cats Protection League, and the Kennel Club.
In addition, the Bill is supported by the British Horse Society; the British Medical Association; the Trades Union Congress; the National Farmers Union; the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Significantly, three groups representing the fireworks industry have stated their support for the Bill: namely, the British

1173
Fireworks Association; the British Pyrotechnics Association and the Explosive Industry Group of the Confederation of British Industry.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities reported from its inquiries that the Association of Chief Police Officers was of the opinion that fireworks misuse has escalated significantly, resulting in its becoming a serious community problem, which causes considerable annoyance to the general public and affects the quality of life in local communities.
The Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers′ Association expressed concern about the increasing misuse of fireworks and about the need to strengthen the current system. Indeed, it offered its support for the Bill. The Society of Chief Officers of Trading Standards voiced particular concerns about the problems of storage and supply. The SSPCA reported that 90 per cent of vets who responded to its survey had treated animals for injuries resulting from the misuse of fireworks.
I turn now to give a brief outline of the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 establishes the definition of a firework. Scope for amendment of this definition is included to allow an adequate response to possible new products being developed.
Clause 2 grants the powers to enable fireworks regulations to he made and outlines the grounds on which they can be made. These include protection of humans, animals and property. A requirement to consult with interested and other relevant groups before making regulations is included, although there is scope for making emergency provisions.
Clause 3 allows for sales to minors to be banned. The intention is that the existing minimum age of 18 should he retained. Clause 4 allows for the times at which fireworks can he sold or used to be limited. Scope is included to allow exceptions such as post-11 p.m. use at New Year and so on. but the intention is that this clause will bring about a year-round 11 p.m. curfew on general firework use.
Clause 5 allows for the sale of certain categories of fireworks to be restricted to those trained, experienced and/or insured, as appropriate. Clause 6 allows for conditions such as training, insurance, consultation with those nearby and/or appropriate local authority permission to he applied to those intending to hold public firework displays. The intention is that those holding displays would be expected to take reasonable steps in their organisation to ensure that certain standards in respect of training and insurance are adhered to and that the impact of these displays on people or animals nearby is curtailed or minimised.
Clause 7 allows for the existing system of licensing suppliers to be strengthened. This of course will require careful consultation, but it has been argued, not least by my honourable friend Bill Tynan in another place, that a two-tier system should be introduced, with a lower tier allowing a retailer to sell fireworks for a limited period around 5th November, and a higher tier, with a higher cost and a stricter standard of training, record-keeping and so on, should be applied to those selling all the year round. These
1174
licences could be refused or revoked, and the higher tier would apply to those selling via the Internet or by mail order.
Clause 8 allows regulations to be made in respect of the information that must be provided about fireworks. The intention is that this would relate to packaging and information provided with both packs and individual fireworks. Clause 9 allows regulations to be made in respect of the importation and manufacture of fireworks. The intention is that information should be provided to confirm that fireworks entering the UK are being transported to legal storage and that. if not, action could more swiftly be taken.
Clause 10 allows for and defines the nature of training courses referenced under fireworks regulations. The intention is that, in consultation with the industry and other interested parties, appropriate training courses and standards would be established to cover those areas where training would be appropriate. Clause 11 makes it an offence to contravene a fireworks regulation with maximum penalties laid down.
Clause 12 outlines the powers of enforcement of those acting under fireworks regulations. The intention is that local trading standards officers, liaising with the police, health and safety executives and Customs and Excise, as appropriate, would be the prime enforcement mechanism. Clauses 13 to 19 are technical clauses relating to financial provisions, the means of firework regulations coming into law and a number of other minor aspects.
It should be noted that the Bill is an enabling measure. It grants a package of powers to make firework regulations which can be changed in response to changing circumstances. There is, however, a clear expectation of what, in the first instance, the powers granted under the Fireworks Bill would be used to achieve. Concerns have been raised in respect of these Henry VIII provisions, but it is expected that the reassurances given by the Government in 1998 to the House of Lords in respect of a similar Bill on fireworks will be repeated.
I should just say that in relation to Scotland, the Bill is a mixture of reserved and devolved matters. A Sewel Motion was passed in the Scottish Parliament on 26th June 2003 after a two-hour discussion in which not one MSP spoke against the Bill. We were all in favour of action which of course reflected the concerns expressed by their own constituents on this matter.
A Section 63 order is being prepared to give Scottish Ministers concurrent powers with UK Ministers in relation to Clause 4, which deals with the prohibition of supply, possession or use of fireworks in certain circumstances, and Clause 6 dealing with public fireworks displays.
I greatly appreciate the effort of all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak on the Bill, especially on a Friday in July. It is perhaps a significant omen that we are having the Second Reading on the anniversary of American Independence, a day on which there may well be fireworks parties, which we all

1175
hope will be safe and happy ones. This Bill should ensure that in future all such events surely will be. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
12.56 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale for introducing the Bill, which I am sure will receive widespread support. There have been a number of failed attempts in the past to get similar Bills on to the statute book. We must do our best in this House to ensure that that does not happen again. However, there is an important procedural point regarding the passage of the Bill on to the statute book, to which I shall return at the end of my speech.
We have all received a large amount of briefing from a number of organisations supporting the Bill. My noble friend pointed out that no fewer than 12 animal charities and a wide range of other organisations, including the BMA, have expressed support.
I wish to express my support for the Bill for very particular and personal reasons. Both our children were born with substantial handicaps of hearing and vision. As a result, they both went to a school for the blind. My daughter has been a guide dog owner for 17 years.
When I saw the Bill had been tabled, I remembered that some children at the school our children attended had been blinded by fireworks. I got in touch with the teacher who taught our children and asked him how many children he had known in that category. He said that in his time there—some 10 years—that he could remember five children who had been blinded by fireworks. That is just one school for the blind over a period of 10 years. How many more children and adults are there who have suffered serious eye damage as a result of fireworks? If the Bill becomes law, we must hope that such unnecessary handicap is brought to an end.
When I told my daughter that I intended to speak in this debate she expressed a trenchant view—as is her wont—that she would ban all fireworks except those used in properly controlled displays, and even then there would be the effect on animals to consider. Her last guide dog, Vita, was absolutely terrified of fireworks. It was painful to see her reaction every November and on other occasions when fireworks were exploding. In fact, at those times her condition was so bad that she had to be sedated with the canine equivalent of Valium, which meant that she was incapable of working as a guide dog for at least two days.
Your Lordships will have seen the excellent briefing prepared by the coalition of animal welfare groups and the figures quoted—448 dogs treated last year for firework injuries, 20,308 dogs with behavioural problems and 24,875 dogs which had to be given medication. Those are the global figures, but I remember a lovely, friendly golden Labrador turned into a cowering and trembling animal, who, however
1176
much we tried, could not be comforted and had to be sedated. As I say, sedation takes some time to wear off. Your Lordships will know that that is not an isolated incident; they have heard the figures from my noble friend; and a wide range of other animals have similar problems where fireworks are concerned.
Those are the two brief, but I hope powerful, points I wish to make regarding the effects of fireworks on blindness and on guide dogs in particular.
I shall conclude with an important procedural point. As I am sure your Lordships know, if the Bill is amended and must therefore return to the Commons, it will not become law. As I understand it, Commons procedure is such that next Friday, 11th July, is the last day in the Session allotted to Private Member′s Bills there. Clearly, the Bill will not be able to pass all its stages in this House by next Friday, so if it must return to the Commons, it will fall.
In passing, that is a general point that applies to all Private Member′s Bills in this House as we approach the Summer Recess. That point should be considered by the business managers and House authorities in both Houses. I tried and failed when I was Chief Whip; perhaps under the new found freedom of the back benches I shall try again to get the system changed whereby the Commons does not and will not consider any Private Member′s Bills after the Summer Recess.
The Bill has been thoroughly considered in the other place. I understand that all the necessary amendments were made there, so I urge your Lordships not to require the Bill to have a Committee stage, so the remaining stages can be dealt with formally during the overspill. We can then be sure that the Bill will become law this Session. If it does, it will be of great benefit to both people and animals. I am delighted to give the Bill my support.
1.1 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words in support of the Bill. I very much hope that this will be the only time that we shall debate the matter, as delaying the Bill′s progress will, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained, cause it to fall in this Session.
I am sure that most noble Lords will agree that, when organised well, fireworks are a magnificent spectacle and often the highlight of a celebration. A professional show can be a truly magical experience, with high quality fireworks set off with expert timing to music. Fireworks evoke wonder in adults and children alike with their splendid colour, light and sound that never fails to inspire awe.
It is for this reason that the Bill is before us today: to preserve the good bits; the pleasure fireworks bring and the fun and festivities with which they are associated. The fireworks industry recognised the importance of that when it took the initiative to introduce voluntary measures in the 1976 firework package deal that was endorsed by the Government. For alongside the good bits, fireworks are capable of causing considerable harm to those who mishandle

1177
them and to those people and animals in the vicinity who are disturbed by loud noises that continue late into the night. Existing legislation does not go far enough to protect them.
I am particularly concerned about the impact that fireworks can have on working dogs. It saddens me to see the effect that fireworks can have on any animal. I have a small dog that is petrified by fireworks and trembles all over when she hears the cracks and bangs, hiding her head in the cupboard to try to get away from the sound. But that must be so much worse in the case of working dogs which have been trained at great expense and are relied upon by a disabled person. Those dogs do such a marvellous job, bringing companionship and enabling the blind, deaf and wheelchair-bound to live as normal life as possible. It must be devastating for a dog owner to experience a loyal guide dog being badly affected by fireworks. I understand that the numbers involved are not huge, but even one is too many.
I see the Bill as a way to ensure that fireworks maintain their well-deserved good reputation—a Bill to facilitate regulation so that we can enjoy fireworks for many years to come. But let us also ensure that when people think of fireworks they think of spine-tingling excitement rather than sleepless nights, street vandalism and cowering animals. This is what the Bill seeks to achieve; I welcome it wholeheartedly.
1.4 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, in supporting the Bill so ably and eloquently introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, I must declare a rather personal interest. My wife′s birthday falls on 5th November. Instead of celebrating, she, her nervous cats and petrified dog tend to cower away together in the most sound-proof room of our house as fireworks explode in our village and a number of rockets end up on our lawn.
Although I would not wish unnecessarily to deprive our neighbours or anyone else of the pleasure they derive from fireworks displays which can be foreseen and against which precautions can be taken—such as on Guy Fawkes night—it is the weeks before and after which have the potential to cause the greatest shock and distress, as fireworks are launched haphazardly and unexpectedly. Indeed, that occurs not only during those weeks but also from time to time throughout the year for no accountable reason.
Having regard to the dangers to people—particularly children—to animals and to property, few would oppose the principle that careful regulation is necessary. But it would be wrong to take that to the extreme that fireworks should be completely banned. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, pointed out, they provide much pleasure to many on festive occasions and are sometimes a spectacular and even beautiful sight.
A balance clearly needs to be struck and that is exactly what the Bill achieves. Although the powers given to the Secretary of State are wide, they are restricted by the provisions of Clause 2(4) requiring that the Secretary of State, before making regulations,
1178
must issue a full regulatory impact assessment setting out details of their costs and benefits and their wider economic, social and environmental impact. Added to that are the requirements under Clause 16(2) for a draft of the statutory instrument containing them to be laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, pointed out, in addition certain commitments have already been given.
This is an excellent and balanced Bill that will he welcomed by the public, the medical profession, the animal welfare organisations and, I understand, the fireworks industry itself.
1.7 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, in supporting and welcoming the Bill, perhaps I may first, like others, thank my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale for introducing it. It is an important measure. As has been said, at one time most of the emphasis was on injuries sustained by private firework displays, especially to young people. Attention has already been drawn to the injuries that they have suffered.
Fireworks used to be centred around 5th November, and one used to be able to safeguard one′s animals around that time, because it was only for a day or two before and after that one had to try to calm them or keep them in. Nowadays, that period has got longer and longer and fireworks take place at so many events—wedding anniversaries, birthdays and other celebrations of one kind or another—that that is increasingly difficult.
From my experience at home, it is more difficult to keep the cat in. Cats panic easily and have been known to desert their home and get lost. We also have two rather large dogs: a Rottweiler named Harold and a boxer named Herbie. They are normally fairly quiet and bark only when anyone comes near the property, but when neighbours have fireworks they bark continuously. No one would welcome two such large dogs making so much noise over such a long period—apart from the effect on the dogs.
Guide dogs and injury in relation to them have also been mentioned. There is also the cost to society. Fireworks also have an effect on farm animals. Some people throw them at horses and other animals causing them extreme distress. I am sorry to say that it sometimes occurs in the countryside where I live.
I welcome the introduction of this regulatory measure. It does not stop the use of fireworks altogether, but it looks at when they can be used, making them safer than ever and reducing animals′ suffering. The measure has public support. One need only consider the hundreds of thousands who have signed petitions, many of which have been sent to MPs, who have had a very heavy postbag. My son, the MP for Chorley, is not alone in having to deal with the issues. The Commons have certainly welcomed the Bill, and it has wide support in this House. I hope that no amendments are tabled that could thwart the passage of the Bill into law. We all agree that the

1179
measure is necessary. I wish the Bill well. I also wish my noble friend well in her pursuit of seeing the Bill enacted.
1.11 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, as a vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, it is my great pleasure to give RoSPA′s wholehearted support to this enabling Bill. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, and Mr Bill Tynan for bringing the Bill to Parliament. I thank the noble Baroness for her elucidation of the Bill and for giving me a background briefing.
Over the past four years, the total number of injuries in the four-week period of Guy Fawkes Night, 831 people were injured in 1998, 1056 in 1999, 972 in 2000, a staggering 1,362 in 2001 and 1017 last year. Action is long overdue. Those are the only statistics kept, so we cannot tell what happens at New Year′s Eve or at other times.
The society has long advocated many of the measures contained in the Bill, particularly those relating to licensing and training. It provides a good framework for future regulation of fireworks to enable a sensible balance to be achieved between the pleasure that fireworks can give and necessary safety.
RoSPA does not seek to ban all use of fireworks by the public, as they give great pleasure to many. We also have concerns about promoting an increase in the manufacture of fireworks by amateurs, which has led to serious injury in the past. RoSPA does not wish to spoil the public′s enjoyment of spectacular public displays. However, we wish to ensure that the public and organisers of displays are as safe as possible.
The Bill contains many useful provisions to allow for better controls. The clampdown on illegal sales, for example, is long overdue. I hope that the legislation and the consultation that follows it will promote a fundamental reappraisal of the use of fireworks, which will put an end to their irresponsible use while retaining most of their enjoyment value.
It must be remembered that most injuries inflicted by fireworks could be avoided with more care and thought. I support the Bill wholeheartedly. I also support the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the Bill should not be amended and should go in the statue book as quickly as possible.
1.14 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I, too, support the Bill. Like others, I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, for speaking to it in such a comprehensive and admirable way. I also pay tribute to Bill Tynan of the other place for his persistence and determination to address the problems that we are discussing.
However, it is with considerable regret that I see the need for such a Bill. I am no kill-joy; I like fireworks and wish to continue to watch them and to witness their technical development. Fireworks become ever more spectacular as each year goes by. Like most
1180
people, I want to continue to get pleasure and entertainment from them. However, like an increasing number of people these days—I am glad to hear from the Minister′s statement that the Government have come to share the view—I believe that the misuse of fireworks, particularly their noise, has started to blight the lives of many people, especially the elderly, the blind, babies, very young children, pets and other animals. An increasing number are hurt by that growing anti-social behaviour.
I was surprised that the problem was not covered in the Government′s Anti-social Behaviour Bill. Perhaps the Minister might comment on that. In addition, I would welcome a view from him on what would be the Government′s intentions, if this Private Member′s Bill failed, to ensure that they addressed the issue.
As recently as 10 to 15 years ago, we would see and hear fireworks only on or around 5th November, possibly at New Year′s celebrations and on rare occasions at other times of the year. Now, because fireworks seem to be on sale all year around, they are set off every week of the year, often at unearthly hours. I live in Brighton, where, as recently as last weekend, my wife and I were disturbed by thunder crackers, first at 4 a.m. and later on Sunday afternoon. It is difficult to cope with, especially if you have young children or pets.
Thunder crackers are air bombs, which, I understand, have now been voluntarily banned by the industry. But will self-regulation be tough enough to ensure that the ban remains, when, as recently as last week, air bombs were set off? In any event, ordinary bangers are now much louder than previously. I share the view with many in the animal welfare industry that we are moving towards a point where the industry must introduce a limitation on the decibels of noise created by fireworks. Had we had the opportunity of so doing, I would have liked to suggest today that this House move an amendment to introduce a limitation on the decibels of noise—perhaps around 100 decibels. But, given that that would prejudice the Bill, it would he inappropriate to so do. We must make progress wherever we can.
However, during our deliberations we should send a strong signal to the industry that, if our steps to rectify the problem are inadequate, some of us will seek the introduction of a limitation. In any event, European legislation will require a limitation in due course, so it is important that the industry starts to address the matter now.
With those reservations, and looking to the industry to remedy the problem that I have identified, I repeat my support for the Bill. I also express my gratitude to those who have spoken today and everyone who, I hope, will support the Bill when it returns to the other House.
1.19 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should be quite happy to see the Bill, or one very like it, pass into law. But I am not prepared to let a Bill of such importance pass through this House unscrutinised, just because of the deficiencies in Commons procedures. This is a

1181
Commons Bill; if they had wanted to bring it through earlier they could have done. It received its Second Reading a long time ago, and the fact that it has reached this House only now is entirely down to them. I have very serious problems with the Bill as currently drafted.
First, to start off on a general point, those who support the interests of pets—and I own a dog and cat—should be more conscious of the inconvenience to which these animals put our fellow citizens. Anyone walking the streets of London constantly has to watch where they are treading because of what dogs have left behind. All of us, especially in the more built-up parts of London, are conscious of the absence of small birds due to the prevalence of cats. As owners of these animals, we have a very large impact on the enjoyment of life by our fellow citizens. We should be very conscious of demanding that we reduce their enjoyment merely because it has an impact on the pleasure that we and our pets get out of life.
I was also very disturbed by what the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, said today about the statistics from Guide Dogs for the Blind. The damage to animals has increased by a factor of 100 since the statistics given in the House of Commons at Second Reading. I wonder what has happened to produce that enormous increase in the figures provided by Guide Dogs for the Blind, and whether we can really rely on what that organisation says. Truth is a very important commodity and the RSPCA and Guide Dogs for the Blind should have more consideration for the statistics and stories that they are putting forward. They might command support of people who trip over the facility with which they change their stories, and try to conceal, in the case of the RSPCA, their real motives.
What the RSPCA wants to do is effectively ban all private use of fireworks. It wants to reduce the decibel limit to 95 decibels, which is roughly that of a horse farting. That would not exactly be most people′s idea of an enjoyable firework display. The RSPCA wants to remove the private use of fireworks and have them only at organised displays. This is an area in which we have to balance the interests of people who want to enjoy fireworks—
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, may be posing conjectures about bad dog owners and other things, but this Bill is not about that. It is not about banning everything, so could we address the Bill as it is rather than pose conjecture about what might happen in the future?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I will come onto that matter later because, of course, the Bill is not very much as it is. The Bill is largely conjecture about what the Government intend to bring forward by way of regulations. The principal point is to ensure that this Bill, in the form of the regulations which will come forward under it, provides a reasonable balance between the interests of citizens who wish to enjoy fireworks and the interests of those who are inconvenienced by their use. That will largely be a matter for the regulations under the Bill.
1182
I asked in the Printed Paper Office whether any draft regulations were available and I was told that there were not. If any are available, I would be delighted to see them, because some of the powers in clauses under this Bill are extremely wide. I would not be happy to see the Bill go through this House without having a very clear understanding of what the Government intend should be in the first set of regulations. The Government could either publish them or we could have a Committee stage, at which the Government could respond to amendments and set out on the Floor of the House what they intend to have in the regulations.
Secondly, I am very conscious that, with this Bill, we are regulating to try to deal with problems that stem from the misuse of fireworks, which is already illegal. I want to be very sure that the restrictions that we would place on ordinary citizens would actually have the effect of mitigating a nuisance rather than just depriving ordinary citizens of the enjoyment that they are currently getting out of using fireworks. My mind goes back to the handguns Bill, from which we have received no benefit whatever. Handgun use has gone up enormously since we passed the Bill. We have merely deprived a few thousand citizens of an innocent enjoyment, pastime and pleasure. We have received no benefit from the ban ourselves, although we did it with the best of intent.
I do not wish to see this Bill go down a similar route, because many of the ills—such as the use of fireworks directly on animals, in streets or at anti-social hours of the night—are matters that are already controlled under other legislation. I want to be certain that the powers that we are taking under this legislation will have an effect that is disproportionate to the deprivation of enjoyment that they will cause.
Most particularly, I have reservations about the meaning of Clause 2(1). As I read the clause, it amounts to a total ban on the individual use of fireworks—perhaps of any use of fireworks. There is no way in which a firework can ever not be dangerous; the thing is an explosive. Explosives are, by definition, dangerous and can cause injury, alarm, distress or anxiety, whenever and however they are used. There is no way in which a dog who is sensitive to fireworks will be calmed by the thought that the display has been licensed by the local authority or that the fireworks being used fall within certain acceptable limits. A dog who is frightened of such things and, presumably, also of thunder, is frightened, and distress will be caused to such a dog wherever and whenever fireworks are used.
I agree that there should be limits on the noise of fireworks. They have become too noisy. Anything that is to he considered an ordinary firework will distress some animals. A firework of any description will be dangerous. Clause 2(1)(a) refers to provisions,
"for securing that there is no risk that the use of fireworks will have the consequences specified in subsection (2)".
The only way of doing that is to ban all fireworks. There is no other way of achieving that objective. The clause also refers to provisions,
"for securing that the risk that the use of fireworks will have those consequences is the minimum that is compatible with their being used".

1183
The minimum compatible with their being used is having desktop crackers, such as one gets in crackers at Christmas. That is the limit to which fireworks will be reduced.
The RSPCA will use the clause to force the Government to abolish the ordinary use of fireworks. It has a great deal of money, and, as we have seen with fox hunting, it has the determination to pursue campaigns over a long time and with a great deal of support. We should not allow the Bill to go forward with the clause in it as it stands.
My basic position is that I wish to see a Committee stage, and I expect to vote. I understand the way that other noble Lords feel about the matter and that there was much support for the Bill. I will happily make available as much time as may be appropriate to the sponsor of the Bill and to the Minister, if he so wishes, to see whether my objections can be dealt with in meetings, rather than on the Floor of the House.
1.28 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I am pleased to take part in this Second Reading debate. The measure is long overdue, and many of the proposals will be greatly welcomed.
The Bill contains many measures that I and others have been concerned about for a long time. The Bill will enhance the safety of those who use fireworks and of those who enjoy firework displays. It will reassure those who have no option other than to put up with the nuisance and noise that they must now endure.
Cutting down on the noise of fireworks and restricting sales will, I have no doubt, make life more tolerable for us all. As noble Lords have said, fireworks are used throughout the year. I hear complaints every week about the misuse of fireworks, which seem to be used for every occasion now, rather than, as was once the case, just on 5th November. I remember that, when my children were small, I always had the dilemma of whether to buy them fireworks so that they could be the same as other children, or not. I was always apprehensive and nervous about the dangers of fireworks. I resorted to giving them sparklers, which, I now understand, can be dangerous. I appreciate that fireworks are safer now than they were.
I wish to make a few points in support of the Bill. We are all aware of children and vulnerable people who are frightened by loud and sometimes deafening noises late at night when there is a celebration going on in the neighbourhood. Animals, too, are badly affected by the noise and bright lights of fireworks. Many animal charities support the Bill.
The RSPCA, in its excellence document, Quiet Please, gives a number of examples of how animals suffer. It states that it is seriously concerned about the number of animals that become distressed by the noise and are lost or injured as a result. The RSPCA is calling for the Government to set a maximum noise level of 95 decibels, which would allow the public to enjoy their own fireworks displays. That level of noise
1184
is likely to cause the minimum of distress to animals. I understand that 95 decibels is not very loud, although I do not think that I would resort to the description of a particular noise level described by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Loud noise levels can also upset many children. Both children and animals would benefit from a lower noise level for fireworks. The RSPCA campaign to lower the maximum level of noise has much merit to it. Noble Lords have mentioned guide dogs and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, from which we have all received briefing. My noble friend Lord Carter gave a vivid description of how guide dogs and people using them can be affected by firework noise. As my noble friend Lady Ramsay said, as well as animal charities supporting this Bill it has received support from many other bodies too, demonstrating that the Bill is welcomed by a whole range of organisations.
During Second Reading in another place, many MPs repeatedly said that they welcomed the Bill because they receive a great deal of correspondence from their constituents expressing concern regarding fireworks—especially as regards noise, nuisance and the hooligan element who misuse fireworks. All who spoke in that debate were supportive of the Bill, which is a good illustration of its popularity. I repeat that I am very grateful to my noble friend for taking the Bill through the House. I think that the majority of noble Lords speaking today will welcome it on the statute book.
A noble Lord: My Lords, all except one.
1.33 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, for introducing this Bill, which had cross-party support in another place and is supported very widely. I did not plan to speak in this debate until last Wednesday, when at about 12.30 a.m. I was awoken by a private fireworks display. It went on from approximately 12.30 to 1 a.m.
I loathe fireworks. I am not one of these people who would stand up and say that I like them at all. I have always loathed fireworks. Perhaps that is not the best of criteria on which to speak about the Bill. On the other hand, my wife loves fireworks. However, I support the daughter of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in her desire for a total prohibition on the use of fireworks. It may be all right to have a large display a long way away, but apart from that I am against them.
My view is not reflected in the provisions of the Bill. It is a proportionate Bill that deals with the reality of fireworks use; they are now more common and cheaper. Unfortunately, there are a large number of illegal fireworks which are dangerous and designed to cause a maximum amount of noise. That is a problem.
There are two problems. The first is the irresponsible use of fireworks. The noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, speaking in his RoSPA capacity, spoke about the horrific number of accidents that have to be dealt with. Of course, those are just figures for November. Anyone living in an urban area, especially near a park, will testify

1185
that fireworks are used at any time, day or night, all year round. Much has been made of the risk to animals, which should not be underestimated. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, were unfortunate, especially his aspersions as regards the RSPCA, which has to deal with the consequences of malicious fireworks use.
The second problem is—
Lord Lucas: My Lords, one should note that I said that these were already crimes. Whether a person uses a firework or a pickaxe to hit a dog, it is the same crime. It is not the crime of the firework existing that someone chooses to use it against the dog; it is the crime of the person wishing to harm the dog. That is the mistake we made as regards handguns. I do not wish us to make it again.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I find it rather strange that this Bill and handguns can be put into the same context. However, I think that many in this House were slightly surprised by the words of the noble Lord concerning many charitable organisations. I think that they, too, will be surprised. But that is a matter for the noble Lord and he is free to make those aspersions.
The second problem is inconsiderate use of fireworks. The ready availability of fireworks means that, unfortunately, they will be used in an inconsiderate manner by many people, although this could be a small proportion of the overall use of fireworks. That is why self-regulation, as has existed until now, is no longer realistic. The Bill is supported by the fireworks industry. It is a good Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, fulfilled the criterion that this House needs to fulfil in that this Bill perhaps should be scrutinised in this place.
I take on board the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carter—namely, that this Bill, if amended, would fall. This is a good Bill. It needs no amendment. On these Benches, we shall do everything to ensure that the Bill receives a swift passage.
1.37 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, for the extremely comprehensive way she introduced the Bill, and for her description of the great support she has received from various organisations around the country. That was very useful for noble Lords to know.
A cynic once said that Guy Fawkes was the only person who had ever entered Parliament with the right idea! Bonfire Night is about as politically an incorrect celebration as one could envisage—namely, the burning, in effigy, of a religious opponent, a misguided revolutionary who had been arrested, tortured and then hanged, drawn and quartered. It may surprise some of your Lordships to learn that the "thanksgiving service for the deliverance of November 5th" was not removed from the prayer book until 1854. Until modern times, the event was often marred by anti-Popery demonstrations.
These days, possibly as a by-product of the diminished teaching of history in our schools, a large part of the public have no idea of the origins of the
1186
event and its name has somehow changed from Guy Fawkes Night to Bonfire Night. Perhaps this is a reason for one of the nuisances caused by fireworks; that is, that the celebrations seem to extend for a week either side of 5th November, especially to the weekends either side of that date.
But 5th November is not the only date when fireworks are now used as part of a celebration. The festival of Diwali—the Hindu festival of light—now seems to attract a large, but usually well organised, fireworks display in October or November. In addition, private events seem to be used as the excuse for letting off fireworks throughout the year. At around 10 p.m. last Friday near my home, there was a startling 10-minute outburst of explosions, presumably to celebrate a birthday. I cannot imagine that it was to celebrate the centenary of the Central Line or the creation of the Japanese yen, which both happened on that same date in 1871.
To give your Lordships some idea of the noise pollution caused by fireworks, the British Fireworks Association admits that the removal by its members of single-tube air bombs, a kind of Roman candle with a small whistle-bang rocket, which came into effect on 1st January last, will result in a staggering 30 million fewer loud bangs every year. That is apart from the hundreds of casualties that these particular so-called "pocket money" devices cause every year.
According to the association, one third of all fireworks injuries are caused by the fireworks being "misused by hooligans". We look forward to seeing what improvement in the number of casualties there is this year as a result of this act of self-denial on the part of British Fireworks Association members.
I live in a high part of London on the Hampstead border from where I have splendid views to the north and west. On Bonfire Night and, as I have said, during the surrounding weekends, on looking out of my windows I see the sky lit by distant displays of fireworks that look like a battle scene. Fortunately, from inside my house I can watch those displays without having to listen to the noise.
According to the Department of Trade and Industry, consistently the highest number of casualties occur at family or private parties, followed by what is euphemistically called,
"casual incidents in the street or other public places",
which I take to mean injuries possibly caused to entirely innocent bystanders. The age groups most usually injured are the over 20 year-olds, followed closely by children aged under 13. I am not sure what happens to those aged between 13 and 20 years, but that is what is shown by the statistics.
Apart from the human casualties, animal welfare groups are concerned about the distressing effects of the noise of fireworks on household pets, especially on guide dogs, which of course are more than simply household pets. Noble Lords will have received a powerful, but mercifully succinct, briefing from a number of the groups supporting this Bill, with an especially cogent reminder from Guide Dogs for the Blind of the substantial amount it costs that charity

1187
each year to retrain, sedate or retire animals traumatised by fireworks explosions. I believe that the noble Baroness or another noble Lord mentioned the figure of £30 million, but I am not sure whether I can recall the exact amount.
Injuries, both severe and lesser, and even deaths, along with noise pollution and damage to property and the cost of the provision of extra public emergency and medical services are all reasons for the introduction of further measures over and above the voluntary code of practice of the British Fireworks Association, which distributes 95 per cent of all family fireworks in the United Kingdom. Apart from the apparent shortcomings of the voluntary code, that still leaves 5 per cent unregulated.
The provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Noise Act 1996 are ineffective, in my opinion, in dealing properly with the noise nuisance. There are not enough enforcement officials to police every back garden in the country, and by the time a complaint has been made to the local environmental enforcement office and someone has been sent out to investigate, usually the party is already over and the damage done. Anyone who has complained about a noisy party with deafening amplified music will know only too well how long it takes between lodging a complaint and someone able to come along to do something about it.
This Bill is another in a long series of attempts to deal with the perennial fireworks problem. This time it avoids any attempt to deal with the specific damage and ill effects caused by fireworks and approaches the issue solely from the aspect of the supply of fireworks. It was introduced as a Private Member′s Bill by the honourable Member for Hamilton South, who I see is standing below the Bar. I congratulate him on having secured the Bill′s passage through the other place after no doubt shrewd tactical negotiations with the Government.
The Bill has received cross-party support in the other place, including that of Members of the Opposition Front Bench. That is not to say that its provisions, as distinct from the principles that it seeks to establish, are not subject to certain small reservations on our part. Indeed, some of those reservations were met by constructive amendments proposed by my honourable friends the Members for Blaby and Christchurch. As a consequence, I am glad to see that the regulations to be made under this Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure and that the Government must subject any proposed regulations to full regulatory impact assessment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, pointed out, this is an enabling Bill and, as is usual with such measures, its efficacy will depend entirely on the content of the resulting regulations, which we will have the opportunity to scrutinise at a later date.
I have only three points to make about those forthcoming regulations. First and foremost, in common with my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I urge the
1188
Government to ensure that the enforcement provisions are adequate and workable. Secondly, the Bill is to establish training courses. I hope that those courses will be short, apposite and as "untechnical" as possible. It is important that they should be, above all else, practical and not off-putting to those obliged to take them.
Lastly, I turn to the timetable for the regulations. We are only four months away from what might be called the fireworks season. I would like to hope that, before then, the regulations will have been drafted, subjected to the regulatory assessment procedure and approved by both Houses, taking into account that the Summer Recess is almost upon us.
I am pleased to note that the Consumer Minister shares my view that,
"There is too much noise, with fireworks being let off too far into the night and lasting far too long beyond the traditional season".
I also accept the assurance she gave in the other place during the Committee stage that the Government would enforce the 120-decibel limit when implementing the Bill. She promised that the Bill would provide,
"a raft of new powers to control the misuse of fireworks".— [Official Report, Commons Standing Committee C. 30/4/03, col. 28.]
I want to say briefly to my noble friend that I certainly heard what he said and that of course it is entirely for him to decide on what he will or will not do. But I should like to point out to him that this Bill was well scrutinised in the other place. It was not simply pushed through. Although I understand the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that we in this House like to believe that the only well-revised Bills are those which are scrutinised in this House, we know that sometimes our colleagues in another place do a splendid job.
We wish the Bill well and we shall do what we can to facilitate its progress through your Lordships′ House.
1.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale for bringing forward this important Bill and I was glad to note the general support expressed for it during its passage through the other place. Quite simply, the Government support the Bill. Moreover, the speeches we have heard in this House suggest that there is, with one exception, a consensus among noble Lords in support of the measure. I was particularly glad to hear the speech made by my noble friend Lord Carter. He talked about this issue from real personal experience, which I thought was very helpful.
The support expressed today in this House reflects the broad support given to the Bill by many interested parties and various organisations, many of which were mentioned during the debate. We heard about the Guide Dogs for the Blind charity, the RSPCA, Blue Cross, the TUC, the British Medical Association and, indeed, the fireworks industry as a whole as represented by the British Fireworks Association.

1189
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Brooke that if this Private Member′s Bill should fail, the Home Secretary has expressed a desire to see what parts of it could reasonably be incorporated into the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. However, I hope that we shall not have to take that course, although we shall seriously consider it if that proves to be necessary.
Many people have serious concerns about the issue of fireworks, although it should also be noted that they are products from which many derive a great deal of pleasure. Notwithstanding the latter, a significant number of letters regularly arrive in the post-bag at the Department of Trade and Industry complaining about the misuse of fireworks and the consequent noise and nuisance that they cause. Many in our communities, including families with young children, older people and pet owners, all too often suffer at the hands of the irresponsible few who spoil things for the majority. I believe that this Bill provides us with the opportunity to control the sale and use of fireworks, which will help to control not only the rogue elements who misuse fireworks, but also to create a better regulatory framework for the supply and use of fireworks.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that we want people to associate fireworks with pleasure and wonder and not with vandalism, injury and shell-shocked animals. I greatly enjoy fireworks but 1 see no reason why Notting Hill should every so often he turned into a place where it sounds as though the Battle of the Somme is being fought between warring factions in London. It is not necessary for pleasure or enjoyment.
Let me explain to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, why the Bill is necessary. It does not cover matters which are covered by other Bills. The existing primary legislation used by my department to control fireworks is the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which provides regulation-making powers to deal with the safety of goods intended for private use or consumption and the provision of information in relation to those goods. However, there are limitations to the ways in which the powers in the Act can be exercised. For example, they do not enable the safe use of goods to be regulated.
The current secondary legislation made under the 1987 Act, the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, regulates certain kinds of fireworks in the following way. They prohibit the supply to the public of aerial shells, aerial maroons, shells-in-mortar and maroons-in-mortar, mini-rockets and fireworks of erratic flight—for example, squibs, jumping crackers, helicopters—as well as bangers, including batteries containing bangers and Chinese crackers. Furthermore, the 1997 regulations require all fireworks intended for supply to the general public to meet the requirements of British Standard 7114, the current safety standard for fireworks supplied to the consumer. The regulations also increase the minimum age for the supply of fireworks from 16 to 18 years of age.
There are powers under the Explosives Act 1875 to deal with the rather anti-social activity of letting off fireworks in the street or any other public place, to ban the sale of fireworks in the street and to govern safe storage of fireworks through legislation and licensing requirements.
1190
The Health and Safety Act 1974 also has regulatory import with regard to fireworks, where employers are required to ensure the safety of persons at work, which would include fireworks displays where the operators are employees. But this does not cover public fireworks displays which are operated voluntarily, such as the Rotary Club or Scout and Guide displays.
The main purpose of the Bill is therefore to provide the Secretary of State with an enabling framework of powers to address, by way of regulations, a number of fireworks problems which cannot be addressed by the powers available to current Acts of Parliament; to fill the spaces between such pieces of legislation and, in certain instances, supersede them. The Bill would thereby confer on the Government the power to make regulations to control, among other things, the times of day when fireworks may be used, the maximum noise limits on fireworks sold to the public and the importation of fireworks. Regulations would also require suppliers of fireworks to be licensed and ensure that public fireworks display operators meet certain conditions before giving displays.
As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was courageous in standing up to make his points. It is a characteristic we have seen on a number of occasions. However, he put forward a misguided view. We have been here before, in 1997–98, when a similar Bill was talked out on its last day by a number of Opposition Back Bench MPs making a wider point about the fullness and accountability of debates on Private Members′ Bills. I do not believe that we want to go down that route again.
There are no draft regulations. We shall produce them after consultation.
The reason I believe the noble Lord is misguided is because I can see nothing in the Bill which would reduce in any way the enjoyment that most citizens have in fireworks. All it would reduce is the pleasure of those people who enjoy frightening their fellow citizens or animals. We can all agree that that is a good objective and I can see nothing in the Bill which would reduce the enjoyment that the average member of the public has in fireworks.
The noble Lord′s interpretation of Clause 2(1)(a) was somewhat wild. The fact that any regulations have to be agreed by an affirmative order of both Houses should give him some comfort that the regulations will not ban totally the use of fireworks in this country.
We shall certainly take on board the three points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—on enforcement procedures, training courses and the timetable for regulations—although consultation may take a little time and we would be doing extremely well to get them in for 5th November.
If the Bill becomes law the following benefits are envisaged. It will provide an ability to reduce noise nuisance, specifically by prohibiting fireworks use beyond a particular time at night and by the possible restriction of sales over certain periods of the year. To much the same end, it will enable the Government to apply restrictions on or prohibition of the supply of certain kinds of fireworks, particularly with a view to

1191
prohibit the use of fireworks on the grounds of their noise nuisance potential as opposed to the sole ground of product safety. It would enable the licensing of retailers; subject fireworks displays to certain conditions; and promote the training of fireworks operators, which would ensure that events are managed safely while establishing an industry-wide standard and the promotion of professionalism.
The Bill very properly complements the general move towards reducing anti-social behaviour in society, ranging from unintentional nuisance caused by excessive noise at unreasonable times to those whose intention is to misuse fireworks in a manner which endangers both the general public and themselves.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that those are admirable objectives. We believe that they are the right objectives. We would like to see the Bill enacted but if it will help to ensure the safe passage of the Bill, we in the DTI will be more than happy to have meetings with the noble Lord and to reassure him on any particular points.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have frequently made an idiot of myself in the House—doubtless I will do so again—and perhaps I am doing so on this occasion. I shall certainly take up the Minister′s kind invitation. With luck, that will result in me making no further nuisance of myself on the Bill. I shall certainly take him up on his offer.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if it has that end we will all be extremely pleased.
Some people believe that we should go further than the Bill does and ban sales of fireworks to the public. But fireworks bring much pleasure to millions of people and it should be noted that by far the majority of those people enjoy fireworks through their sensible and responsible use. Injuries come through misuse, through failure to follow instructions, through carelessness and through deliberate mischief. Banning the retail sale of fireworks to the vast majority of people who derive safe and innocent amusement from them because of the irresponsibility of a few would be unfair. It should also be noted that an outright ban could lead to the development of a black market in fireworks and, because of such an unreasonable prohibition, encourage people to produce home-made devices.
It is on these bases, and including the desire of the Government to balance safety with individual liberties, that we believe that the case has not been made for the banning of the sale of fireworks to the general public and limiting the use of fireworks to organised public displays alone. I am very happy that the Bill reflects this position.
The Bill offers a very real scope to improve the control of fireworks, both further to enhance safety beyond the limitations of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and to tackle the distress, annoyance and anxiety that people can experience from fireworks. As
1192
a number of people have made clear, we must always bear in mind the considerable injuries that can come from fireworks, although the main purpose of the Bill is not focused particularly in that area.
I hope your Lordships will agree that the Bill can considerably reinforce and strengthen existing controls on the sale and use of fireworks. I believe it will deliver a significant lessening of concerns which so many have expressed about fireworks. We do not want to over-react and do away with a popular form of celebration and family entertainment. Rather, our concern is to ensure that in enjoying fireworks people are safe and do not cause annoyance and distress to their neighbours and communities. We believe that the Bill strikes a good balance between protection and the freedom of the community to enjoy fireworks, and we support it.
1.59 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am profoundly grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and for the overwhelming support for the Bill that has come from all sides of the House. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for expressing the support of the Government.
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe raised the question of noise levels, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. There will undoubtedly have to be very wide consultation. It was discussed in another place— at some great length, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, made clear. Different views were expressed as to where a decibel level should be fixed. I am well aware of the views of the RSPCA and what was said in another place by the Minister and Bill Tynan. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made it very clear what those views are. No doubt the matter will be thrashed out in the consultation process before the regulations appear. I was pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister explaining to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the regulations will only be available after consultation has taken place. Obviously, that is why regulations are not available now.
This is not the time or place for me to deal in any detail with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He raised several points about the responsibilities of responsible pet owners, which were quite outside the scope of the Bill. It is important, however, that I go on record on one or two points. I do not agree with his interpretation of Clause 2 as meaning that there would be a complete ban, and I was pleased that my noble friend the Minister was also of that opinion. Everyone except the noble Lord has recognised that the enjoyment and magic of fireworks will be safeguarded and continued by the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and many others, made clear in their interventions.
I did not understand the noble Lord′s point about statistics. I shall study Hansard, and perhaps he should do the same and read my comments. Then we could both read the Commons Hansard and see what the points are. I am frankly very suspicious of all statistics, but that is merely a personal hang-up. I have no

1193
grounds at all to doubt that the statistics provided to me by charity organisations were given in good faith and are as accurate as they could be.
We have had a selection of excellent contributions including some very moving personal experiences, and I am very grateful to everyone who participated and who allowed us to have an insight into some of their personal and family life scenes, which were very intriguing. They also reflect the many different dimensions and concerns on the issue, and the importance and—I would maintain—the need for the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) Regulations 2003
2.3 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this statutory instrument is made in exercise of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Section 126 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Section 126 enables the Secretary of State, by the making of regulations, to require that an immigration application be accompanied by physical data of an external characteristic. The regulations require that those applying for entry clearance in Sri Lanka will have to provide a record of their fingerprints when making their application. That requirement will be underpinned in practice by the collection of fingerprint data at post in Sri Lanka.
It is right that we now examine the benefits that can he derived from the collection of physical data from individuals who apply for entry clearance. To do that we propose to run a pilot exercise in Colombo, Sri Lanka, during which all entry clearance applications must be accompanied by a record of the fingerprints of the person making the application. The requirement will be fulfilled by the applicant having their fingerprints taken by a member of staff at the British Mission in Colombo. Only fingerprints taken at the British Mission will be acceptable because otherwise it will be not be possible to verify that the fingerprints provided are those of the applicant. Once the fingerprints have been collected they will be given a unique serial number and this number will be inserted on the visa application form so as to form a record of the fingerprints on the application. This record will allow copies of the applicant′s fingerprints to be accessed easily at a later date if necessary. The pilot will initially run for six months during which time applicants applying for entry clearance, regardless of nationality, will be expected to provide the required fingerprint data.
In common with many other governments, we consider that physical data of this kind, including fingerprints, iris or facial recognition, provide the only
1194
certain way to confirm a person′s identity. The collection of fingerprints allows a person to be linked to an identity once their details have been registered. That will aid us in our efforts to prevent document and identity fraud in the immigration field. It is essential that we embrace that technology and utilise it to ensure that those who have an entitlement to enter this country can do so without hindrance, but those who seek to circumvent our controls are prevented from doing so.
We have built into the regulations safeguards, equivalent to those that apply when taking fingerprints in the UK, for any applicant who is under 16 years of age. In all cases where a person under 16 years seeks to make an application, they will only have their fingerprints taken in the presence of a responsible adult who is over 18 years and not employed by the government.
It is intended that the fingerprint records collected in Colombo will be added to the Immigration and Asylum Fingerprint System database. That will allow for the identification of any visa applicant who subsequently makes either an asylum or immigration application in a different identity. That in turn will help establish the nationality of those who no longer have a basis on which to remain in the UK, and so aid with securing their removal. In common with other fingerprints collected in respect of immigration and asylum applications, data will be shared with the police and other law enforcement agencies in the prevention or investigation of crime. All such exchanges will be in compliance with the relevant data protection provisions.
The regulation provides that any application not accompanied by the required data may be treated as invalid, without a right of appeal. It is anticipated that the majority of applications that are not accompanied by a record of fingerprints will be treated as invalid. However, there will inevitably be exceptions, including applicants who because of physical disability or injury cannot provide fingerprints. This system will be operated in a reasonable way to limit the impact on applicants.
We have selected Sri Lanka in which to base this pilot as Sri Lankan nationals continue to make significant numbers of unfounded asylum applications, and to use false identities in the process. From a practical perspective we also have a substantial visa issuing post in Colombo that was able to accommodate the not inconsiderable upheaval that this pilot will inevitably involve. Finally, but not least, we have excellent relations with the Sri Lankan Government who have been co-operative and supportive as we develop this imaginative initiative. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords. I thank the Minister for that explanation. I make it clear from the beginning that we support the making of the regulations. However, I have one or two questions. I

1195
should perhaps add that the Minister has already satisfied me on probably the most significant of those. It is right that we should take all reasonable measures to ensure that persons given permission to enter the United Kingdom are indeed who they say they are. I was therefore pleased to hear at the end of the Minister′s remarks an explanation of why the Government have lighted upon Sri Lanka. He said that there have been significant numbers of unfounded applications from that country. I am particularly pleased that the Government have received the co-operation of the Sri Lankan Government. That is the important aspect which we hope will make this pilot exercise work.
The Minister said that the pilot is expected to last six months. What will be the measure of the success of the pilot scheme at the end of the six months? On what basis will the Government decide that the scheme has been sufficiently successful to be rolled out elsewhere? Do the Government have in their eyesight any other areas which will be second, third and fourth on the list? If so, is the Minister able to give us any indication? I appreciate that that will depend on whether the Government have already begun speaking to other governments on these matters.
The Minister said that the fingerprints will be taken at the diplomatic mission and then transmitted to the United Kingdom. Will the fingerprints be taken by the new laser technology? One assumes so. If so, which electronic transmission system will be used and how secure will it be? The Minister will be aware that we have been discussing secure electronic communication systems in our consideration of other Home Office legislation such as the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill and the Extradition Bill and that it is a matter of some concern.
The Minister referred to Regulation 4 which provides safeguards in respect of the provision of a record of fingerprints. Paragraph (4) states:
"This regulation shall not apply if the authorised person reasonably believes that the applicant is aged sixteen or over".
I am interested by the phrase "reasonably believes" and in how the person is to come to that reasonable belief. What kind of guidance will be given on how the decision regarding reasonable belief should be made, and by whom will it be given? What documentation is likely to be acceptable? I am sure that the Minister will understand that my concerns result from the fact that, as we know, there is a significant worldwide problem with the trafficking of children. We should always have that at the forefront of our minds in these matters.
I turn finally to the matter of costs. We are told in the Explanatory Notes that the cost of the pilot will be met from existing funds, but we are not given an estimate of the sum which will be swallowed up within the existing budget. What is the projected cost for what we are told is to include the deployment of equipment, the reconfiguration of offices and the additional staff that will be required?
1196
Within the context of those questions I certainly support the regulations.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we also have no objection in principle to the use of biometric data for the purpose of curbing the use of false identities to evade immigration controls. There are just a couple of questions that I should like to add to those that have been put to the Minister by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
The Minister has already explained why Sri Lanka has been chosen for the pilot study; he told your Lordships that it was because of the number of unfounded applications that came from persons living in Sri Lanka. However, there are many other countries with a much larger number of unfounded applications. Just glancing through the list of initial decisions on applications made in the first quarter of 2003, I see that, for example, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Iraq and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia accounted for larger numbers of refused applications than Sri Lanka. I take it that the second reason that he gave, the collaboration of the Sri Lankan authorities, is really the determining factor. In those other countries it might have been either physically difficult to arrange for fingerprinting—obviously you could not very well do it in Baghdad in current conditions—or simply more difficult to secure the collaboration of the authorities. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that in his concluding remarks.
Secondly, what is the estimated number of additional staff and the total cost in the six months that the pilot study will last? Thirdly, would not any person who makes an application and is fingerprinted realise that he could not then make another application using a different identity without being detected? I do not quite see how that works. The explanatory memorandum says that the identification of applicants who use a false identity is likely to enable the return to Sri Lanka of people who have no right to be in the United Kingdom. It would be useful if the Minister could give an example of how that would operate in practice. What is the scenario by which a person is detected? If a person applies in a second identity, presumably the attempted deception would be picked up in Colombo, not in the United Kingdom. So the authorities in Colombo would pinpoint the attempted deception and there would not be any increase in the number of people who would be removed from the United Kingdom as a result of false identities being detected in the country of origin.
The fingerprinting of Sri Lankans is said to be a pilot exercise. Can the Minister give an undertaking that before it is extended to other countries a full report is published on the number of fingerprints taken, how many are matched with those held at Croydon, how many applicants are caught using false identities and the cost of the whole exercise in practice as opposed to what is predicted?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for their questions which I shall attempt to answer. If I fail, I shall, of course, write to them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned the co-operation of the Sri Lankan Government. They were very co-operative. Noble Lords will note that I talked about Sri Lankans and all other nationals coming through Sri Lanka. If you are American and you apply in Colombo for a visa to come to Britain, you will have your fingerprints taken.
This is a pilot scheme. The future of identification lies with biometrics, whether it is iris, retina or fingerprint recognition. Many other countries are considering using this new technology as it develops.
This is simply a pilot scheme. Biometric data have great potential. We are exploring a variety of ways in which it can he realised. But the pilot in Colombo is just that—a pilot. We shall consider what benefits flow from the data, the practical aspects of its collection and the wider impact it has on the system once the pilot has finished. From that we shall determine what further use we can make of this new technology in the entrance clearing field.
I was asked about electronic transmission of data from Colombo to London. I can tell the noble Baroness that fingerprints will be gathered electronically. Data will be transferred electronically using the FCO′s secure communications system.
The noble Baroness asked how we determine the age of a child, particularly at a time when there is a great deal of trafficking of children. That is an extremely good question. I do not have an immediate answer but I shall write to the noble Baroness and give her as much information as I can.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that offer because naturally we shall discuss trafficking of children in other contexts. I am sure that whatever he says in his letter will he most helpful.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, finally, the budget for costs is £1 million but we expect them to be well under that figure once the pilot is completed.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked why Sri Lanka, when many other countries have many more illegal applicants seeking entry into Britain. First, the Sri Lankan Government have been very co-operative. Secondly, there is evidence that nationals other than Sri Lankans are using Colombo as a port of entry into the UK. The other very significant reason, which I mentioned in my opening remarks, is that Colombo has the staff and facilities to encompass the pilot scheme.
I am afraid that I am not in a position to give any undertaking about the results of the pilot scheme, and I explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that it is just that. Once we have the results, we will obviously consider them with great care. The underlying matter that must be highlighted is that, in the area of illegal
1198
entry into this country and many other countries, it is likely that biometrics will play an absolutely vital and central role in future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum (Designated States) (No. 2) Order 2003
2.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the second order laid under the powers in Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That section makes provision for a list of countries from which asylum or human rights claims are to he certified as clearly unfounded unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are not clearly unfounded. The effect of such a certificate is that a person must leave the United Kingdom before appealing the decision to refuse their claim, while still having an out-of-country right of appeal.
The powers have proved effective in reducing the number of unfounded claims. For the 10 EU accession states, which have been subject to the powers for nearly eight months, there has been a reduction in intake of between 80 per cent and 90 per cent compared with October 2002. For the seven countries added on 1st April, there are already signs of a significant decrease in applications, of upwards of 25 per cent. In addition, those refused are being removed quickly.
When we last discussed the issues at the end of March, I spoke briefly about why that matters in terms of our overall commitment to granting asylum to those who needed it, while seeking to protect the integrity of our asylum system and stopping it from being swamped by people who undoubtedly use it at times as a means of economic migration. We spoke in the House on a number of occasions during the passage of the then Bill on the part that the non-suspensive appeal process plays in that system.
So far, the evidence is that the system is working well. However, clearly the powers are important, and it is important that they are used appropriately. In my address in March, I indicated how we had sought to implement the powers in the Act progressively and, if anything, cautiously to try to ensure that the measures worked well and we were successful in stopping people making unfounded applications for asylum, while not denying legitimate claims a right and proper hearing.
Our evidence so far is that the gains that we have achieved in significantly reducing the number of asylum applicants from such countries—for example, the 10 accession states—has not been at the expense of the quality of decision-making of people who have made asylum claims from those countries.
I want very briefly to remind the House of the process. There is a hearing and proper consideration of the applicant′s case. It is not as happens in some other EU member states, where people are sometimes sent away at the border. The applicant is entitled to legal advice and legal aid as part of the process. Their case is considered by a specially trained caseworker and they have a right of appeal against their decision, albeit from outside the country, with legal aid, if they so wish to exercise that right. To ensure as much as one can the integrity of the decision-making process, a second pair of eyes considers the decision of the original caseworker. While the applicant is still in the country, he has the right, if he wishes, to make a judicial review application.
A further relevant factor has been that as a result of this process, we have been able to effect the removal of people whose cases were established to be unfounded under the Act. As the House will know, it is important that one has a fair decision-making process and that at the end of the process, those who are not found to qualify for asylum can be removed; otherwise, a perverse incentive is built into the system—even if one does not succeed in one′s asylum case if one is not removed, one would still have been able to continue in the country.
As a consequence of what we believe is steady and impressive success of the non-suspensive appeal provisions, we have decided that this is a good time to make further additions to the list. As the House will know from a debate on the Bill and our previous discussion of the issue, for a country to be added the Secretary of State must be satisfied in two respects under the Act: first, that in general in that state there is no serious risk of persecution of persons entitled to reside in that state or part; and, secondly, that removal to that state or part of persons entitled to reside there will not in general contravene the United Kingdom′s obligations under the human rights convention.
In considering what states might be included in this second order, we have taken this legal test as the starting point. We have, as before, also taken account of other factors, such as the asylum grant rates, the outcome of appeals and the country information that we publish. We have not been looking to find a set of countries that have a common link, other than their suitability for inclusion in the order. On that basis, the seven states that we decided should be included in this draft order are Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Ukraine. We are satisfied that those seven states are ones where there is in general no serious risk of persecution and to which removal would not in general breach the United Kingdom′s ECHR obligations. The statistical evidence bears that out. In the first quarter of 2003, asylum grants rates on initial decisions from those countries were less than 2 per cent in all cases except for Bolivia, which was 6 per cent, based on a small number of decisions.
As with the seven states added by the first order—and, indeed, with the initial 10 EU accession states in the Act—it is not the case that those countries are totally safe for everyone. That is a test which few if any
1200
states could claim to meet. Inclusion on the list reflects a general level of safety, not a total absence of any mistreatment. It is for that reason that we continue to give every asylum claim from a resident of a designated country full consideration on its individual merits. The claim would not be refused or certified as clearly unfounded unless we were satisfied, after individual consideration, that the claim fell to be refused and certified.
Your Lordships will also be aware of the role that we have said that the advisory panel on country information will have in relation to the addition of countries to the designated list. As is clear from the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and as was clear when I prepared for my presentation on this matter, we indicated, when we discussed additions to the order at the end of March, that we intended to move very rapidly or progressively within a month towards a process of setting up the advisory panel. We have done that. We have written to a number of organisations inviting them to submit nominations for the advisory panel and we have had a good response, but we have not finalised the exact list as yet because one or two organisations indicated that they thought that there might be a suspicion of a conflict of interest and that they would therefore not wish to take a position on the panel. We understand that and are therefore in the process of writing to further organisations. It is our intention to have the advisory panel up and running in September.
Having said that, I do not find it a particularly comfortable position to be before the House yet again explaining why the panel has not as yet come fully into operation. I repeat what I believe I said at the end of March: that although I am no longer in the department, I will do my best to try to ensure that we meet the timetable because it is important to do so for the credibility of the Government.
We have been making progress in establishing the panel since we debated the previous order. We have invited a number of individuals and organisations to become members and we hope to finalise the initial membership shortly.
We had hoped, if possible, to have the benefits of any advice from the panel on the country information produced by the Home Office before bringing forward this draft order. However, given the success of the non-suspensive appeals procedures thus far, we were very keen to lay this order before the Summer Recess as that would enable us to make an immediate impact on the applications from the countries concerned rather than delaying until the autumn. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
2.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhartrose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end insert "but this House regrets that the order has been introduced before the establishment

1201
of an Advisory Panel on Country Information under Section 142 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, pointed out, the purpose of the order is to add a further seven countries to the white list in Section 94(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The white list is, of course, a list of states in relation to which there is a presumption that a resident′s claim to asylum is clearly unfounded. I accept that that presumption is rebuttable, but that is the presumption written into the Act.
Section 94(4) contains the names of the 10 candidate states which are due to join the European Union next year. In the debate on the Act, when it was a Bill in Parliament, we objected to the whole concept of the white list. But the white list is now law and we must accept that.
Under Section 94(5), the Home Secretary may, by order, add a state, or part of a state, to the white list if he is satisfied that in general there is in that state no serious risk of the persecution of residents and that the removal to that state of persons entitled to reside there will not in general contravene the United Kingdom′s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, the test under Section 94(5) relates wholly to the conditions in the country from which the asylum seeker comes. It is no justification for adding a country to the list that the applicants include a significant number of people whose claims, when investigated, turn out to be unfounded.
As the Minister pointed out, Section 142, again, provides for the setting up of the Advisory Panel on Country Information, which will make recommendations based on country information, including, no doubt, issues of persecution and human rights.
By the previous order approved by your Lordships′ House on 31st March, the Government added seven states to the list. Those seven were Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Jamaica, Macedonia, Moldova and Romania. At that time, it certainly seemed doubtful to us whether some of those states satisfied the requirements of Section 94(5)—in particular, Albania, Serbia, Jamaica and Moldova. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Dholakia moved an amendment in the same terms as the one that I set down for today.
I recognise of course that the setting up of the panel and the consideration of recommendations from it are not legal conditions that must be satisfied for the exercise of powers under Section 94(5). However, it is plain that they would be useful guidance and, indeed, that they have some legal significance.
If the decision of the Home Secretary to add a particular country to the list were challenged by judicial review on the ground that his decision was irrational, then advice by the panel that the country was, in fact, suitable for addition to the list would obviously strengthen the Home Secretary′s hand. By contrast, if the panel said that the country was not suitable for inclusion in the list, then the Home Secretary would have difficulty in including that
1202
country and asylum seekers would be protected from what would be an unjustifiable presumption that their claims were unfounded.
Only three months later, we now have another list. In our view, that list is even worse than the previous one. What has happened in the past three months to convince the Home Secretary of the need to add those countries to the list without waiting for the advisory panel to be set up? If the panel is to be set up by September, why not wait until then?
In most cases, these countries are not appropriate countries for inclusion in the list. I need to look at them one by one. We are prepared to accept South Africa as suitable for inclusion on the list and, with a little hesitation, Bolivia. The others should not be there—or be there only in part. Many of these states have been subject to serious criticisms by Amnesty, or in the highly respected reports on human rights published by the US State Department.
Sri Lanka has undoubtedly shown considerable improvement during the past year and there have been peace talks between the government and the Tamil Tigers, and a cease-fire while those talks have taken place. But those talks are now stalled and while fighting has not yet resumed it plainly could at any time. Conditions are now acceptable in parts of Sri Lanka—those parts under the control of the government. However, I must refer to what the State Department said about the Tamil Tigers in its report on human rights in Sri Lanka for 2002. It stated:
"The LTTE continued to commit serious human rights abuses. The LTTE reportedly committed several unlawful killings, and was responsible for disappearances, torture, arbitrary arrest, detentions and extortion. Through a campaign of intimidation, the LTTE continued to undermine the work of elected local government bodies in Jaffna. On occasion the LTTE prevented political and governmental activities from occurring in the north and east. The LTTE continue to control large sections of the north and east of the country. The LTTE denied those under its control the right to change their government, did not provide for fair trials, infringed on privacy rights, somewhat restricted freedom of movement, used child soldiers, and discriminated against ethnic and religious minorities".
On that basis, if Sri Lanka is to be included in the list, that inclusion should extend only to those parts of the south, centre and west of the island which are effectively under government control, and should not extend to those parts under the control of the Tamil Tigers.
Let me turn to Amnesty′s comments on Brazil for 2002. It stated that,
"Thousands of people were killed in confrontations with the police. Police were responsible for many killings in circumstances suggesting extrajudicial executions. Torture and ill treatment as methods of extortion continued to be widespread and systematic in police stations, prisons and juvenile detention centres. Human rights defenders continued to be intimidated, threatened, attacked and killed. Land and environmental activists, as well as indigenous people fighting for land rights, were also threatened, attacked and killed by police or those acting with the assent of the authorities".
Can Brazil be suitable for inclusion on the white list?
The State Department, in reports on the other three countries in the list of seven—Bangladesh, Ecuador and Ukraine—stated that the respective governments′

1203
human rights records remained poor. In the case of Ecuador, the report referred to credible reports of killings by police, security forces and semi-official entities. It referred to torture and mistreatment of detainees; arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention; violence and pervasive discrimination against women, indigenous people and Afro-Ecuadorians; and mob violence and vigilante killings. Can Ecuador be considered suitable for inclusion in the list?
In the case of Ukraine, the report referred to the torture and beating of prisoners; police abuse and harassment of racial minorities; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; political interference in the judicial process; intimidation of journalists with authorities issuing instructions about events to cover or not to cover; and restriction on freedom of association and assembly. Can the Ukraine be considered suitable for inclusion on the list?
Finally, I come to Bangladesh. Let me read some paragraphs from the State Department′s report on that country because they are very alarming indeed. I apologise for the fact that this may add a little length to my speech. but I think it must be done. The report states:
"The Home Affairs Ministry controlled the police and paramilitary forces, which had primary responsibility for internal security. Police were often reluctant to pursue investigations against persons affiliated with the ruling party, and the Government frequently used the police fix political purposes. There was widespread police corruption and lack of discipline. Security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses and were rarely disciplined even for the most egregious actions … The Government′s human rights record remained poor and it continued to commit serious human rights abuses. Security forces committed a number of extrajudicial killings, and deaths in custody more than doubled from 2001. Both major political parties often employed violence, causing deaths and numerous injuries. According to press reports, vigilante justice resulted in numerous killings. Police routinely used torture, beatings and other forms of abuse while interrogating suspects and frequently beat demonstrators. The Government rarely punished persons responsible for torture or unlawful deaths. Prison conditions were extremely poor.
The Government continued to arrest and detain persons arbitrarily … The lower judiciary was subject to executive influence and suffered from corruption. A large judicial case backlog existed and lengthy pretrial detention was a problem. Police searched homes without warrants, and the Government forcibly relocated illegal squatter settlements. Virtually all journalists practised some self-censorship. Attacks on journalists and efforts to intimidate them by government officials, political party activists, and others increased. The Government limited freedom of assembly, particularly for political opponents, and on occasion, limited freedom of movement … Violence and discrimination against women remained serious problems. Abuse of children and child prostitution were problems. Societal discrimination against persons with disabilities, indigenous people, and religious minorities was a problem. The Government limited worker rights … and was ineffective in enforcing those workers′ rights in place. Some domestic servants, including many children, worked in conditions that resembled servitude and many suffered abuse. Child labor and abuse of child workers remained widespread and were serious problems. Trafficking in women and children for the purpose of prostitution and at times for forced labor remained serious problems".
By what conceivable standards can Bangladesh be considered suitable for inclusion in the white list?
The countries on this new list are not Slovenia, Estonia or Hungary; the kind of countries that were included in the list in Section 94(4) of the Act. The majority of countries on the new list are the countries where human rights are not respected; where governments use violence and intimidation and where organised abuse of women, children and minorities is rife.
This list is a disgrace and I believe that it brings shame on the Government to put it forward. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end insert "but this House regrets that the order has been introduced before the establishment of an Advisory Panel on Country Information under Section 142 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002".—(Lord Goodhart.)
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, naturally I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Government′s position on this order within the wider context, as he rightly put it, of our debates on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act last year and subsequently the first list.
The Minister will recall that during the passage of that Bill, we on these Benches supported the principle of a safe country list but registered several serious concerns about the processes by which it would be operated. We began from the position of supporting amendments that had been suggested to us by the Refugee Council that there should be an independent documentation centre—amendments that were supported by the noble Lords. Lord Goodhart and Lord Dholakia.
That was an argument that we took through almost to—I was about to say—the death of the Bill. However, after ping-pong it lived to another day but in slightly changed form. We did not press our amendments on the independent documentation on the basis that the Government came forward with a proposal for the advisory panel and we accepted their assurances that that panel would do a sufficiently respectable job. That enabled us to withdraw our objections.
Today we support the Motion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We are now concerned about the delay in the setting up of the advisory panel. I think that the wording of the noble Lord′s Motion is both careful—as one would expect from such an able lawyer—and worded with some restraint.
We are told by the Minister that the advisory panel will, the Government hope, be up and running in September. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rightly asks the question: why not wait just that little bit longer? I do not think that the Minister has given a satisfactory response yet. I look forward to his answers to the detailed list of concerns expressed with regard to the individual countries by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I have looked at some of—but by no

1205
means all—the information quoted by him and I am aware that outside organisations have concerns about various countries. For example, the Refugee Council briefing refers to Sri Lanka. It appends an analysis of the current human rights situation and says that,
"it is unreasonable to conclude that persecution and human rights breaches are rare in Sri Lanka".
I know the Minister has said that each individual case will be looked at on its own merit. We want the Minister in his response to give a more cogent reason than so far for our accepting his arguments.
I return to my concern about this particular list as exposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and at this specific time. If I were a more suspicious person, as a politician I might reach the conclusion—one I will not today as I shall suspend my suspicion—that the Government wish to pass this particular list before an advisory panel gives them advice that it is indeed an inappropriate list. I hope the Minister will be able to dissuade anyone who is of a more disbelieving mind that that is certainly not the case. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has made a very convincing case today.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness has underrated the suspicion that many people outside the House feel about the sequence of events concerning advisory panels and in particular, as she says, the list of countries that we are being asked to approve today.
The removal of UK appeal rights from the citizens of these states means that many individuals with valid claims will have to appeal from overseas, making it far more difficult for them to succeed whatever the Minister may say about the rights of appeal that they still enjoy.
In the first quarter of 2003, 17 per cent of applications by citizens of the countries on the list that we are being asked to approve were granted leave, and 10 per cent of the appeals from citizens of those countries were successful. So the risk of persecution on those figures was not negligible, yet the Secretary of State has concluded that there is in general no serious risk of persecution in any of those countries.
During the passage of the NIA Bill in this House, we expressed concern about the introduction of non-suspensive appeals, which seemed to us to undermine the principle that asylum applicants should be treated on their individual merits. We were assured, as we have been again today, that applicants from the designated countries receive exactly the same consideration as those from elsewhere. How can one expect officials who look at the applications from those countries not to be conditioned in their thinking by the knowledge that the boss does not think that those applicants should have an in-country right of appeal?
The Joint Select Committee on Human Rights in its 23rd report said about the original introduction of non-suspensory appeals that,
"we consider that a presumption of safety, even if rebuttable, would present a serious risk that human rights would be inadequately protected. We consider that the presumption of safety is unacceptable on human rights grounds".
1206
When the first addition to the list of designated states was agreed by your Lordships on 31st March, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, was at pains to emphasise that there is still the right of appeal—he repeated that today—which is, according to him, almost as good as having the right of appeal on the premises. He stated:
"The fact that there is a non-suspensive appeal does not mean that there is no appeal. It is perfectly possible for people, who have a lawyer as part of this process, to signal to the British lawyer that they wish to mount an appeal even though it has to be a non-suspensive appeal. People have done so and there are a number of cases where such appeals are going through".—[Official Report, 31/3/03: col. 1126.]
But the question is whether they still have the same chance of obtaining asylum, other things being equal, on the same set of facts, as if they had presented the appeal in the United Kingdom. I suggest that the only way to assess that would be to consider the relative success rates of in- country appeals immediately before the order and appeals from abroad in an equivalent period after the order.
As Justice pointed out in its April 2003 inquiry into asylum and immigration appeals, as most appeals that are successful involve challenges to adverse findings of credibility by the first instance decision-maker and as the asylum seeker from a listed state has no opportunity to make such a challenge in person. his chances of success are bound to be lower.
Justice had misgivings about the countries added to the list in March and general concerns about the effect of non-suspensive appeals on the system as a whole, especially the possibility of increased reliance on judicial review. Has the Minister or his department responded in writing to Justice′s critique, and has he discussed those and other matters with it since it produced that report in April?
In March, the Minister said that the fact that all 25 JR applications and all 12 appeals from overseas by citizens of the 10 listed states had been dismissed spoke for itself. Assuming, as we must, that there has not been an abrupt change in the background of the people seeking asylum from the 10 states that were then listed, that appears to show that, on similar facts, it has been made far more difficult for a case to succeed. Presumably, that is what the Government intended. The outcome of adding more countries to the list will be the same.
In deciding whether someone has a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the convention reasons, there will always be circumstances where a reasonable person could take either view. The Government are shifting the burden of proof for people from listed states, so that, in the case of JR, they must show that the initial decision was manifestly unreasonable while, in the few cases in which they manage to appeal from abroad, they are deprived of the chance to establish their credibility.
The number of people to overcome those hurdles will be small, but there can have been no change in the merits of their cases. We certainly agree that it is less likely for people from those states to have a well-founded claim, with the reservations expressed by my noble friend about particular countries, but that does

1207
not mean that not a single one qualifies, as the small sample that we had by 31st March would imply. I noticed that the Minister did not give us an update on those figures this afternoon. I think that they would reinforce my point.
In March, the Minister was apologetic about the Government′s failure to establish the Advisory Panel on Country Information, which was provided for by Section 142 of the 2002 Act before that order was tabled. He has explained the reasons why it has not been possible to bring the panel into existence before this order was made. He said that the Government had written to all the organisations that might qualify for places on the advisory panel and that some of them had replied to say that they did not want to engage in the process because they felt that that would cut across their other obligations. Surely that has not taken three months.
The noble Lord′s explanation is not acceptable to the House. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the noble Lord has insulted the House by giving us a formal apology for not producing the advisory panel before March and then having the effrontery to propose an additional list of states this afternoon for our approval.
We very much wish to know what such a panel would have said about Sri Lanka, for example. The Refugee Council has expressed concern about the policy of initial decision-making on asylum seekers from Sri Lanka. It draws attention to the fact that, in 2001, 38 per cent of Sri Lanka appeals were successful. Admittedly, there were fewer successful applications and appeals in the past few months because, as my noble friend explained, there has been a ceasefire. However, the ceasefire is extremely fragile and there are still very serious human rights violations, particularly in the LTTE administrative area, about which my noble friend gave some details.
In the first quarter of 2003, 170 appeals by asylum seekers from Sri Lanka were upheld—10 per cent of the total determined. Also, 11 per cent of the first applications were granted. Those figures do not confirm the Secretary of State′s opinion that, in general, there is no serious risk of persecution in Sri Lanka. If the advisory panel had existed, it could have looked at the information on the country and given us independent advice. I think that the Minister is pleased that we do not have such advice before us because an advisory panel would almost certainly have rejected the inclusion of Sri Lanka on the list.
My noble friend mentioned Bangladesh. This morning, I received a notice from an organisation called Hindu Human Rights, which is concerned with the position of that minority in Bangladesh. It points out that the Hindu population has fallen from 30 per cent of the total in 1941 to 15 per cent in 1971 and just 7 per cent in 2002. Is the noble Lord telling us that Hindus do not suffer any persecution in Bangladesh, or that the other religious minorities do not have an equally hard time? Does he know anything about the position of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, on which I have had a lengthy, detailed correspondence with the Home
1208
Office over many years? Is he aware that, although an agreement was made with the people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts that would allow them to have internal self-governance, it has never been properly implemented by the government in Dacca, and the whole territory is occupied by the Bangladeshi military, which continues to perpetrate serious human rights violations there?
My noble friend said that he would have accepted the inclusion of South Africa on such a list. However, noble Lords may wish to know about one factor that deserves consideration. Since we imposed visa restrictions on Zimbabwe in December 2002, most asylum seekers from that country come here via South Africa. I have received an e-mail from a well-known organisation, Bail for Immigration Detainees, about two individuals who chose that route to leave Zimbabwe and ended up in Harmondsworth because they could not prove that they were Zimbabweans and not South Africans.
What will be the position for people escaping from Zimbabwe who obtain, as they must do, false documents in South Africa to come here? Will they have a proper opportunity to establish their identity as Zimbabweans? Will the Home Office always reject the opinion being given by MDC representatives in London that they are in fact members of the opposition? Will the Home Office always, as in this case, refuse to allow the MDC to obtain independent verification of those persons′ claim to membership of the party from original sources at home?
So many things are wrong with the lists before us that I had hoped that my noble friend would press his Motion to a Division. Anyone who has listened to this debate and who knows about the conditions in the countries of origin would say that the Minister was wrong to bring forward this list and that he should take it away and return with a reduced list, if necessary, after the panel has been appointed.
3 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care and courtesy with which he introduced this Motion. He is, as always, impeccable on that point. I am particularly grateful to him for his concession that there is no such thing as a country in which all people are at all times safe. That is a truly vital point.
It follows from that point, however, that those who are genuinely subject to a well-founded fear of persecution, in a country in which such a thing is very unusual, are perhaps more at risk of having their cases mishandled and their danger mis-identified than almost anyone else. As an example of that, I cite a case that I have mentioned before; that of Mr Matthew Sheppard from the United States, a young homosexual who was found dead, nailed to a fence in Laramie, Wyoming. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, who I am happy to see in his place, said that he could have been perfectly safe living in San Francisco. On that occasion, I forgot to point out to the noble Lord that the first avowedly homosexual mayor of San Francisco was shot dead on his own balcony by a homophobic man, so it might not have been as effective as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested.

1209
Presuming that there are certain countries that are safe is a bit like introducing a presumption of guilt instead of one of innocence into criminal trials. The Minister may wish to tell me that that resemblance is superficial. If he does, I will listen with very great care and an open mind to his reasons. The basic justification that the Government are offering, as outlined in the explanatory memorandum, is that the countries included in the order are safe because a very high proportion of the applications from those countries are found to be unfounded. With respect, I think this is to argue in a circle. It will remain arguing in a circle until we have a great deal more confidence than we do now in the standard of first decisions in asylum cases. For example, the Law Society points out that, in the period shortly before the power came in, a majority of the Czech cases in Oakington were found, on appeal, to be have been wrongly decided in the first instance. That related to a majority of cases, but it need not relate to a majority to be an injustice. That example illustrates that the risk of injustice is real.
It is also a manifest fact that, in several countries—most particularly in South America—conditions may change rapidly. We have seen, with Zimbabwe, how the Home Office is very slow to adjust to a change in conditions in a country from which refugees come. An order that might be justified at the moment of introduction may equally well be totally unjustified three months later. A good many people will probably have died unnecessarily before that is put right.
My noble friend Lord Goodhart drew attention to the prevalence of torture in some of the countries concerned, most notably Brazil. Right back to the 1996 Bill and probably before it, my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby has persistently drawn the House′s attention to the difficulty of getting evidence of torture in cases in which there is only a very short time for a hearing. Attempts to get people to admit that they have been tortured, like attempts to get them to admit that they have been raped, create great resistance. There is a taboo on admitting it. Decisions in torture cases that are reached in a hurry are often wrong.
I remember one such case in which I had a very long correspondence with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who was then the responsible Minister. I am thankful to say that in the end he was persuaded by the justice of the case and did what was necessary. But it took an immense amount of time, energy and intelligence of a Minister of very great power which, in a different situation, could have been better deployed on more general issues of policy, which the noble and learned Lord has never lacked to bring his mind to.
The Minister appears to be extremely well satisfied about the non-suspensive appeal. On the other hand, the Refugee Legal Centre, which I suspect has probably more day-to-clay experience of defending people than the Home Office, which inevitably is on the other side, can possibly have, says that it has had very great difficulty with conducting appeals from
1210
abroad. When dealing with cases from the Home Office, one regularly finds that it is fairly difficult because the cases have a protean habit of changing.
I am dealing with one at the moment, which is not a particularly complicated case, concerning two unaccompanied minors from Kosovo. They have been here since 1999. They are comfortably settled into a family in Suffolk with foster parents who now wish to adopt them. They are entirely at ease at home and successful at school. The Home Office now wants them to return and was conducting two separate hearings—one in London and one in Nottingham. Clearly, that created a considerable problem of correspondence, telephoning and so forth. The case has changed shape three or four times in the course of two or three weeks; every time one has to drop everything one is doing to take it up and get straight on the telephone, probably before one is dressed.
It is not particularly easy dealing with a Home Office case if it is happening on one′s doorstep and one has expert advice to hand. The thought of doing this with a time difference; with the complexities of international telephone systems, not all of them as good as ours; with the difficulty of language; and with the difficulty of making contact with lawyers in the countries concerned really makes my mind boggle.
I must admit that one dreads taking on an asylum case because one knows that every business one has on hand, however important, will have to take second place until the case is finished. Conducting such a case from abroad will inevitably double and re-double anything like that. Like my noble friend Lord Goodhart, I do not understand what it is about this order which is quite so urgent that it is necessary for the Government not to wait until September before bringing it in. After all, the new arrangements for the sitting time of the House mean that the time until we sit again is not really that lengthy. Will it really be the end of the world if three or four people from these countries, some of whom perhaps genuinely ought not to have been here, actually get in? Is it worse, if that happens, than if a couple of dozen are sent back to face a well-founded fear of persecution?
I have never understood why the Home Office believes that this country is at quite so much risk from a small number of unjustified asylum seekers. It reminds me of what the English said on the union of the crowns between England and Scotland, which is something on which I happen to be working at the moment. There are not that many Scots compared with the English. In fact, in 1571, there were only 40 Scots resident in London. That is the verdict of an official survey conducted under the auspices of the Lord Chancellor. Nevertheless, in 1603, over and over again one finds rhetoric in this House and in the other place, saying that England was in imminent danger of being swamped by the influx of hungry Scots.
A noble Lord: And look at what has happened.
Earl Russell: Yes, I do look at what has happened: a number of Scots have attained positions of distinction, which they have then exercised with distinction. This country is much the richer for them.

1211
This country is far too ashamed of being anything other than an isolated rockpool into which the tide does not flow. But in isolated rockpools the water turns brackish, life dies and quality fades away. Like Jane Austen′s Mr Woodhouse, we cry to "live much out of the world". As a result we are often much surprised by what we find in it.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate on the order. Let me start by saying a few words again to put in context why we think that this order is necessary, timely and proportionate.
The asylum system and the principles of the 1951 convention matter greatly. As a country and as a government we want to be able to continue to offer refuge to those who genuinely qualify under that convention. But, as we know, economic migration is a fact. Illegal economic migration is a problem and it has vastly increased in scale because of improvements in transportation, disparities in wealth around the world and criminal gangs which try to promote it.
Without going over the detail again, non-suspensive appeals play an important part in the process. They were a contentious element in our discussions on the Bill and, for that reason, a number of careful procedures were put in place to try to ensure that they were considered and neutralised safely and proportionately.
As is his wont, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made a powerful speech concerning a number of the countries listed on the order before the House. The world is by no means perfect in all those countries. Indeed, there are very few countries about which one could say that there are no issues of concern, but of course that is not the test of the order. The test is that in general a country is safe for its citizens. The word "general" was put into the legislation for a purpose. It enabled the application of the practice of non-suspensive appeals to be triggered, but still left the responsibility to reach a decision on whether it would be safe specifically for the individual concerned. So it is not a process which states simply that because X country is safe all applicants from that country are therefore automatically not valid asylum claimants. All it does is bring in a difference of process, on which I shall speak in more detail later in my remarks.
For reasons of time and because I am not expert on all the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I shall do what I did on the last occasion and write to the noble Lord with specific governmental responses to all the questions raised and the points made on information about specific countries. By so doing I shall be able to set out the reasons for our responses and why we consider that the tests set within the statute are nevertheless met in the judgment taken by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. That is not to duck the issue, but I can offer a better response if I follow the procedure of the last occasion and write to the noble Lord. Of course I shall copy the letter to Members of the Front Benches.
1212
That is not to dismiss or in any way belittle the importance of being thoughtful, proportionate, concerned and well informed when making judgments and decisions about designation. That is a proper challenge to the Government. All I would emphasise is that the Bill places the two tests before countries can be put on the list, and that those tests are applied generally rather than in all circumstances.
That then turns to a consideration of the circumstances of an individual person, without presumption. Because the country from which they came may in general be thought to be safe, that does not mean that their individual application should be considered to be unfounded, unsafe and inadequate. It is the challenge of the case workers to hold that test before them. That is why they have gone through a specific and specialist training process and why there is a second pair of eyes.
As to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, of why not wait, the reason we should not wait is that, essentially, we believe these countries now meet the test; and, secondly, there are a substantial number of applications from these seven countries. For example, there were 5,000 applications to the United Kingdom from these seven countries in 2002.
Let me give the most recent figures for the first quarter of 2003. I give these figures with some caution because there is a process of very careful checking of data. We believe the figures to be true. They may move up or down slightly but, nevertheless, they are broadly true. In the first quarter of 2003 we had 1,150 applications from these seven countries, of which 20 people were granted asylum as a result of their applications.
If we wait another three months or so it is likely that we will have another 1,000 or more applicants coming into the United Kingdom, of which, on the evidence we have to date, very few will meet the test to qualify under the Act and under the Geneva Convention. That would not matter so much were it not for the fact that—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Can he tell the House, beyond these 20 who were successful on their initial application, how many were found to be genuine applicants on appeal?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I cannot. I can, perhaps, extemporise from the figures that apply generally between initial applications and appeals. My recollection is that, in general, when one looks at the totality of applications—the comparison may not be exactly correct—between 9 and 10 per cent of applicants were granted asylum on initial application; and, again from my recollection of previous data, 6, 7 or 8 per cent were granted asylum on appeal.
So the figure of 20 could go up but, if I were being generous, it is unlikely to go up by much more than 10 or 15. It would still be a very low figure. That does

1213
not mean to say, of course, that all applicants in the future will be considered to have non-valid claims, nor does the process make that assumption.
I was seeking to address the question of why now; why not wait. As your Lordships know it is not simple to remove—in fact it is extremely difficult —and there are substantial burdens on the state in terms of supporting people through the process when they are not removed. I shall not go into detail on that.
I was challenged—courteously by some but less courteously by others—as to whether it was part of the Government′s intent to delay the setting up of the advisory panel to get these orders through. It is the first time my integrity has been directly challenged in the House. Nevertheless, I shall put that to one side because it seems to me that the issues that underpin these considerations of asylum and human rights are so profoundly important that we should concentrate on them rather than on trading insults about each other. So I shall let that pass.
As to my investigations in March when I discovered that I was to make an order in this respect and that the advisory panel was not in place, it was not a pleasant experience to find that the commitment I had given to the House that we would set up the advisory panel had not been implemented. I have had vigorous discussions in that respect. I am convinced that the delay was a result of pressure of work on officials, not of malice on their part. It was not a result of Ministers or officials seeking to take a position. It was something that was not done as quickly as we would have wished. As a consequence of 31st March. the process has moved forward rapidly and it is only a matter of time—I am told early September— before the panel is in place. It needs to be, because that is part of an informed process as to whether we are making fair judgments as a government on those countries and that process. I am not pleased that we do not have the advisory panel established—quite the reverse.
I turn to the question of whether it is possible to have an effective out-of-country appeal in this respect. It is an important issue, although it is clearly not what we are specifically debating today. We are debating the order, but the issue is germane to it.
The process allows the applicant in the country, whose claim has been rejected, to ask to make an appeal to a British lawyer as part of the consideration of the application, and the British lawyer to lodge the appeal as soon as the person has left the country. In fact, some 25 per cent of people who have been certified and removed have made appeals under that process and under the Act. One can argue that two ways. One could say that 100 per cent did not make appeals and that therefore there is some flaw in the process. On the other hand, one could take the view as we do that the fact that 25 per cent have done so shows that the system is effective, and that many have had a go at the system to get in and then not bothered to take it further.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is not the correct test the proportion of success in in-country appeals and
1214
suspensive out-of-country appeals? Are those not the two figures that we should compare, and are we yet in a position to make a comparison?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall come to that point later and explain exactly why it is not the comparison that we should be making.
The nature of the out-of-country appeal and whether it is possible for an appellant in those circumstances to have justice was the thrust of a number of questions. The appeal in those circumstances is essentially against whether certification and designation of the country as meeting the tests in the legislation was reasonable. It was not about the circumstances of the individual person. It was not an appeal as to whether that person should have been granted asylum but whether or not the country should have been certified as a non-suspensive appeal country. For that, a British lawyer supported by other excellent non-governmental organisations is well able to bring a case before the courts without the individual person who has been the subject of that wider general decision present before them. Therefore, there is an effective possibility of making out-of-country appeals, because it is a focus on that issue rather than the circumstances of a person′s individual case.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the position of Zimbabweans pretending to be South African. There would definitely be an opportunity for a person on a false South African document to show us that they were in fact Zimbabweans. The noble Lord asked also about the potential successes of out-of-country appeals. I explained the nature of that appeal, and why it is different.
I should signal the position on appeals and judicial reviews. There have been 83 appeals so far from people who have been certified and removed as a consequence of the non-suspensive appeal process. Sixty of those have been heard and, of those 60, all have been dismissed. Forty-seven judicial reviews have been lodged for people in those circumstances, none of which has as yet been successful.
I turn to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the Justice report, which referred to the question of appeals being allowed on the basis of credibility. In non-suspensive appeal cases, certifications are not made on the basis of credibility. A claim is not certified as clearly unfounded simply because we do not believe what they say—in other words, because of doubt about credibility. A claim is certified as clearly unfounded only if objective information shows it clearly to be the case.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I gave examples of cases in which someone claimed to be a member of the MDC. The immigration officer who dealt with the cases at first application said, "I don′t believe that you′re a member of the MDC—I think you′re a South African national pretending to be someone from the MDC". That was the substance of the two cases I mentioned, about which Bail for Immigration Detainees expressed some concern.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is an interesting and, in the circumstances, an important question which deserves an answer. However, I do not see its relevance today as we are not proposing to include Zimbabwe as one of the countries on the list.
I was seeking to respond to the question from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the presumption of guilt. Inclusion on the list is not the same as a presumption of safety, because the cases are considered individually on their facts. In January 2003, in its judgment on the case of ZL and UL v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Court of Appeal stated that inclusion on the list did not establish a presumption that the case would be unfounded. In fact, it said that inclusion on the list did not replace individual consideration of the facts of the claim against the known background data. I think that that is germane.
The noble Earl also asked whether the high number of certificates overturned before the 2002 Act came into force had a bearing. Generally, we believe that the process by which non-suspensive appeal decisions are made is vastly stronger and more substantial—as it should be because it is a non-suspensive appeal. That is not for a second to say that the previous systems were hopeless. The whole process has sought to strengthen very considerably the care with which the initial decision is taken in non-suspensive appeal cases. I have already gone into some detail about how that has been done.
I have spoken at length, for which I apologise. However, I grant that these are important issues. I summarise by saying that I regret that we have not been able to put the advisory panel in place. However, it will very shortly be in place. I have also sought to explain to the House why we think it important that we continue and extend the use of the non-suspensive appeals process as we have done. While there may be a general presumption that a country is safe—and we believe that these seven countries meet that test—one knows when making a decision on an individual applicant that that individual may be the exception to the rule. That is the burden of responsibility which sits on the Government and the immigration officers when they are making such judgments.
The practice and the results of the system seem to us to be working well. This system continues the ability to give asylum to those who should have it while seeking to stanch the flow of economic migrants which risks threatening the integrity of our system.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which was rightly a full reply. This has been a substantial debate which has lasted for almost an hour and a half. I shall therefore be brief.
I remain unconvinced by the Minister′s arguments to justify the inclusion of a number of the states included in the list or to justify bringing the list forward at all now rather than waiting until there has been an opportunity to receive advice. It is of course a longstanding
1216
convention of the House that although it has the power to reject orders moved by the Government, it does so only in wholly exceptional circumstances. The circumstances of this case fall below, but only just below, that level. It was for that reason that I put forward our amendment in a non-fatal form; that is, one that, even if passed, would not have led to the order falling. Therefore, I do not propose to press the amendment today or to vote against the order.
But having said that, we must make very clear our deep concerns that for a second time the Government have brought forward orders including some questionable states, and have done so before the committee has been set up and is able to report. If that were to happen on a third occasion, it cannot be assumed that we would take the same position as we have done today and on 31st March. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) (Amendment) Order 2003
3.30 p.m.
Lord Filkinrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order is made under the Official Secrets Act 1989. Under that Act, it is an offence for a Crown servant to make damaging disclosure of any information which is in his possession by virtue of his position, unless he has lawful authority to do so. Persons who are not Crown servants can be treated as such by designating them in an order. The Act also allows us to designate by order those organisations which can give official authorisation for disclosure to those who would otherwise be committing an offence under the Act. The order before us does both of those things.
The order will designate as equivalent to Crown servants the board and employees of three new subsidiaries of the company Urenco Ltd; they are Enrichment Technology Company Ltd, Enrichment Technology UK Ltd and Urenco Enrichment Company Ltd. The board and staff of the parent company, Urenco Ltd, were designated in 1990 because of the sensitivity of the technology they deal with. They produce enriched uranium for nuclear reactors, and the technology they use is cutting edge. In 1993 a subsidiary company Urenco (Capenhurst) Ltd was also designated. These two companies will shortly be transferring some staff from their employment to these three new Urenco subsidiaries. As Urenco Ltd or Urenco (Capenhurst) Ltd staff, these employees are currently prescribed by earlier prescription orders. This order is needed to ensure that they remain prescribed after the transfer.
The draft order has a second purpose. It will designate the tribunal set up under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 as one which can

1217
authorise the disclosure of information for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act. The tribunal deals with complaints from those who are concerned that they may be affected by the activities of the intelligence services. It is an important avenue of redress for those who believe they may have been treated improperly by those services. It is possible that in order that their complaint can be properly heard certain complainants and witnesses to the tribunal may need to disclose to the tribunal information that is protected by the Official Secrets Act. For example, it would be an offence for a former member of the intelligence services to disclose information about those services to the tribunal. Similarly, any third party who has had information disclosed to them in contravention of the Official Secrets Act 1989 would themselves commit an offence if they disclosed that information to the tribunal. So the tribunal must be able to authorise such disclosures. It will authorise disclosure of information only to the extent necessary to investigate the complaint. This is needed so that complainants and witnesses are not exposed to the possibility of committing an offence by disclosing information to the tribunal.
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal replaced three tribunals set up for similar purposes under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. Those three tribunals were all previously designated as authorising organisations for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act for the reasons I have given. The draft order will replace references to the old tribunals with a reference to the new one.
As we can see, this order is needed to keep the references in the Official Secrets Act up to date, and as such I hope that it will be acceptable to the House. In our view it is entirely compatible with the ECHR convention rights. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th June be approved [23rd report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I simply thank the Minister for his explanation. We accept that it is absolutely right that references should be kept up to date within the terms of the Official Secrets Act. Given the nature of the sensitivity of the technology employed by the companies in uranium enrichment, we support the order.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the Minister may be glad to know that, on this occasion, we support the order, too. It is merely a matter of updating to take account of a changed corporate structure, so there is nothing in our view to make it inappropriate.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is a pleasure to continue to deal with Home Office legislation after I have left the department. It is even more of a pleasure when I find that such an order meets the approval of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Patients′ Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
Report received.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause I, insert the following new clause—
"EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 1
(1) No offence will have been committed under section 1(1) if any of the requirements in subsections (2) and (3) below are met.
(2) The patient—

(a) requests the withdrawing or withholding of sustenance;

(b) does not give consent to the provision of sustenance; or

(c) does not give consent to the recommended intervention to provide sustenance.

(3) In the case of a patient who lacks capacity to consent, consultation by the doctor in charge with the next of kin or legally appointed representative has taken place, and the provision of sustenance—

(a) is likely to cause significant discomfort to the patient without improvement in his condition, or worsen his illness or debility; or

(b) is likely to result in no improvement in the illness or debility of a dying patient.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) a patient lacks capacity if he is unable to understand in broad terms the nature and effect of the decision to withdraw or withhold sustenance."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment addresses a number of concerns raised during previous debates on the Bill. First, it makes clear that a patient who does not wish to be fed by a tube through his nose or a peg in his stomach need not be so fed. He has the right of refusal, although one assumes that he will always have been informed of the consequence. No patient should ever be given medical treatment to which he objects. That was never in doubt in my introduction of the Bill but, for those concerned that doctors might be forced to feed in that way, the amendment clarifies the matter. Secondly, if a patient is incapable of giving any view—if he is unconscious, in a coma or cannot understand the issue—the amendment lays down the procedure that must be followed.
The matters have been discussed at considerable length earlier in our debates, so I have no wish to go into every detail once again at this hour on a Friday. I would wish to spare the House that. However, if any noble Lords wish to ask further questions, I shall do my very best to answer them.
I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to our debates on the Bill, especially to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. It was said in previous speeches by other noble Lords that there was not a great deal of difference between us, especially on the imperative need always to give patients the best medical care and show concern for their comfort and well-being at every stage. I am sure that it is right to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I have never had any disagreements on that point. Those comments have been

1219
proved right. I am both happy and proud that she and I have worked together on the amendment and have signed it jointly. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I shall try to be as brief as the noble Baroness. Clearly, we have debated aspects of the amendment in different ways as we have debated the Bill. It seeks to avoid an offence being committed if a decision to withhold or withdraw sustenance were taken on the basis of the patient′s own request or their refusal to consent to the necessary processes and interventions in providing sustenance. The implication in subsection (2) is that the patient concerned has the capacity to request or withhold consent to the withholding or withdrawal of sustenance, although that is not made explicit.
Subsection (3) deals with patients lacking the capacity to consent. It appears to provide that where the doctor in charge has consulted with the patient′s next of kin or legally appointed representative and the provision of sustenance is unlikely to result in any benefit or improvement for the patient, whether dying or not, it may be withheld or withdrawn. As I said during our many hours of debate on the different stages of the Bill, the Government believe that those principles are important ones to maintain in considering any change in the law. We support the general legal and ethical principle that valid consent must be obtained before starting any treatment or intervention or providing personal care for a patient. That reflects the right of patients to determine what happens to their own bodies and is a fundamental part of good practice. Where patients lack the capacity to consent, the key principle governing their care and treatment is that of a person′s best interests. Those best interests are not confined, as we discussed, to best medical interests but will take into account a person′s psychological health, well being and quality of life.
I draw the noble Baroness′s attention to the definition of "capacity" as set out in subsection (4), which somewhat fails to do justice to all the requirements as commonly understood by the term. For a person to have capacity he or she must be able to comprehend and retain information that is material to the decision, especially as to the consequences of having or not having the intervention in question, and must be able to use and weigh that information in the decision-making process. That suggests a detailed understanding of and the ability to interpret the material facts and not just an understanding in broad terms. The amendment also does not specify who should determine whether the patient has the capacity to make those decisions.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for having outlined the very important issue of competence that runs behind the amendment.
I want to clarify a couple of issues about the wording. First, a patient is assumed to be competent unless they are proved not to be competent; hence the amendment. Subsection (2) refers to "the patient" and subsection (3) to,
"a patient who lacks capacity".
1220
The other important point about capacity is that the capacity to refuse in a valid manner must be assessed in relation to the proposed intervention. The greater the import of the decision, the greater the capacity required to make it. Hence there is no fixed test for capacity; it depends on weighing up the specifics of the situation.
As the noble Baroness said and as has already been laid down by the courts, "capacity" refers to the fact that the adult patient must be able to understand and retain the information relevant to the decision, believe the information and weigh it in the balance to arrive at a choice. That choice must include understanding the consequences of not receiving a proposed treatment or intervention—in this case, of not receiving sustenance. The choice must also be voluntary and free from pressure. The whole decision-making process must be free from discrimination and it must respect privacy, confidentiality, the liberty of the individual and their dignity, and it must take into account views that the person may have expressed when he was deemed competent prior to being deemed incompetent. There are guidelines for good practice and the amendment seeks to ensure that good practice is built on by ensuring that there is consultation with relatives and/ or carers, as outlined, by next of kin or legally appointed representatives.
Patients are routinely asked on entry to hospital about next of kin. However, if the patient were not competent to state that, the people who would need to be considered are the patient′s partner, family, carer or, in Scotland, the tutor-dative, or a person with parental responsibility; the legally appointed representative currently applies only in Scotland—that status, so far as I understand it, is not valid in English law.
I seek the guidance of the House because shortly before I came into the Chamber it was drawn to my attention that one word was missing from the end of the first line of subsection (2)(a); there should be an "or" at the end of that line. It should read:
"The patient … requests the withdrawing or withholding of sustenance; or … does not give consent to the provision of sustenance; or".
I checked that against the draft that was submitted, and I apologise to the House for not spotting the typographical error in omitting the word "or". I am uncertain whether the word "or" can be carried over to the previous line and believe that that needs to be clarified.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, before I express some concerns about the amendment, perhaps I may seek clarification from the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, on a single word. Is the word "dying", which appears before the word "patient" at the end of proposed new

1221
subsection (3), intended to include patients in a persistent vegetative state, such as Anthony Bland? If the answer is that it does include such patients, I would considerably shorten my speech.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I understand from those whose business it is to give medical care—it is not my business—that the words as tabled in the amendment are absolutely clear to the medical profession. So far as concerns that profession, the concept of a "dying patient" carries with it no lack of clarity. But I am certain that the right person to answer this question may well be the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly to clarify the matter. The Bill relates to sustenance. For a patient in a persistent vegetative state there may be other measures which it would be more appropriate to withhold or withdraw prior to considering the withdrawal or withholding of sustenance. To date, the courts have been involved in cases of PVS, and it would seem inappropriate to try to include that in a Bill which is confined to the issue of sustenance.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, perhaps I may then turn to a point which is extremely serious. On my understanding of the case, the courts have dealt specifically with the question of withholding sustenance and they touched upon it in very clear terms in the Bland case. In that case, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, stated on page 832 of his judgment that,
"the medical evidence"—
it is clear that he was referring to the Bland case—
"is that suitable sedation can prevent any untoward symptoms and that withdrawal of nourishment is the most gentle and controlled way in which to allow him to die".
Therefore, the issue was clearly faced up to in that case. If the amendment before the House seeks to change that position, then it runs counter to the decision of the House of Lords appeal court, the Court of Appeal and the presiding judge. Therefore, I believe that we are dealing with a very clinical point in relation to the amendment.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, with great respect, the noble Lord is not correct in his assumption. The Bland judgment did not say—I repeat, "not"; in fact, it was specific about people′s wishes—that henceforward it would be permissible to withhold food and liquid from a patient who was ill in hospital. It was made quite clear that the Bland case was a very special, very particular and, indeed, very bad case—as in "bad cases make bad laws", as, indeed, they do.
1222
The point also covered very clearly—particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill—was that henceforward the Bland case should not be used as an excuse to deny a patient food and liquid.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I must remind noble Lords that on Report the mover of the amendment is the last person to speak and that other Peers may speak only once.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I asked whether I could first ask the noble Baroness a question. Is the Minister saying that I am excluded from continuing with my speech?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I can be helpful to the noble Lord. Any further questions put to the noble Baroness must be answered by her at the end.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I have read the words of the Bland judgment to the House. It is clear that it talks specifically to exceptions to the rule and that in exceptional cases it is acceptable to deny patients who are suffering, provided that does not cause them unnecessary pain and suffering.
I move on to a point raised in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, said that neither the BMA nor any doctors had raised concerns about the Bill. That is said twice in her speech. It is clear that she was not aware of the response of the chairman and the secretary of the Royal College of Physicians Committee on Ethics and Medicine. They produced a specific document in relation to the Bill, stating:
"As it is formulated, the Bill is extremely vague and will certainly be detrimental to humane care of patients. If it were passed, it could be a crude instrument to bludgeon doctors into behaving contrary to clinical judgement informed by a compassionate and sympathetic understanding of the needs of the patient".
It is a two-page document and I will not read further, but that indicates the spirit of the approach to the Bill of the Royal College of Physicians. But in fairness, it must be said that that response was given before the amendments were tabled and perhaps in the light of them it may be different.
I find myself in the position of, broadly speaking, supporting the amendments for the curious reason that although I do not support the Bill, which I accept is moved for reasons of compassion and concern about depriving patients of sustenance without their consent but I believe is unnecessary, I consider that they make a bad Bill rather less bad.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Knight of Collingtree and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who in Committee appeared not to be singing from the same hymn sheets, are today singing to the same tune but using different words. They were both trying to reach the same point from different directions. I am pleased that they have come together on this amendment and I support it.

1223
I would have thought that the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on subsection (4) could have been dealt with easily at Third Reading, if that provision needs improvement. As regards subsection (2)(a), the word "or" can easily be added at Third Reading as a tidying-up measure. There is no difficulty with that; that is, if it does not already come under an Act which we have for clarifying Bills and goes in automatically—I do not know, but the Clerks will be able to advise the noble Baroness.
As to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, on the Bland judgment, I think I am right in saying that the courts said that that judgment should not be taken as a precedent and therefore in some respect his remarks were unnecessary. But if there should be a similar case in future—we all hope that there will not, but unfortunately these things happen—it is always open to either the family or the doctors in treating that patient to ask the court for permission to stop feeding. With those few remarks, I support the amendment.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, the House should commend the noble Baronesses Lady Knight of Collingtree and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on reaching agreement on the amendment to the original Clause 1. I commend the amendment because these are extremely serious matters that we are debating. They are designed to protect patients but they should not, in a desire to protect them, cause unnecessary interference with the proper exercise of medical judgment by those caring for the patients. There is a balance to be struck. The amendment before the House rationally seeks to draw that balance in a reasonable way.
I should like to raise several points for further consideration, if not today at Third Reading. The first is that in paragraph (4) of the amendment there is an attempted definition of "capacity". It is put in the negative, but it is a definition of "capacity". At present, your Lordships face consideration of this Bill, the Bill advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe—the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill—which also involves capacity, and a Bill which is about to be introduced called the Mental Incapacity Bill.
These matters require significant intellectual rigour to be applied to them. It would be most unfortunate if, in the course of debating each of these three Bills, we approach the question as to capacity with different terminology when they all affect the same area of personal capacity and we should be looking for consistency. That is my first suggestion that the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, should consider at Third Reading; that is, what those other two Bills state and the terms of paragraph (4) of the amendment.
The second point I want to make is that in putting her name to the amendment as a Member of this House, as I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is also expressing her medical opinion about what is appropriate in terms of patient protection in this particular area. The comments made by professional medical organisations to which the
1224
noble Lord, Lord Joffe, referred, as he pointed out, were made before these amendments. I suspect that following the amendments the objections will not be pursued, but when we consider the position of the medical profession I invite the House to exercise that intellectual rigour I mentioned a moment ago.
It would be unfortunate if, in considering this Bill, we ask the House to take into account medical opinion if it is against the Bill and yet, when the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, comes before the House it is said, "Don′t take into account medical opinion if it objects to the Bill; there are more important considerations". Putting it generously, that is intellectually unattractive. So we need to have a consistent view about the medical position.
My last point is about subsection (3). First, the Bland case did not create a generally applicable principle of law. A reading of the speeches in the House of Lords makes that abundantly clear. I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, that what he read out was part of the speech in the Court of Appeal of Lord Justice Hoffmann, as he then was; it was not part of one of the speeches from the House of Lords.
I raise that point because the House was exceptionally careful to limit precisely the effect of its judgment by pointing out that in its view these matters required further and particular consideration by Parliament. This is an occasion for such consideration.
As I read subsection (3)(a), it appears to refer to a class of patient who is not dying, but on the terms used would include a patient in a persistent vegetative state. If not, I should like clarification at Third Reading as to which class of patient that is intended to refer. At the moment it appears to refer to any condition and it would not matter even if the patient was only mildly ill. It would seem extraordinary if in those circumstances a patient could say, "Don′t feed me. I intend to die even though I have only a minor condition". I am being strictly legal about this issue, but it is an important matter. In contrast, subsection (3)(b) appears to refer to the dying patient and requires no more than common sense to interpret what it means. So we need clarification with regard to those matters.
I close my remarks on the amendment by repeating what I said at the beginning: it is to be welcomed and I would commend to the House—if your Lordships can forgive the third repetition of it—on this occasion, and when we come to the other two matters that I have mentioned, the need to use throughout objective argument and intellectual rigour.
4 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, first, I make clear to your Lordships that I have received notification from the Table that it will be possible to deal with the important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the word "or" can be treated as a printing error. I am grateful for that advice.
There is no need for me to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, said. In some ways I find it difficult to understand where the noble Lord is coming from, because, as your Lordships are well aware, he is

1225
very much in favour of people being allowed to be "done to death" when they wish that to happen. The Bill is not about that at all; it is about protecting people from being "done to death" when they do not wish to die. Having said those words, I shall leave the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made an important point on the question of capacity. That could not be considered briefly and without careful thought. I am quite sure that colleagues who support this Bill will take that on board, as we all will, and consider most carefully whether changes in the wording are needed or advisable.
With regard to medical opinion and the need for the House to have a consistent view on it, it has often struck me with astonishment that it is extremely difficult to get a consistent view from the BMA. That is natural because doctors are personalities, as are we all. Conflicting views have frequently been expressed to me on medical issues that have come before not only this House but my former place of work, the other place. One doctor will say one thing and another will give quite the reverse as his opinion. So it is sometimes difficult to discern what is the majority view of the BMA. We all have a duty to listen to experts in the fields in which we deal, carefully weigh up what is said and then make up our own minds on the matter. Any other course of action will be problematic.
On the question of what the wording of subsection (3)(a) means, again, I think it better not to detain the House at this time but to assure the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that that will be considered. With those words, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY OF CARE
There shall be a general duty on all those providing nursing care for a patient to offer appropriate sustenance to the patient."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment addresses the duty of care. Nursing care is riot confined to those with a nursing qualification; it consists of the care of those patients who are vulnerable and unable to provide their own nutrition because of debility. That does not mean that sustenance must be offered by registered nurses only. Indeed, in the modern NHS. the role is often fulfilled by care assistants and other non-professional carers.
Neither does it exclude other professions, such as dieticians, pharmacists and others, from an obligation to support that caring process. It is negligent on behalf of anyone entrusted to provide care to fail to discharge his duty to offer the competent—and, indeed, the incompetent—person sustenance. However, in previous debates, there was great concern that patients are at present frightened of going into hospital, and the amendment should allay those fears.
It is negligent to fail to provide such basic care to a person at home—again, the amendment restates that. It does not require someone who helps a debilitated person to shop then also to prepare the meals, but it
1226
ensures that vulnerable people will be offered sustenance if they are unable to prepare it for themselves. It does not remove the duty of best interest in decision-making for the incompetent patient. I beg to move.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, in giving brief support to the amendment, I point out that earlier the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke of the distress caused in hospitals when—this has been reported many times—the food that a patient needed was placed too far for him or her to reach to eat it. Then the nurse would return later and say, "Oh, you′re not hungry then, Mr Jones", and take it away. That is why many of us have received letters. Examples by the score have come to many noble Lords who are involved in the issue of health care. I hope and trust that the amendment will relieve that dreadful occurrence.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Baroness′s amendment is similar to one that we discussed in Committee last week, but the scope has been changed. She seeks to impose on all those providing nursing care for a patient a general duty to offer appropriate sustenance to that patient.
I shall reinforce briefly some points that I have made as the Bill has been debated in your Lordships′ House. I cannot restate strongly enough that poor and neglectful care of patients should not happen. Failing to provide nutrition and/or hydration that is appropriate to a patient′s clinical condition and nutritional needs is contrary to established acceptable practice, and, if amounting to gross neglect, would be a criminal offence.
The amendment seems to restate established good practice but is now selectively addressed to those providing nursing care. It is not addressed to all healthcare professionals, including doctors, who would be involved in initiating invasive methods of nutrition and hydration, and pharmacists and dieticians, who would be involved in providing and monitoring intravenous and intra-gastric nutrition. The clause could, however, encompass lay carers and thus impose new and possibly onerous duties on those close to a patient who may be nursing a relative at home.
The Bill already provides a definition of "sustenance":
"the provision of nutrition and hydration, however so delivered".
However, it does not define what is appropriate. That is difficult enough for professional carers to decide but will often be impossible for lay carers. It is unclear what that means for a nursing or lay carer who may not be qualified to initiate, or possibly to administer, the more invasive methods of providing sustenance.
The word "offer" is not defined here or in the rest of the Bill, but the use of the word suggests that the amendment is about patients who are in a position to refuse. Where a person is not in a position to consent to treatment, or to refuse an offer, the normal rules apply and those caring for them must act in the person′s best interests. If, as the end of life is reached,

1227
it is not appropriate to offer increasingly invasive methods of delivering sustenance, those caring for the patient do not have to make the offer.
I conclude by restating an observation that I think I made at Second Reading—it now seems a very long time ago. The discussions that noble Lords have had over many hours have reinforced how difficult it is satisfactorily and comprehensively to encapsulate subtle healthcare concepts, which require compassion and discretion in delivery in robust, unambiguous and defensible legal English. I recognise the noble Baroness′s concerns in introducing the Bill. However, it would be worth while if we all reflected on whether there is a need for legislation in such a sensitive area. One could argue that the area is more amenable to the detail and subtlety that professional guidance and good practice can deliver, and where safeguards against transgression already exist in law.
The Bill has allowed many related issues to be aired in this House. It has been very valuable in that sense. However, at times, there has been a muddling of the Bill′s intentions with general concerns about the quality of care available to elderly patients and patents who are dying under NHS care.
The Government believe profoundly in the fundamental principles underlying the inception and continuation of the NHS as it provides for elderly people—high quality care available to all who need it and free at the point of delivery. We have invested a great deal in that commitment. As we conclude this stage of the Bill, it is important to bear in mind the importance that we attach to the quality of care for elderly people, no matter what their circumstances.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I support the intention of the amendment, but, like the Minister, I am concerned about the wording. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, that I do not seek to ensure that patients get "done in". I seek to assist patients who wish to die to do so with dignity. I refer the
1228
noble Baroness to the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, from which I quoted and in which he dealt at some length with the use of emotive language in discussions of such seriousness.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I rise briefly to raise a point advanced by my noble friend the Minister, which is to stress how careful we must be in dealing with matters of this sensitivity. That is not a reason why the House should decline to deal with matters of public interest, because in the House of Lords case of Bland, all the Law Lords said that it was a matter for Parliament, and at least one, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, said that the matter was of such importance for Parliament that it could not properly be left to the exercise of judgment by the medical profession. That was not an expression of a lack of confidence in that profession, but an expression of the belief that matters of this gravity must be determined by the legislature and not individual professions alone.
It would be unfortunate if our senior court recommends this House to consider these matters and we finish up referring it back to the very medical profession that brought the Bland case to the House of Lords in the first place. That would be a long circular journey since Bland.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for clarifying potential complications that may arise in the wording of the amendment. When I spoke previously, I had hoped to clarify that nursing was to be used in the broadest sense, not simply a narrow sense. It therefore leaves me with somewhat of a dilemma in terms of the wording of this amendment. However, I feel at this stage, given the possibility of tidying up the wording at Third Reading, I will press this amendment now.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past four o′clock.

  Congo: UK Contribution to Multinational Force in Bunia
  Congo: UK Contribution to Multinational Force in Bunia
  Sudan
  Sudan
  EU: Decision-making Procedures
  EU: Decision-making Procedures
  Turks and Caicos Islands: General Election 24 April 2003
  Turks and Caicos Islands: General Election 24 April 2003
  Future Rapid Effect System and FV430 Vehicles
  Future Rapid Effect System and FV430 Vehicles
  RAF Stations: Brize Norton, Lyneham and St Mawgan
  RAF Stations: Brize Norton, Lyneham and St Mawgan
  Pensions: Public Sector
  Pensions: Public Sector
  Plasma Transfusions
  Plasma Transfusions
  Wolfson Molecular Imaging Centre, Manchester
  Wolfson Molecular Imaging Centre, Manchester
  Genetically Modified Foods
  Genetically Modified Foods
  Cochlear Implants
  Cochlear Implants
  Great Western Railway Line Closure: 19 June 2003
  Great Western Railway Line Closure: 19 June 2003
  River Craft Safety Checks
  River Craft Safety Checks
  Regional Airports
  Regional Airports
  Light Dues
  Light Dues