Sitting of 23 April 2004

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

PRAYERS
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
[MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair]

Point of Order
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Have you been approached by the Government, or more specifically by the Prime Minister, for them to seek leave to come to the House to explain the complete shambles and uncertainty over the referendum on the European Union constitution? It would appear that, outside the House, the Prime Minister is now giving contradictory indications, but he has not come here to clarify his position or that of the Government. It is surely very unsatisfactory that press conferences should be told by the Prime Minister what he thinks may or may not happen, while we here in the House of Commons are left in the dark. Has the Prime Minister asked whether he can come to the House to clarify the position, or will we be left in a state of complete chaos, confusion and uncertainty?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I can inform hon. Members that, at this moment in time, I have had no request from the Prime Minister or another member of the Government to come to the House.

Orders of the Day

  Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.34 am
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is the third time that my name has been drawn in the private Members' ballot since I was elected in 1987. I always put my name into the ballot and always secretly hope that I will not be successful. I know that for the next four, five or six months the Bill will certainly change priorities and dominate my working life. I will become what is known as a private Bill bore, which is not a member of the British Army. I will talk of nothing else and everyone else's eyes will glaze over. That has been my experience with two Bills. Although I have failed to get them on to the statute book, that does not seem to have been an obstacle in achieving their objectives.
  My first Bill aimed to stop calves being exported from the United Kingdom to the cruel veal crates on the continent. Although the Bill failed, within six months BSE ensured that that cruel trade would stop. Fortunately, it has not restarted.
  My second Bill was designed to take Railtrack out of the private sector. The Bill failed, of course, and I can remember the Government speaking against it at the time. However, within four months, they had put Railtrack into liquidation and Network Rail, a not-for-profit organisation, had been formed. Even if this Bill fails today, I am sure that, with my record, the law will be changed in the near future.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government have already told him that they oppose the Bill and are intent on talking it out?
  Mr. Martlew:I think that the hon. Gentleman must have defective hearing. I said, "If this Bill fails". I did not say that it would fail, and I am confident that enough of my hon. Friends are here to carry the day unless the Conservatives try some sharp practice.
  When I came seventh in the ballot, I knew that I would be very popular, but I did not expect to be as popular as I was. Within an hour of the ballot, somebody knocked on my door with a Christmas hamper, saying, "If you do my Bill, I will give you the hamper." Unfortunately, I was not bribed that easily. I took a leisurely look at all the Bills. I returned to my constituency office and went through the piles of stuff that we had and I read a letter from the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust asking me whether I would take up its Bill. The letter was signed by the trust's chief executive, Angela Lee, OBE.
  I was immediately interested in the Bill, because it reminded me of a serious road accident that I was involved in as a child; one could say that I had a flashback. When I was about five-years-old, I had an argument with a petrol tanker in which I came off second best. Obviously, I was not responsible as a child, and the accident was my fault. Although I do not

  531
  remember the accident itself, I remember the separation from my parents and the months in hospital. I remember the loss of schooling and the embarrassing physical scars that I had at the time. Bald patches on the head and scars on the face were very embarrassing for a child. I thought that if I could help to alleviate such or worse cases for children, it would be a very good Bill. That was one of the main factors in my decision.
  I then started to examine what the Government were doing. I came to the conclusion that they had a bit of a blind spot about protecting child cyclists. There is a lack of safety training, and I understand that a private company is launching an initiative today to attempt to replace the cycling proficiency test. I well remember my cycling proficiency test; it was the first examination I passed, and I did not pass too many after that.
  Mr. Russell Brown: Surely not the only one.
  Mr. Martlew: It may be a bit cruel, but it is not far from the truth.
  I also realised that there is a lack of legislation on helmets. I thought, "This Government are supposed to be doing a great deal for children." We now have a Minister for Children, who apparently has no involvement in this Bill, and we are talking about having a commissioner for children, but I still think that the Government should do something on this matter.
  The second thing that I noticed about the Bill is that it is simple, well defined, modest, targeted and effective. It would work, which is very important for a private Member's Bill. Thirdly, the Bill is easy for people outside the House to relate to, because the vast majority of them have cycled at one time or another. I am sure that most hon. Members will also have cycled at some stage, so they will understand the Bill's significance. That is why I decided to promote it.
  I want to record my thanks to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported my Bill. I have received letters of support from 200 Members.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Where are they?
  Mr. Martlew: I suspect that 400 Members have gone to school today because it is national "back to school" day. Some Members pay more attention to their constituents than the right hon. Gentleman does, but that is a matter for him.
  Mr. Forth: I tend to give priority, as a Member of Parliament, to the making of law, which is what I always thought we were supposed to be here for. If other Members choose to give priority to visiting schools when law is being made—or not, as the case may be—that is a matter for them. I was simply saying that it is all very well for Members to come here on a Friday and claim that 200 Members support their Bill, but I hope that we will see evidence of that when the House comes to vote.
  Mr. Martlew: There are two schools of thought about the right hon. Gentleman: one is that he is a great parliamentarian and the other is that he is a pain in the neck. I have never changed my opinion about him.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I remember Opposition Members protesting only a few weeks ago about the Genetically Modified Organisms Bill not proceeding simply because—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have business before the House today, and it has nothing to do with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
  Mr. Martlew: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was not sure what the right hon. Gentleman was talking about.
  I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their support. I am grateful also to many of my ministerial colleagues, including the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the Minister without Portfolio and the Secretary of State for Transport. I understand that the Prime Minister, too, supports my Bill. I also give special thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) for the work that he has done in the Health Committee on this issue, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) for the work that she has done on the Bill behind the scenes.
  I give special thanks, too, to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who will reply to the debate. He has been helpful and courteous throughout our discussions. In 1995, he successfully promoted a private Member's Bill, the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill. Its purpose, like that of my Bill, was to save children's lives.
  I thank the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, a small registered charity that ensures that child cycle safety is not forgotten, and its patron, the racing driver David Coulthard, who flew, straight from the Malaysian grand prix to help me launch my Bill in the House of Commons. Its chief executive, Angela Lee, is the driving force behind the trust. She is a nursing sister at a Reading hospital whose experience of the consequences of child cycling accidents made her realise that something had to done to change the law. She has worked tirelessly to build a broad coalition of support among parents, the medical and scientific community, the Government, civil servants and Members of Parliament. The cause for which she and the trust fight is very straightforward: to protect kids on their bikes by making them wear a helmet. It must be to the credit of the trust that the Bill is being debated today.
  Ms Meg Munn: Is there not a great deal more that can be done to protect children on bicycles, such as having more separated cycle routes, particularly for young people going to school, which we clearly want to encourage? We need to develop proper, safe routes and proper training in cycling proficiency, as my hon. Friend has already outlined. Should we not also be impressing more on

  533
  motorists their responsibilities to respect the road space of cyclists? I speak as somebody who regularly cycles to and from the House of Commons. All those issues have to be tackled along with that of wearing helmets.
  Mr. Martlew: I accept that totally. If my hon. Friend intends to speak later, perhaps she will tell us whether she wears a helmet.
  Ms Munn: I do.
  Mr. Martlew: I am pleased to hear that.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) made a very good point about cycle lanes. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) join me in condemning Conservative-controlled Barnet council, which has decided to start to remove cycle lanes to allow traffic to move more quickly, thus jeopardising the safety of children and others who use bicycles?
  Mr. Martlew: I have no knowledge of that, but as the council is not Labour-controlled, I will condemn it.
  I return to the serious point that I was making. The death of a child is a tragedy, but a death that could have been avoided is a scandal, and today we are working to prevent such deaths. I hope that Ministers will take note of the debate and support the Bill.
  The Minister for Children, whom I have already mentioned, has published a Green Paper, "Every Child Matters", in which the Government identify a number of outcomes that are important to children, including being healthy, staying safe and getting the most out of life.
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend speaks about avoiding children's deaths. Even if children who are involved in cycling accidents do not die, they can sustain serious head injuries that leave them with disabilities for the rest of their lives, and that, too, is a tragedy, so the Bill is also about preventing avoidable long-term damage to children.
  Mr. Martlew: Yes, for every child who dies, about 10 are severely injured, and many of those suffer brain injuries.
  Ian Stewart: Does my hon. Friend accept that when we reach adulthood we can have arguments and express different views about whether we should impose things on people for their own good, but safety is an educative process that is best started when children are young and impressionable, so that they accept good practice throughout the rest of their lives?
  Mr. Martlew: We have a responsibility in that regard as parliamentarians, parents and citizens of the UK. Some people have accused me of introducing a Bill that expands the nanny state. I suspect that few of my colleagues had a nanny, but we know that the job of nannies is to look after children. Children reach an age at which they can decide things for themselves, and the Bill says that once they reach 16 they do not have to wear a helmet. I am not one of those who say that helmets
  534
  should be compulsory for every cyclist. This is not the thin end of the wedge; it is what we should be doing for children.
  Before I was so kindly interrupted, I was discussing the Green Paper. It is all very well issuing a Green Paper, but if the Government fail to support the Bill they will send the wrong signals. I argue that cycle helmets are crucial to ensuring healthy, safe and enjoyable lives for hundreds of thousands of young cyclists in this country.
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman says, "If the Government support the Bill" but I thought he had already said that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport did so. Is he suggesting that his Government are speaking with forked tongue?
  Mr. Martlew: I am a little disappointed. Originally, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who I know supports the Bill, was to be the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. It appears that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is interested only in making political points, which I find upsetting.
  The sad truth is that a disproportionate number of accidents involve child cyclists. Figures from the Transport Research Laboratory and the Department for Transport starkly reveal how vulnerable child cyclists are. The TRL points out that although children account for 6.6 per cent. of road cyclists, they account for 21 per cent. of cyclist deaths in a three-year period. Child cyclists are four times more likely than adult cyclists to die on the roads. Once a fortnight, a child dies in a cycling accident on the roads of this country. More than once a day, a child is seriously injured in such an accident and is likely to be disabled. I mentioned that hon. Members were likely to be visiting schools in their constituencies today. I am talking about the equivalent of wiping out a primary class and severely disabling a secondary school every year. I do not claim that cycle helmets will necessarily reduce the number of accidents, but I am absolutely convinced that they will reduce the severity of the injuries sustained.
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Statistics can be interpreted in various ways, but any death or injury is a tragedy. How many of the deaths of the 28 child cyclists killed on our roads each year could be prevented by the wearing of a helmet?
  Mr. Martlew: I was just coming to that. Many of the accidents involve serious head injuries, and scientific research performed both here and abroad has proved that cycle helmets protect the head and brain against the worst effects of injury. Dr. Andrew Curran, whom I met in the House of Commons at the launch of my Bill, is a consultant paediatric neurologist at Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool and has for three and a half years been involved in research into the effect of head injuries in children. He believes that the wearing of a cycle helmet reduces brain damage in children by 80 per cent. Perhaps the most comprehensive independent analysis of existing research is the Department for Transport-commissioned "Bicycle Helmets: A review of their effectiveness" published in November 2002. I recommend it as a very good read, although I am sure that all hon. Members read it before coming to this

  535
  debate. I am grateful to the Department for its lead in marshalling and reviewing the evidence in this crucial area. The report states that
  "there is now a considerable amount of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing head, brain and upper facial injury in bicyclists. Such health gains are appropriate for all ages, though particularly for child populations."
  The report states simply that cycle helmets save lives. Supporters of the Bill, which include a wide range of highly respected professional organisations, have clearly reached the same conclusion.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: There are some who would accuse my hon. Friend of extending the nanny state. Does he agree that the same arguments were used in the 1960s and '70s against the wearing of seat belts, and that the legislation passed in that respect has reduced the number of deaths and the personal tragedy experienced by families whose members would otherwise have died on the roads?
  Mr. Martlew: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. We have always seen a knee-jerk reaction against such measures, whether on the wearing of seat belts or preventing drink-driving, but, after a while, such things become common sense and we wonder why we did not do them before.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: The answer to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) is that requiring people to wear car seat belts has not stopped car use, whereas the Bill, if passed, would have a dramatic effect in terms of discouraging children from cycling. When helmet laws were introduced in Australia, the result was large decreases in the number of people cycling: child cycling fell by between 30 and 50 per cent.
  Mr. Martlew: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts, and not at that pamphlet, he will find that cycling has since returned to its former levels. In addition, he will recall that I said that only 6.6 per cent. of cyclists in this country are children.
  I have strong support from various organisations. I have here a letter from Sir Peter Morris, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, who writes:
  "This seemed to me an entirely sensible public health measure and I am pleased to inform you that the…Royal College of Surgeons of England yesterday expressed full support for your Bill."
  I also have support from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Faculty of Accident and Emergency Medicine, the Society of British Neurological Surgeons, the Faculty of General Dental Practitioners, the British Dental Association, the Institute of Road Safety Officers, the Child Brain Injury Trust, the brain injury organisation, Headway, the road safety organisation, Brake, this country's leading cycle retailer, Halfords, and, last but not least, and greatly welcome, the Royal College of Nursing, whose letter states:
  "we strongly support the bill and our members have first hand experience of the tragic injuries and loss of young life which could have been prevented by wearing a cycle helmet. Whilst wishing to encourage people to cycle as much as possible we also want to ensure this is done safely".

  536
  One person who has first-hand experience of such tragic injuries is Mr. Alistair Fraser-Moodie, a consultant in accident and emergency medicine at Derbyshire royal Infirmary for the past 26 years. He writes:
  "It is quite obvious to me as a practising clinician seeing patients come through the front door of our hospital that once you are on a pedal cycle the chances of survival in a crash are far greater if you wear a helmet. These poor pedal cycle casualties only realise this when the shock has died down and some well-meaning ambulance man gives them their cycle helmet back again. Instead of suffering a fractured skull or worse they have a bruised skull, a bit of concussion and a smashed up helmet. So the helmets have taken the strain.
  It is about time that we start looking after the children in our country. Many use their pedal cycles to get to school. Others use their pedal cycles for paper rounds or pleasure alone. It is about time we protected these children by introducing the compulsory wearing of cycle helmets. Failure to do this will inevitably result in carnage."
  For me, Mr. Fraser-Moodie captures eloquently people's sense of anger and bemusement when, in the face of overwhelming evidence, no action is taken to protect children.
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman cites many commonsense propositions, and I certainly advise my children to wear bicycle helmets, but why does he believe that the voluntary route has failed and is failing? Why does he not think that more should be invested in education about the propositions that he articulates?
  Mr. Martlew: My understanding is that, overall, 25 per cent. of cyclists wear helmets, but in the most vulnerable group—teenage boys—that figure is only 12 per cent., because wearing a helmet is considered "not cool". Peer pressure is such that they will not wear them, and those are the people who are most vulnerable. There are people—
  Mr. Chope rose—
  Mr. Martlew: I assume that the hon. Gentleman has prepared a speech.
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that cyclists in the 12 to 16 age group would think it cool to obey the law.
  Mr. Martlew: I am not suggesting that at all. I was talking to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who told me in the Lobby that the Bill was excellent. As a mother, instead of telling her teenage children that they should wear a helmet, she will be able to say, "It's the law and you must wear a helmet." That is the advantage.
  I said earlier that the Bill's aims are relatively modest, but that does not mean that it will not be effective. I said that the Bill was straightforward, but that does not mean that it oversimplifies the problem. While preparing it, I have been conscious of the need to frame legislation that will be practical and proportionate. The Bill makes it an offence to cause or permit a child under the age of 16 to ride a cycle on the road or in a public park or recreation ground unless the child is wearing protective headgear.
  Ms Munn: Can my hon. Friend explain his thinking about including off-road cycling? Although I do indeed

  537
  wear a helmet while cycling to and from the House of Commons, I might take a different view depending where else, off-road, I was cycling. I would take a view of the risks involved in that. Clearly, the impact of a road traffic accident is likely to be much more serious than the effect of falling off a bike in a park. If my hon. Friend could tell us his thinking about that and about including off-road cycling in the Bill, I should be grateful.
  Mr. Martlew: Two thirds of accidents where children end up in hospital take place off the road. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) will speak later about the son of a constituent of his who died recently not on the road, but riding his bicycle in a skateboard park.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: The all-embracing nature of the Bill concerns me and has led me from an initial position of general support to a much greater scepticism. Will my hon. Friend comment on the following circumstance? A couple of weeks ago I went with my five-year-old daughter to a neighbouring park. She met one of her friends, who lent her her bicycle to ride around the park. Am I right in believing that I would be committing a criminal offence by allowing her to do that? Is that not taking matters a little too far?
  Mr. Martlew: I know that my hon. Friend is a sensible person, and I believe that common sense will prevail. If, for example, one let a three-year-old ride a tricycle along the pavement, one would be committing an offence because that would be against the law. In reality, however, no action would be taken, because common sense would come into it. I can give two further examples of laws that are sometimes not enforced. We see few prosecutions of adults or children for riding bicycles on the pavement. Some of my constituents say there are not enough prosecutions for that. As another example, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) told me that he was in Whitehall last night and watched the number of cyclists go by without lights on their bikes. Apparently, they were wearing helmets, but they had no lights on their bikes. If my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) takes the measure to The extreme, yes, he would be prosecuted, but in reality common sense will prevail.
  I have a letter from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who says he has no objections to the Bill. In my discussions with him, he said that he thought that it was the law already. He understood the situation and he thought a long lead-in time might be needed to build up the rate of compliance before the Bill is introduced. There is no objection from the police.
  Mr. Michael Foster: I take my children to Worcester Woods country park for rides on cycles. That is off-road, and one is not likely to come into contact with four-wheel-drive vehicles, but there are trees, branches and twigs that can easily get stuck in the spokes of a wheel and send the cyclist over the handlebars. That is why I insist that my three children wear helmets when they come on a cycle ride with me in Worcester Woods country park.
  Mr. Martlew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me out. He clears up the point that was made. I shall press on, as I do not want to be accused of talking out my own Bill.
  The parent, guardian or employer of a child will be held responsible, as will the owner of a cycle if the owner is over the age of 15, or any person other than the cycle's owner who has custody or possession of the cycle immediately before the child rides it, if that person is over 15. The offence is liable to a level 1 fine, currently a maximum of £200. There is scope in the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain groups and to prescribe the protective headgear that should be worn. The provisions of the Bill would cover all of the United Kingdom. For the purpose of the Bill, a cycle will mean a bicycle, tricycle or cycle with four or more wheels.
  Hon. Members may think the Bill breaks new ground, but that is not the case. Those who were in the House before 1990 may remember the ten-minute Bill introduced by the then. Member for Ealing, North, Harry Greenway, and we know how difficult it is to get such a Bill on to the statute book. That Bill did almost exactly the same as my Bill would do, but for children riding horses. It is illegal for a child to ride a horse on a road unless the child is wearing a riding hat. That went through the House on a ten-minute Bill, so it must have been unopposed.
  What my Bill will not do, as some of its more excitable opponents claim, is make every child cyclist and every parent of a child cyclist a potential criminal. The provision is an important mechanism to counteract persistent flouting of the law. I envisage that a friendly word of caution or a verbal instruction to provide a helmet for a child will suffice to make people comply with the legislation. The very fact that legislation is in place will encourage most people to ensure that children obey the law. It is one thing to tell teenagers they should wear a helmet, and another to be able to say, "You must wear a helmet because that is the law."
  I know that the Minister is deeply concerned about compliance rates. His Department is increasingly active in targeting young people with the message that safe cycling makes sense. Last year the Department devoted £137,000 to an advertising campaign showing the importance of wearing a helmet. I welcome the efforts of the Department, but the fact that I have introduced the Bill indicates that I do not believe it is doing enough. The Minister wants wearing rates to reach a critical mass before he contemplates making that compulsory. I understand his motivation but ask him to consider whether that goal will ever be reached. Surely matters should be the other way around. Rather than waiting for wearing practices to change, the Government should introduce enforcement. The Minister should act now to put enforcement measures in place to ensure that wearing practices change.
  If the Government do not, they will continue to fall into the trap of the opponents of helmets, such as the Cyclists Touring Club, which not only does everything possible to stop helmet wearing becoming mandatory, but campaigns against the Government advocating the wearing of helmets. That is one reason for concern that the Government will never achieve their compliance rates.
  Helmet wearing rates in the population as a whole have increased from 16 per cent. in 1994 to 25 per cent. in 2002, but the trend among teenage boys has been

  539
  reversed and is down to 12 per cent. It is all right for hon. Members to talk about freedom, but they know that the children are at risk, and I hope that they will take note of that.
  Teenage boys are the most vulnerable group and it is not good enough to shake one's head and shrug one's shoulders and say that boys will be boys or that kids will be kids. It is precisely because children are children, who take risks on their bike, who make errors of judgment, who do not have experience, and who have to use their bikes for practical journeys, that action needs to be taken to protect them.
  The Minister's policy of persuasion is well intended, but it will never deliver the results that all hon. Members must surely want—a safer cycling environment for all young people. His efforts must be backed by enforcement measures, which will be acceptable to the vast majority of the population once the issue is decided. Otherwise, we will continue in a curious policy vacuum in which the Government fully accept the case for cycle helmets and argue that children are vulnerable without them, but do precious little to rectify that situation. The Government's March 2000 road strategy said that the wearing rate of helmets for the population as a whole was about 18 per cent. It went on to say:
  "At this level, making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have an effect on the levels of cycling. We will monitor wearing rates and review the option of compulsory wearing from time to time."
  Three and a half years later, in an answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who I understand supports my Bill, the Minister updated the wearing rates to 25 per cent. but his words sounded eerily familiar. He said:
  "At these levels making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have an effect on levels of cycling…We will continue to monitor wearing rates…and review the option of compulsory wearing from time to time."—[Official Report, 5 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 639W.]
  The time is now. To be frank, that does not inspire a great deal of confidence that the area of policy has been reviewed at all. In fact, it suggests to me that unthinkingly, and with a little complacency, the Government are doing their best to brush the matter under the carpet.
  The issue will not go away, in part because helmet wearing is not increasing quickly enough, in part because young children continue to die or sustain serious injuries while cycling, and in part because people, including many hon. Members, are genuinely mystified by the Government's lack of activity in an area which, on the surface, they say is so important. We agree how effective helmets are, we agree on the vulnerability of child cyclists, and we agree on the importance of delivering a safer cycling environment. As the Prime Minister said to me on 31 March during Prime Minister's questions:
  "The issue that my hon. Friend raises is a high priority for hon. Members and the Government."—[Official Report, 31 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1594.]
  Is it not a pity that we cannot yet agree on an effective method for delivering the outcome? I hope that the issue can be explored in more detail today and during later stages of the Bill.
  540
  I want to deal briefly with some of the opponents of the Bill. I do not include those hon. Members in the Chamber. I have been a Member of the House for quite a long time now and I have been involved in various campaigns, one of which was on the Hunting Bill with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). After a while one acquires a grudging respect for one's opponents, despite disagreeing with them, but I cannot say that with regard to this Bill.
  The Association of Cycle Traders seems more interested in selling bicycles than in the safety of children. It argues that helmets will have only a small benefit for cycle safety, which is nonsense. Then we have the National Cycling Strategy. I was ignorant of that quango before I took up the Bill, but I was rather alarmed to see that it had written to hon. Members, although it did not write to me, and its address is the Department for Transport, Marsham street. Moreover, it gave a distorted version of my Bill, so I hope that the Minister will investigate that.
  I received a letter signed by the vice-chairman, which made me wonder who the chairman of the strategy was. I did a bit of digging and discovered that the chairman at the time the letter went out was none other than Mr. Steven Norris, a former Member of the House and the Conservative candidate for the Mayor of London. I wondered why he did not sign the letter opposing my Bill. This Bill is popular; it has 80 per cent. support in the country. Perhaps it was because he did not want to put his name to the letter because he thought that it would affect his vote. He is a clever man and he may also have thought that a letter from him to Labour Members of Parliament would have been counter-productive, and it probably would have been. Then I did some more digging and the vice-chairman is a chap called—
  Mr. Dismore: Perhaps another reason for Mr. Norris not signing the letter is that he is rather too busy with his part-time job with Jarvis, where he spends two days a week for an enormous sum of money engaging in matters of greater concern to Londoners.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we can return to subject under discussion.
  Mr. Martlew: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I am not sure that that is the truth. To give credit where credit is due, I had a frank and full telephone conversation with Mr. Norris, so he obviously had time to phone me back.
  To return to the point, it was the vice-chairman of the National Cycling Strategy who wrote to hon. Members. He is a senior executive of Raleigh Industries Ltd., and one of the arguments that he put forward against my Bill was that it would reduce cycling, and therefore, I suspect, the number of cycles, so perhaps the vice-chairman should have mentioned his other role in that letter. If hon. Members had written such a letter they would have had to declare some sort of interest.
  Finally, I come to the Cyclists Touring Club. I am sure that most members of the CTC are normal, well-adjusted souls, but—
  Shona McIsaac: As a former member of that organisation, I wish to reassure my hon. Friend that I am a normal, well-adjusted soul, and I support the wearing of cycling helmets.
  Mr. Martlew: My hon. Friend is as well adjusted as the rest of us, I will give her that.
  I am sure that the CTC has well-adjusted members, but it seems to attract its fair share of lunatics in lycra. The organisation campaigns actively to stop the Government promoting the benefits of helmet wearing. All those hon. Members who have received a leaflet from that organisation must realise that not only is it against compulsory wearing of helmets for children or anyone else, but it campaigns actively against the Government saying that wearing helmets is a good idea.
  Ms Munn: Does my hon. Friend accept that some people are in favour of cycle helmet wearing, such as my constituent Simon Geller who is active in the local Pedals organisation and is a stalwart of cycling in Sheffield—but he is nevertheless very concerned about the Bill's enforceability? While he wears a helmet and encourages his children to do so as well, he is concerned that this measure would be difficult o enforce and that more needs to be done in terms of persuading people to wear helmets.
  Mr. Martlew: My hon. Friend could reassure her constituent by telling him that the Home Secretary sees no problem with enforcement. If the Home Secretary is happy with that, perhaps it will satisfy her constituent.
  The CTC is anti-helmet to an extreme extent. I mentioned the £137,000 that the Government spent last year on advertisements in magazines. It is a pity that we did not spend more and put some of the advertisements on television, but the campaign was good. What did the CTC do? It took the Government to the Advertising Standards Authority to complain about the advertisement. That is the sort of people who have been sending leaflets. I accept that the vast majority of members are fine, and I know that a lot of them join because they get cheap insurance, but I suggest to the CTC that if it wants to be taken seriously, it should change its policies and also its leadership.
  Before introducing the Bill, I thought that it was obvious that encouraging children to cycle should go hand in hand with measures to create a safe cycling environment.
  Mr. Dismore: I get the impression that my hon. Friend is coming to his conclusion. I have received a lot of representations from a plethora of cycling organisations that are opposed to his proposals, or at best lukewarm or neutral about them. Which cycling organisations, representing the people whom the Bill would affect, have come out in favour of it?
  Mr. Martlew: I think that the vast majority of cycling organisations are against the Bill, but I remind my hon. Friend that professional cyclists have to wear helmets by compulsion in this country. They accept that, and they are working with a major company—I think that it is a pharmaceutical company—to improve cycle training for children. It will be compulsory for the children to wear helmets during that training.
  I had hoped to finish my speech by now, but I have been generous with interventions. As I said, I thought it obvious that encouraging children to cycle should go
  542
  hand in hand with measures to create a safe cycling environment. Last June, the Minister said in a press release:
  "by making cycling safer, more people will take to their bikes".
  I am sure that he still holds that view. I thought that it was common sense to say that cycling is a healthy and beneficial activity, but that it should be conducted in a sensible manner. That was before I encountered some of the Bill's opponents, who seem to find a dangerous and alarming contradiction between the promotion of cycling and the introduction of basic provisions to improve the safety of child cyclists. I do not believe that such a contradiction exists, which is why I am promoting the Bill, and I do not believe that anything in the provisions will discourage children from cycling, as some opponents claim.
  Furthermore, I do not believe, as some of the Bill's opponents do, that helmets increase the risk of accidents. I prefer to accept the overwhelming evidence provided by scientific research around the world. Neither do I believe, as some of the Bill's opponents do, that the mandatory wearing of cycle helmets will lead to such a downturn in cycling that we will breed a new generation of obese Britons. If that is the best argument that opponents can come up with, I feel rather sorry for them.
  None the less, however exaggerated and alarmist such claims may be, I accept that there are concerns. That is why, after today's debate, we should take the Bill Upstairs and scrutinise it. The Minister can table amendments and any hon. Member who wishes come to the Committee may do so and make their points. As has been pointed out, what we are witnessing now is the same knee-jerk, unthinking reaction that we saw when we introduced similar measures relating to cars. It was said that measures on drink-driving would never work, and the same was said about wearing seat belts.
  Ultimately, the argument that the provisions will never work, that nobody will agree with them and that there is no way to enforce them is not only defeatist, but plainly wrong. If the Minister needs to be convinced of the measure's popularity, he should study the results of an independent survey carried out by MyVoice, a polling organisation, in April this year. More than 9,000 people were polled, and 80 per cent. of them wanted helmets to be made mandatory for children. Indeed, almost 70 per cent. of the children themselves wanted helmets to be made mandatory.
  Experience in other countries has demonstrated the effectiveness of cycle helmets. The Government accept the effectiveness of helmets, but will do nothing about the issue. Accidents and injuries have declined dramatically in each of the countries where mandatory helmet wearing has been introduced, including Australia, New Zealand, Spain, the Czech Republic, parts of the United States and Canada. Of course, some of those laws have been in place for a long time. If they had been found to be wrong, I am sure that they would have been repealed by now.
  In conclusion—I had not intended to speak for an hour—I hope that the Bill will receive the scrutiny and consideration that it deserves. If it does not become law, that will not be the end of the line. It is my intention to set up with others an all-party group to build up strong support, with the assistance of hon. Members from

  543
  across the House. This matter is not going to go away. I remind the House of what I said in opening my remarks: my two previous private Members' Bills failed, but they became law soon afterwards. I do not think that we can keep on going forward knowing that we are sacrificing 28 children a year and knowing that some of them could be saved. As I said earlier, the loss of a child's life is a tragedy, but if we can do something to avoid it, such a loss is a scandal.
  10.27 am
  Sir George Young: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on his good fortune in the ballot, and commend him for his wisdom and courage in choosing this subject. I also commend him on the way in which he introduced the Bill to the House.
  On 19 April, I received a letter from the policy adviser to Sustrans expressing surprise that I was supporting the Bill and going on to say:
  "All cycle world united against it."
  Of course, that is nonsense. The cycle world is rarely united about anything. The cyclist is not a herd animal, but a loner who prefers to go his own way in his own time rather than get on a bus or a train. Most cyclists do not join an organisation, and those who do so have a love-hate relationship with it. I believe that I am an honorary vice-president of the Cyclists Touring Club, but I certainly do not share its view on the Bill.
  As someone who has sought over the past 30 years to work with the many splendid organisations that are active in this field and to help mould them into an effective political force, I think I know what it must be like to be the Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrats. Cyclists are notoriously difficult to organise in a coherent way. Some oppose cycle lanes because they see them as the first step towards banning cyclists from the roads, while others want them. Some believe that the present road traffic laws should be observed and enforced, while others do not. So anyone who comes to this debate expecting to find a united view from the cyclist will be disappointed. I hope that the cyclists among us who end up on different sides of the argument do not let each other's tyres down at the Members' cycle rack.
  I want to begin by putting the Bill in context. Of course, there is a general and legitimate debate about the respective role of the state on the one hand and of the individual and his family on the other. That is a relevant debate when it comes to lifestyle decisions, whether they relate to smoking, drugs or sexual preferences, and also in terms of activities that involve risk. I suspect that nothing that is said this morning will satisfy what I call the fundamental libertarians—those who believe that unless someone is directly doing harm to someone else, they should be free to take risks and injure themselves. Such hon. Members tend to sit on these Benches, and some of them may be here this morning—indeed, I shall give way to one of them.
  Mr. Leigh: I do not oppose the Bill on fundamentalist libertarian grounds; I oppose it because it will result in a dramatic fall in cycle use.
  Sir George Young: That view is perfectly respectable, and I shall come on to it in a moment.
  544
  I do not subscribe to the fundamentalist libertarian view—nor does my party, as I shall show in a moment. I recall a story told to me by a consultant surgeon at the time of one of the earlier debates about seat belts. He was about to operate on a patient in St. George's hospital, which at that time was located at Hyde Park corner. The patient had a rare blood type of which it had taken the hospital some time to acquire sufficient quantities. Just before the patient went under the anaesthetic, there was an accident on Hyde Park corner. A driver who had not been wearing a seat belt was seriously injured and was brought into the hospital critically ill. He had the same rare blood group, so the supplies were given to him and the original operation was cancelled. That shows that, in the interdependent society in which we live, the health of one's neighbour is not a matter of complete indifference to oneself. We all have a mutual interest in living in a healthier society, where demands on the NHS are minimised by justifiable accident prevention measures.
  David Cairns: I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Given that the Bill is about children, surely not even the most fundamentalist of the fundamentalist libertarians believes that children should be free to do whatever they want.
  Sir George Young: I do not share that view, and if other Conservative Members share it, they must advance it. The question for the House is where this measure falls on the spectrum of legitimate intervention by the state—does a erode the liberty of the individual or is it a legitimate intervention by the state?
  Moving from the general to the specific, road accidents are an obvious target for any Government who have an interest in reducing burdens on the NHS and reducing avoidable deaths and injury. So far as transport accidents are concerned, this House has decided to compel the individual to wear a seat belt, first as a driver and later as a rear seat passenger, to wear a crash helmet as a motor cyclist and, for those under 14, to wear a helmet if they ride a horse. Many of those measures were introduced under a Conservative Government, so Conservative Members have embraced the principle of legitimate state intervention.
  Turning to the specifics of this Bill, the child road cyclist is the most vulnerable of all road traffic users. He is vulnerable both because he is a cyclist and is therefore more exposed, and because he is a child and is less able to cope with traffic and to assess risk—he is at four times greater risk than adults. However, he is the only road user who has no mandatory protection whatsoever.
  I do not plan to spend too much time on medical evidence, because the hon. Member for Carlisle set out the case very well. I agree with Ministers that helmets are effective, and that they significantly reduce the incidence and severity of head injuries—according to the Library, there were 28 such deaths in 2002. As the hon. Member for Carlisle told the House, a Seattle-based study found that helmet use reduced the risk of head injury by 85 per cent., and the Transport Research Laboratory has come up with a slightly lower figure. Those 28 deaths are a legitimate subject for the House to debate. If it is possible to reduce them, let us do so, unless there are overpowering arguments to the contrary.
  Shona McIsaac: The right hon. Gentleman mentions the 28 deaths, but he should also mention the people

  545
  who are seriously injured, who are in permanent vegetative states or who will be disabled for the rest of their lives.
  Sir George Young: That point is w holly legitimate. I entirely accept that one should not only focus on the statistics for death.
  As the hon. Member for Carlisle said, the Royal College of Nursing supports the Bill, and although the British Medical Association favours the wearing of helmets, it is neutral on the Bill "at present"—it is possibly aligned with the Government, who are waiting for the voluntary wearing of helmets to increase before they legislate. In fact, nearly everyone agrees that it is sensible to wear a helmet, and the arguments then move on to the downside of compulsion. I want to examine those arguments, because I do not find them convincing.
  The literature that has been sent to us contains some simplistic arguments. Obesity is, of course, an issue, but it has many causes and many cures To ascribe to the passage of this Bill into law the dire consequences of a fresh generation of obese children is absurd. Early-day motion 774 states:
  "European countries with the most cycling activity have the lowest obesity levels."
  We have all been taught to avoid making such simplistic judgments and using the naive logic that because two things have happened, one is the consequence of the other. There may be other factor; that explain the variation apart from cycling.
  One of the booklets produced by the CTC states:
  "any measure that discourages cycling will have a profound effect on average life expectancy"
  and "likelihood of ill-health".
  That is a heroic overstatement. Without producing any evidence, the Cyclists Public Affairs Group asserts that the Bill would increase the number of deaths from obesity. For some children, if they do not bicycle, they will have to walk, which is another healthy activity, and children who bicycle may also take other forms of exercise.
  There has been no visible decline in horse riding since Harry Greenway's Bill reached the statute book a few years ago. Thirty years ago, one could ride a motor cycle without wearing a crash helmet, and when that law was changed, we heard the same arguments that it would deter people from riding motor cycles. However, I have met no one who is deterred from riding a motor bike because they must wear a helmet, and the same will be the case in a few years' time if this Bill reaches the statute book. To rest the argument on obesity, as some opponents do, is to assume, first, a large drop in cycling and, secondly, that as a result there will be substantial obesity that would not otherwise have occurred. I cannot accept that the matter is as simple as that.
  The CTC has also adduced the false sense of security argument—again, we heard that argument in the context of seat belts and motor cycle helmets—where it is claimed that when safety increases, one takes risks that one would not otherwise take. Speaking personally, wearing a helmet is part of a total risk reduction strategy, rather than a pretext for taking extra risks. By the way, that strategy includes avoiding those cylindrical security drums that emerge from the road as one comes into the Palace of Westminster, which have unhorsed me twice.
  546
  On enforcement, again, we heard that argument in the debates about seat belts and motor cycle helmets. Yes, not everyone belts up, but that is not a serious argument for repealing the law on the compulsory use of seat belts. We have recently legislated on the use of mobile phones while driving, which I support, and I saw a piece in the paper yesterday indicating that not everyone obeys that law, but that does not mean that it should be repealed. If the law on helmets were changed, the vast majority would obey it, and it would be easier to enforce than, for example, the law on rear seat belts, because it is immediately obvious if someone is wearing a helmet.
  Carlie Annetts is one of my constituents, and she has written to every hon. Member. I commend her courage at a recent press conference and her campaign in favour of the Bill. Her son Troy was knocked off his bicycle about two years ago when he was not wearing a helmet, and sustained what seemed at the time to be a minor head injury, which sadly turned out to be fatal. He would almost certainly have been saved had he been wearing a helmet. His mother Carlie does not want other parents to go through what she has been through, and I commend her vigorous campaign in support of the Bill.
  Recent parliamentary answers from the Minister indicate that the Government want people to wear helmets, but they do not want to legislate at the moment and will review the option from time to time. It is clear that the Government have no objection in principle, and if voluntary wearing were to continue to increase, they would probably legislate at some point—but not yet. Last year, the Minister said:
  "At these levels making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have an effect on levels of cycling."—[Official Report, 5 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 639W.]
  The previous Government, in which I played a modest role, said that it was
  "more effective at the present stage for Government actively to promote the voluntary wearing of helmets."—[Official Report, 8 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 71.]
  However, that was nearly 10 years ago.
  The Minister's argument is a little perverse. More lives would be saved if there were 100 per cent. wearing of helmets. When voluntary wearing reaches, say, 80 per cent., he is prepared to legislate, but in terms of saving lives, the benefit of legislating then will be less than if he legislated now, when wearing is, say, 25 per cent. So if there is no objection in principle, why not do it now and save the extra lives? The Government's view is not whether, but when. If there is case for it, we should do it now. Of course the Government are concerned about greater public acceptance, to use the Minister's words, but the only survey that I have seen, of some 9,000 adults, found that 80 per cent. favoured mandatory wearing. That is the sort of majority with which any Member of this House would feel comfortable.
  I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion because other hon. Members want to speak. I hope that the Bill reaches the statute book. I believe that it has worthwhile benefits and that the case against it is not made. I understand the anxieties of the opponents of the Bill. Personally, I would be prepared to delay its implementation—that is left to the Secretary of State—for some time to give the Government an opportunity to narrow the gap of non-wearers and make wearing more

  547
  acceptable. What the House should do now is make a clear statement of principle that this is a sensible safety measure, but we need a bit of time for people to adjust.
  I commend the hon. Member for Carlisle for introducing the Bill; should there be a Division, I shall be with him in the Lobby 100 per cent.
  10.42 am
  Mr. Peter Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on his speech and on promoting the Bill. I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I have always regarded him as a friend, although he is on the other side of the House. He is certainly well respected, and is one of the House's most famous cycling Members. I enjoyed his speech in favour of the Bill.
  I have a confession to make. When my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle chose this subject, I supported it right from the start, but it was not my intention to be here on a Friday to take part in the debate. I think hon. Members will know that I have for many years campaigned for the House to make all Fridays non-sitting days and to take private Members' Bills on another day. That is not because I want a shorter working week, but because I believe that it is important that Members can work in the constituency on a Friday, as it is the only time available to us when factories, schools and other places are working. Some Members who live in the south-east may not fully understand that, but it is a problem. Today, many Members throughout the country are involved in back to school day. I had a full programme of visits to four schools, but with their co-operation I am having my back to school day on 21 May, so Burnley's will be a bit later than the others.
  I changed my mind about attending the debate following a tragic incident in my constituency—the tragic death of James Hadfield, a young boy of 15, who was killed on his bike. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle said, it happened not on the road, but in Piccadilly park, a children's play area less than five minutes from where he lived—just round the corner, in fact. It is a small park with a skateboard area. He cycled into the park at some speed down the road on to the skateboard area, came off and, tragically, died. The incident received a lot of press coverage and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle spoke to the family.
  I went round to see the family the following Sunday. I did so with some trepidation, because contacting a family in a tragic personal situation is not the type of thing I normally do, but I understood from my own experience the impact of the tragedy of that boy's death on the family and the wider family. In 1956 and 1957, I did my national service in the Royal Marines. I was home for the August bank holiday when my younger brother, who was 17, went out on his motorbike. It was not compulsory to wear helmets in those days, although he normally did so. He went out for five minutes to fill up with petrol. hit a bit of broken road surface, hit the kerb and was killed outright. I will always remember the tragedy of my brother dying at that age. He was a very successful apprentice working for the London
  548
  Electricity Board. I remember the tragedy not only of his death, but of the impact on my family. It took my mother many, many years to get over it. In fact, I do not think that she ever fully got over it, because the last thing that she did before he went out on that Sunday morning was to tell him off. We had gone out for a short walk, and when we got home the tragedy had happened.
  I therefore fully understand how the Hadfield family felt, and it was with some trepidation that I went round to see them. It was very clear that they fully support the Bill. I asked them how the press had treated them. These days, MPs tend to criticise the press and the press criticise MPs, and we are two of the professions of which the public have a poor opinion. However, the family said that the local press had treated them very fairly, sympathetically, compassionately and helpfully, and that its reports had been very clear and accurate. I want to quote from the report in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph on Monday 15 March. It says that the accident happened on a Saturday afternoon when the family was out buying a car. James's father says:
  "Our son Dylan was with him when it happened, he was the one to run home and get Victoria to ring us."
  Victoria was Jamie's sister. It continues:
  "He added: 'James loved life. He loved football, especially Burnley, fishing, cars and his BMX bike. When he was on that bike he had no fear, he was just like me when I was a child…We are not sure if a helmet would have saved his life because the handlebars crushed his chest but we know he suffered head injuries so it could have saved him."
  The family are being fair—they are not saying that it is 100 per cent. certain that a helmet could have saved his life, but that he would have had a better chance if he had been wearing one.
  The article states:
  "His parents today revealed that their son refused to wear a helmet because he claimed it wasn't fashionable. They are now urging other parents to ensure their children wear helmets."
  That is the problem, of course. Young people, especially those aged 13, 14 and 15, have a habit of thinking, "My mates won't wear that helmet—why should I?" They go out without one because they do not want to be laughed at and experience peer pressure.
  The article continues:
  "Step mother, Melanie…who is married to James' father also James…said: 'No matter what we said to him about wearing the helmet he just wouldn't do it. He was a typical teenager and wouldn't be told anything. All the other children wear them—it was a matter of course to them but to James, wearing a baseball cap was all he would Wear. If this tragedy persuades one more person to wear a helmet then his death won't have been in vain."
  On the Tuesday, the Burnley Express reported:
  "The parents of James, 15, yesterday revealed how he refused to wear a safety helmet because it wasn't fashionable."
  It stressed that they support my hon. Friend's Bill and believe that if it helps to reduce the number of tragedies and serious injuries in future it is the right thing to do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire attended the press launch of the Bill and campaign in the Jubilee Room a few weeks ago. Anyone who previously held a neutral view would have been persuaded by the medical evidence, not only about death but the injuries that a young person could sustain as a result of a serious accident. If the Bill saves some lives and prevents some serious injuries every year, it is worth supporting.

  549
  The Burnley Express stated:
  "According to Lancashire County Council 26 people in the county were killed or seriously injured in cycle accidents and 127 injured between 1998 and 2002…Bike Helmet Initiative Trust Executive Angie Lee said: 'If we are serious about protective clothing then the only effective way to do it is by law.'"
  The article continued:
  "Halford's who sell their own brand of helmets, Trax, and have a superstore based in…Burnley, said: 'We constantly work with the manufacturer to help make the helmets more fashionable, more colourful and more aerodynamic to escape the old skull-cap look. When we sell bikes we always encourage buyers to purchase a helmet and we cater for all pockets to make them accessible to everyone."
  Jamie had several younger brothers. Although that young boy would not wear a helmet because of facing his mates, he always encouraged his younger brothers to wear theirs. Indeed, he would not let them go out on their bikes if they were not wearing helmets because he believed that it was important that they should have them. However, because he was at that slightly older age, he would not wear one. People could say that that was a silly mistake—it was—but if it had been the law to wear a helmet, James would have done so. His mates would also have worn helmets and they would all have gone out wearing them.
  Yesterday, I received a fax, which I am sure that other hon. Members also received, to say that cycling supremo David Millar supports the Bill. He is an Olympic hopeful and he joins David Coulthard, who has done much to support wearing protective headgear. Of course, a bike is not David Coulthard's normal vehicle but he is a keen cyclist. He supports the Bill, as does Olympic cycling medallist Jason Queally. The fax states:
  "Mr. Millar challenges the notion that the measure is unpopular with cyclists. He said, 'If cycle helmets did not work it would be a different matter. but they do as a great many cyclists like me appreciate. As you would expect, I am fully in favour of cycling but recognise you must undertake the activity for sport or for pleasure responsibly, particularly if it is someone else's life. I would not put my child on a bike without ensuring their safety. I am sure this is the first of many provisions to be introduced for children, who, let's face it, are vulnerable because they are novice cyclists and who in many cases are not aware of potential dangers.'"
  I accept that many responsible parents will voluntarily try to persuade their children and teenagers to wear helmets but we know what teenagers are like—after all, we have all been teenagers Enacting the Bill will provide protection and make wearing a helmet the norm. I do not accept that cycling will become less popular and that young people will be discouraged. Once the Bill is passed, there might be a few months of resistance, but once people have got used to it, they will accept it. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire was right to suggest a transitional period of a few months before implementing the Bill. His point was fair and reasonable.
  David Cairns: On peer pressure and what children will or will not do, does my hon. Friend agree that young people regard going to school as deeply uncool and unpopular and that if it were voluntary, many would not go? However, it is the law, so young people go to school. It is feeble to argue that we should not even try simply because something is considered uncool and there is peer pressure to resist it.
  Mr. Pike: I agree. Many young people would not go to school if it were not the law. Once the law exists,
  550
  people accept it. The breathalyser has been mentioned several times. When we introduced that and other drink laws, they were resisted. Nowadays most people accept them. When I first started to drive and I worked in a bank, we opened on Saturdays. We used to cash up at 12 o'clock and rush over to the pub where the senior staff had to buy all the junior staff as many drinks as possible before closing time, when they drove us home. I now wonder how on earth they drove. That was not challenged in the 1950s but we would regard it with horror nowadays because we understand that someone who has had a drink is a dangerous driver, just as we increasingly accept that speed is a killer and a cause of accidents. The same applies to seat belts. Who nowadays would say that we should abolish the law on seat belts? It is mostly accepted. In a small percentage of incidents perhaps a driver would be better off without a seat belt, but such instances are rare.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Is that not the crux of the difference between seat belts and cycling helmets? Those who oppose the Bill suggest that its consequences of encouraging obesity and the negative public health effects far outweigh the benefits of the measure. Only a tiny number of lives would be saved by not wearing a safety belt. That is the difference between bicycle helmets and seat belts.
  Mr. Pike: I have great respect for my hon. Friend but I do not accept his point. I do not believe that any evidence exists to show that fewer people will cycle and that the health effects that he fears will happen. If the Bill saves some young people, however small the number, from death or serious injury, we have a responsibility to support it. That is the overwhelming argument in favour of the measure. Earlier, I referred to the death of my brother in a motor cycle accident. It was argued that fewer people would drive motor bikes if helmets were made compulsory, but that did not happen. Nowadays, more and more people are driving motor bikes. The increase in motor bike use is incredible.
  I accept that there is a balance to be struck, but I believe that it is in favour of passing the measure. I have examined the evidence of those who oppose it and those who have written to me to say that it will discourage bike riding. I have received three copies of the postcard published by the campaign to oppose the Bill. The postcard shows a photograph of a father with two kids on bikes, with the caption "Criminals?" splashed across it. People who organise such campaigns should be a little more sensible because the cards do not include space for an address, so I cannot reply to the three people who have written requesting my views. I take it that they are from Burnley, but I do not know.
  The postcard states:
  "Whatever your views on helmet-wearing it is clear that such a law would seriously threaten the efforts of Government and others to maximise the many health and other benefits of cycling. The available evidence shows that imposing helmet-wearing reduces cycle use, whilst the safety case for such a measure is far from clear. At a time of acute concern about Britain's obesity epidemic, the last thing we should be doing is legislating children and young teenagers into car-dependent sedentary lifestyles."

  551
  Although one agrees with the objective of encouraging cycling, I do not agree with the conclusion. The campaign has not changed my view.
  Mr. Russell Brown: My hon. Friend has been reading part of the postcard, but the card also says of the Bill:
  "Its purpose is to ban under-16s from cycling unless they are wearing a helmet."
  That is not what this legislation is about; it is about encouraging young people and ensuring that they make safety a priority. It is not about banning under-16s from cycling.
  Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is a question of how we read the card. It has been written in a way that is most damaging to the case made by the Bill.
  We are debating a Bill that will protect young people, and I would hope that every young person would be encouraged to cycle as well as to participate in other healthy sports. I have no objection to that, and all of us who support the Bill want to see it happen. We do not want to see any reduction in the number of young people cycling. All we want is to see them cycling safely and getting to the end of their journey safely—whether it is for pleasure or for going to school or work—and not suffering serious injury or death that could have been prevented by their wearing a helmet. I shall certainly vote for the Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle on introducing this most sensible measure.
  11.1 am
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I very much enjoyed the speeches of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), but I shall be the first Member today to oppose the Bill. I am a father, and all my children have cycled. Like all fathers, I have tried to encourage them to wear helmets. As they get older, it gets increasingly difficult to make them wear helmets, to cycle or to take any exercise at all.
  To take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, I do not take an extreme libertarian view on this matter. The House is entitled to legislate on matters of safety, but if it is wise, it will do so only when it is riding with public opinion. It was clearly doing that when it introduced the legislation on front seat belts, and I understand that 90 per cent. of people are sensible enough to know that it is wise to wear them. The battle to persuade people to wear rear seat belts in cars has been far more difficult. I always wear one, of course. I am certainly not going to announce publicly in the House of Commons that I break the law. I am told, however, that only about 50 per cent. of people use rear seat belts—the legislation on which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in 1991. That shows some of the problems involved in such legislation and it is one of the problems with this Bill. We need to ride with public opinion.
  It worries me that there is a huge number of statistics going back and forth in this debate. It is dangerous to produce statistics, because someone can immediately
  552
  intervene and produce a statistic to support the other side of the argument. We know, however, that the use of cycle helmets by children is very small, perhaps between 6 and 15 per cent. If any hon. Member wants to intervene and tell me that the figure is actually much higher, I will certainly give way, but I think that those figures are generally accepted.
  Mr. Martlew: I would agree with the hon. Gentleman's figures. If the figure were 70 or 80 per cent., I would probably not be introducing this Bill. It is because the figure is so low that I am introducing it.
  Mr. Leigh: That is a very honest intervention, and the hon. Gentleman has used it to make his point.
  There would be a serious problem of enforcement in regard to these measures, and I think that that is a problem for the Government. I suspect that that is why they will not give the Bill an entirely fair wind. The hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister supported it, but the Prime Minister actually said:
  "We will give serious consideration to it…we can support it, I am sure that we will."—[0fficial Report, 31 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1594.]
  I do not know what that means; I do not know whether the Government support the Bill or not. If I were speaking from the Government Front Bench, I would be very understanding of the problems that we face.
  The number of child deaths in these circumstances is small, although it is an appalling tragedy for the parents of every child who dies, and for their community. Even if only 20 children a year die, that is still 20 too many. However, the jury is out on whether we would save those lives by passing the Bill. My point is that there would be a serious problem of enforceability. When we introduce a law, we generally need to have the tide of public opinion with us.
  Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman and I represent neighbouring Lincolnshire seats, and I hope that he will accept that we have some of the worst road traffic accident statistics in the entire UK. I have no doubt that he constantly reads in our local newspaper, the Grimsby Telegraph, about the number of young cyclists who are injured in our area. Will he tell me whether he is against the wearing of cycle helmets, or purely against the element of compulsion?
  Mr. Leigh: Of course I am not against wearing cycle helmets. Those of us who oppose the Bill must accept the argument that someone who wears one is probably less likely to sustain an injury than someone who does not. It would be absurd to say that wearing one made people more liable to injury The problem with cycle helmets is that most of the 20 kids who die each year die from serious multiple injuries. They do not die from falling from their bicycle on to a hard, flat surface. In a moment, I shall adduce a learned opinion, which argues that, because of the standards applied to helmets, most of them will prevent injury only if the wearer falls from their bike on to a hard surface. They will not save someone who is hit by a car or who suffers multiple injuries.
  Mr. Martlew: The figure is actually 28 children a year, based on the last three years. Obviously, that is too many.

  553
  On the hon. Gentleman's point about injuries, a high percentage of those youngsters die from head injuries. It is obvious that other parts of the body are less vulnerable than the brain. Also, the Bill prescribes what kind of helmet will have to be used, so the Government will be able to ensure that people wear very good ones.
  Mr. Leigh: I am glad to hear that, because it leads me precisely to my next point. I am sure that the Government will have an opinion on the issues of compliance in this regard. If we are to impose new standards on the cycle helmet industry, there will be costs and difficulties involved. I am sure that the hon. Member for Carlisle will have read the opinion of Brian Walker, who is one of the leading experts on the mechanics of helmets. His company, Head Protection Evaluation, is the principal UK test laboratory for helmets. He argues that
  "with only one or two exceptions, the helmets tested"—
  these are the helmets in general use now—
  "were quite incapable of meeting the higher Snell B-90 standard"—
  which pertained in the early 1990s—
  "to which many of the models had been previously certified. Some helmets were even incapable of meeting the weak EN 1078 standard. Some people argue that helmets are effective if 'properly worn'. How those words have haunted me through many years! Apart from some racing cyclists, I hardly ever see a cycle helmet worn properly…we have examined many cycle helmets that were manufactured in such a manner that correct adjustment was completely impossible."
  Brian Walker goes on to quote a High Court case. This relates to the important point about whether those 28 children's lives could have been saved. If that number of lives could be saved by the Bill, I accept that I should probably have to withdraw my opposition to it. It is important not to take an absolutist point of view in these debates. Mr. Walker says that, in a recent High Court case,
  "a respected materials specialist argued that a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules (his estimate, with which I was in full agreement).
  The court found in favour of his argument. So a High Court has decided that cycle helmets do not prevent injury even when falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, with little forward momentum. Cycle helmets will almost always perform much better against a flat surface than any other."
  Brian Walker continues:
  "Referring back to the Court case mentioned earlier, the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to do so, stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made."
  That quotation from an expert in child safety and in helmet manufacture shows some of the difficulties with those arguments. I use it only to make an argument; the House need not necessarily accept it, but there are two sides to the question. There are difficulties over how
  554
  effective helmets are and there is argument over whether the 28 lives a year would have been saved had the Bill become law two or three years ago.
  Mr. Martlew: I am a little confused, because the hon. Gentleman said earlier that he accepts that cycle helmets help. Now he says that the evidence is that they do not. Perhaps he can clarify that.
  Mr. Leigh: To be honest, I do not wear a helmet when I ride a bicycle. I accept, however, that I would probably be safer if I did so. I am not an expert; I am just using my own common sense. As laymen, people presume that if they wear something on their head when they are riding a bicycle, they are safer. All I am saying is that, although that is a common-sense point of view, there are eminent neurosurgeons—eminent specialists in this field—who argue that it is not necessarily a given fact that those 28 lives would have been saved had the Bill become law.
  Mr. Russell Brown: This morning, we have concentrated on the loss of 28 lives a year, averaged over the past two or three years. But there is also the serious issue of severe head injuries. The Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust says that a child is twice as likely to fall off a bicycle—not necessarily be involved in an accident with another vehicle—and sustain an injury, which could be a head injury. In that respect, surely we should do something to lessen the impact of any injury that an individual, especially a child, may suffer.
  Mr. Leigh: It would be ridiculous if I argued from an absolutist's point of view that people should not try to persuade their children to wear a cycle helmet. If a young child falls off a bicycle on to a hard, flat surface, wearing a cycle helmet will undoubtedly help. Therefore, all of us in the House and parents want to encourage our children to wear a helmet. All I am saying is that there is low use of cycle helmets and no conclusive evidence that the 28 lives would have been saved if the Bill had become law.
  To move on to the second aspect of my speech, it is possible that there will be a serious impact on cycle use if the Bill becomes law.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I want to intervene on that point. Like him, I encourage my children to wear cycle helmets. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) referred to children who fall off a stationary bike with no impact from a vehicle. The distance fallen by such children could hardly be more than 2 ft or 3 ft. Falling down a few stairs could cause head injury, but no one suggests that because of that danger, pedestrians should wear helmets when they walk the streets.
  Mr. Leigh: That is a difficulty with the Bill. We have established that cycle helmets are certain to save people from serious injury only if they have a relatively low fall with an impact which an eminent expert described as involving
  "no more than 75 joules".
  How far should we go? Reference has been made to the nanny state. I hesitate to use that term because I believe that the state has a right to intervene in a matter in

  555
  certain circumstances where there is general public consent. I do not think that there is such public consent over this matter at the moment.
  We must refer to what has happened in other parts of the world. I intervened on the hon. Member for Carlisle over what happened in Australia. He said that cycle use had since recovered there, but in New Zealand there was also a large fall—20 per cent., I think—and there has been no recovery in cycle use. Apparently, when such laws were introduced in Sydney, the immediate effect was a dramatic drop of about 91 per cent. in secondary school children cycling to school.
  The hon. Gentleman, I think, said that it is not cool to wear cycle helmets. That is a real difficulty that he has to face. If his Bill became law, there would be a genuine, immediate difficulty in persuading many secondary school children to wear helmets. Many simply would not ride to school. He must address that point, along with all the evidence from around the world—Nova Scotia, New Zealand, Australia—which all points to a dramatic fall in bicycle use.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned obesity. I have read the literature from those who oppose the Bill and I accept his point that perhaps it is a little extreme to suggest that if the Bill became law the obesity epidemic would suddenly become much worse. That overstates the case and, as usual, my right hon. Friend, in his moderate and sensible way, made that point very well. The fact of the matter is, however, that in 2001, 16 per cent. of six to 15year-old children were obese. That is a real problem.
  I am not suggesting that if we pass the Bill we will suddenly have an obesity epidemic, but do we want to discourage cycle use when everybody in the Chamber—we are a load of cycling enthusiasts—cycles?
  Mr. Forth: No.
  Mr. Leigh: A possible exception is my right hon. Friend, who would not be seen dead on a bicycle.
  Mr. Martlew: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman warned us about statistics, but he has gone on to quote them several times, although he has not mentioned British Columbia in Canada. May I point it out to him that cycle use in this country is dropping like a stone anyhow? We do not have that particular policy, but there has been a 30 per cent. drop in 20 years. That is set out in the document, "Bicycle Helmets: review of effectiveness", which I am sure the Minister is aware of. The number of people using bicycles is declining. I believe that parents would be happier if they felt that their children would be safer.
  Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point. Obviously, we each have our opinion. The hon. Gentleman is right: since 1991 in Great Britain, the fall in cycle use has been almost twice the increase in helmet use, so that fall has been dramatic without a dramatic increase in helmet use. I doubt whether the Bill would discourage that fall in cycle use.
  The hon. Gentleman will not accept any of my statistics and I am sure he could introduce others to the debate, but surely, as a reasonable man, he accepts it as
  556
  a reasonable supposition that there has been a dramatic fall in cycle use in this country. Relatively few children wear helmets; his Bill might aggravate the situation. There is already a problem with child health and a huge problem with encouraging children to take exercise, walk, play games and cycle. We have different medical and expert opinions on how many lives would be saved by the Bill. Given all those facts, is this the time to introduce the Bill? I do not believe that the Bill is timely. There is a lot more that the Government could do to encourage safety, to try to take the voluntary route and to persuade parents that it is advisable that their children wear cycle helmets.
  A lot of fun has been had at the expense of cycle organisations—the men in lycra—and over whether it is possible to achieve any agreement among those people, who are just enthusiasts. We should beware any Bill that appears to be opposed by so many representative organisations in the cycling world. Does not that give us pause for thought, at least for a moment?
  Cycling use has declined dramatically and virtually every cycling organisation is against. The hon. Member for Carlisle has already been asked in an intervention whether a single cycling organisation supports his Bill.
  Mr. Martlew: The organisation that supports the Bill is behind professional cyclists. Wearing a helmet is compulsory for them.
  Mr. Leigh: I heard the hon. Gentleman making that point, which, if he does not mind my saying so, I think is very weak. Professional cycling is a completely different world from what we are talking about. Those are sporting people who are at the edge of what is safe. They often ride in very difficult circumstances. Does not the fact that only one organisation supports the Bill give us pause for concern?
  We are supposed to be encouraging people to cycle, and I do not think that this Bill will do so. I am sorry to say that ultimately, the Bill will result in more ill health in the long term, as there will be less healthy exercise, which will have an impact on the national health service. I do not think that this measure would have saved all those 28 lives, and the Bill should be opposed and resisted, or at least heavily amended.
  11.20 am
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on the way in which he presented his Bill, and on taking on a subject that any of us who have been involved in transport issues, especially cycling, knows will be liable to provoke strong emotion on either side of the argument. When I was fortunate to come high in the private Member's Bill ballot a couple of years ago, the subject that I chose, employee share schemes, did not seem to provoke the same enthusiasm or emotion on either side of the argument that understandably exists on an issue of this nature.
  My constituency is a long way from London, so I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), do not find it possible to attend regularly on Fridays for private Member's Bills. I therefore look at the agenda to work out which Bills want to be in Westminster for. On

  557
  this day, this Bill, and the subsequent. Bill, which I am sure will also be worthy of detailed examination, attracted my attention, so I decided some time ago to make a specific effort to be here for Second Reading. At that stage, I generally supported the Bill's objectives; like most people who are interested in road safety, including those in the Chamber today, my gut reaction was that the Bill must be a sensible idea. However, as I have had information sent to me, and as I have tried to investigate the subject in more detail. I have swung from being generally supportive to being extremely sceptical—certainly about the breadth of its proposals. I am not saying that I would oppose the Bill in its entirety, but I would have to be convinced strongly that it would be right to take it forward. In those circumstances, I am sure that my hon. Friend wishes that I had not bothered coming here today, but having made arrangements to be here a long, time ago, I want to contribute to the debate.
  My earlier interventions may have given some indication of the reasons for my shift of position, and I want to explain the reasoning behind my growing doubts. My attention was first drawn to possible problems with the Bill by the postcard from the CTC to which my hon.. Friend the Member for Burnley referred. Like him, I was somewhat amused that the letter inviting me to express my opinions did not give me an address to which I could respond. I was also struck by the way in which the postcard featured a picture of a happy family cycling in summer on a rural path, with, stamped across it, the word "criminals". I wondered whether that was really the content of the Bill.
  On issues of this nature, I am aware that when people try to lobby MPs, they put their case in the strongest possible terms, and, like the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), I am aware that, in this field in particular, emotions and simplifications of the argument can be the order of the day. I was therefore dubious about whether the Bill would make this happy cycling family into criminals. I therefore studied the Bill, and it is true that it would make that family, apparently doing no harm to anyone by cycling along a rural off-road path, into criminals.
  I looked at the Bill in a little more detail and considered an example that I gave in an earlier intervention from when I took one of my children to a local park, and she met one of her friends, who offered to let her ride her bicycle for a short period. That indicates the problem with the Bill's approach. We must move towards regarding cycling as being as natural a way of getting around the community as walking. We do not want it to require special protection. No one suggests that pedestrians should have to wear helmets when they cross the road, but pedestrians are much more likely to suffer head injury than cyclists.
  Mr. Martlew: Is my hon. Friend really saying that, in percentage terms, children are more likely to suffer injury as pedestrians than the 6 per cent. of children who cycle? I do not accept that.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I am saying that if we consider the overall figures, we see that children are more likely to be injured as pedestrians than as cyclists. When using statistics in this argument, we must be very careful, as I said earlier. My point was that we want to make cycling a natural activity. One of the reasons that I was happy on the occasion that I mentioned to let my child cycle without a helmet, although I encourage my older children to wear cycle helmets, was precisely that I wanted to encourage the younger child to learn to cycle. It seemed natural to allow my child to cycle in the park on that occasion. My hon. Friend says that, although in theory I would be a criminal for allowing her to do that, the law will be ignored, and nothing will be done to enforce it. That may be the case, but as a general principle we should avoid making laws that, in many circumstances, we do not want people to obey. The Bill provides for the banning of off-road cycling without a helmet by children under 16, which is an extreme measure that I would not find acceptable.
  I accept that there will be some occasions when an injury or, in extreme cases, a fatality, of a child riding a bicycle off-road could have been prevented if a cycle helmet had been worn, but we must guard against seeking to legislate against all danger that could conceivably occur. There are many dangerous things in the world, including in playgrounds, but we do not legislate to make them all entirely impossible. I do not want to go into the statistics in great detail, but I suspect that the most dangerous thing in many playgrounds is play equipment. It has been made much safer in recent years, but injuries and fatalities of children still occur in playgrounds. We are not suggesting, however, that we should take away play equipment in its entirety to reduce injuries and deaths. We try to minimise the danger, but we must recognise that there must always be some level of risk in any human activity.
  Ms Oona King: My hon. Friend is right that there must be some level of risk. Over the past 150 years, however, have we not legislated consistently in terms of harm avoidance, and in terms of prevention being better than cure? As for being arrested for allowing children on bikes, surely common sense would prevail, in the same way that parents are not arrested at present for doing various such things. It is unlikely in the extreme that that would change in this instance.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: If it is unlikely in the extreme that this aspect of the law would be enforced, it is questionable whether there is much point in the law in the first place. If we do not think that the law should be put into effect, why put it on the statute book in the first place?
  Mr. Martlew: My hon. Friend's argument is lost on me. When he was talking about play areas, he said that we do not take away the play equipment but make the play safer. My Bill will not take away the bicycle but make the riding of the bicycle safer.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I was merely suggesting that there were various ways of incurring various types of injury. We are not talking about protecting people against all injuries; we are trying to establish whether the benefits

  559
  of the Bill are proportionate to the downside. That downside—the health implications and the problem of obesity—distinguishes this from measures relating to the wearing of seat belts and motor cycle helmets.
  Mr. Pike: It is true that playground equipment, at least in Burnley, is much safer than it was when I was seven or eight, during the war. Steps have been taken to make it safer, and most positive councils have changed the playground surface to minimise injuries if children fall from the equipment. We have not stood still in that respect, so why should we do so in this instance?
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Of course I am pleased that playgrounds have been made safer. Indeed, I was involved in such measures when I was in another area of politics. The Bill, however, would not just encourage higher safety standards; it would ban certain activities if a helmet was not worn. The logical corollary would be requiring children to wear helmets in playgrounds, because they still fall off even safe playground equipment.
  Mr. Leigh: I have led a busy life ski-ing, riding and engaging in a number of extreme sports. The only serious injury that I have incurred was sustained 18 months ago in a playground. I broke my leg badly in two places when I was walking down a ramp 2 ft high. It was a brand new playground featuring all the latest safety equipment described by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I was in hospital for four days.
  Mr. Lazarowicz rose—
  David Cairns: What was the hon. Gentleman doing in a playground anyway?
  Mr. Lazarowicz: That is a good question.
  My point is that all sorts of human activity involve dangers. We must ask what response is proportionate, given that we cannot legislate against all the risks that may be posed to us or our children.
  Mr. Russell Brown: We cannot wrap children in cotton wool. Certain injuries are reparable. I remember seeing the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) after he sustained his injury having severe difficulty in moving around the Palace. Broken bones are one thing, but head injuries are another. Serious head injuries are not easily repaired and may be fatal. We want to lessen the impact that an accident may have on a child.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Of course, and I should make it clear that I wear a helmet when riding a bicycle and encourage my children to do the same. I do not suggest for a moment that helmets should not be worn. It is a question of the possible negative consequences of a ban.
  I said that I began to change my mind when I realised that the Bill would prevent children from cycling in parks without wearing helmets. My constituents then started to express their views. Obviously, Members must take account of how widely and how strongly constituents express an opinion, and I was surprised by
  560
  the number of letters—not a vast number, but certainly a fair number—that opposed the Bill, in reasonable and measured tones. Members are not always able to represent their constituents' views in votes, but it does no harm to try to represent their views in the Chamber if there is no powerful argument against them.
  Mr. Martlew: I am surprised that my hon. Friend, an experienced Member of Parliament, believes that those who shout loudest normally constitute the majority. A poll of 900 people showed that 80 per cent. of the public favoured my Bill. Did my hon. Friend talk to staff in accident and emergency departments, for instance?
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I shall come to the views of the medical profession shortly.
  It is true that those who shout loudest do not necessarily constitute the majority, but it is also true that the majority do not always produce the best arguments. That poll was taken among the general population. I am not sure what the result would have been if cyclists and those whose children cycle had been polled, but such a poll might have been more helpful.
  Shona McIsaac rose—
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I do not want to stop the Bill making progress, but I will give way.
  Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend says that it might have been more in instructive to ask for the views of cyclists, as opposed to umbrella organisations. I discussed the matter with Mike Davis, editor of BIK Emagic, who put a discussion thread on the website and on that of RoadCyclingUK. That suggested that opinion on the Bill was fairly evenly split, but the "antis" were keen to stress that they were not opposed to the wearing of helmets, but were concerned about the compulsion issue. My hon. Friend seems to be saying that cycle helmets should never be worn.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: If my hon. Friend thinks that I am saying that, she cannot have heard what I said earlier—three times, I believe. I support the wearing of helmets, and wear a helmet myself. The issue is what the consequences of a ban might be for public health and obesity rates.
  Undoubtedly, if the Bill is passed some lives will be saved—although the number may be disputed—and many more injuries will be prevented. In debates such as this, Members tend to say that any measure that saves a single life must be supported, no matter what. That is a natural response, and of course if a life can be saved with no negative consequences we should take action to save even that one life, but actions designed with the best of motives—to reduce the number of injuries and save lives—often have unintended results elsewhere. It has been suggested, for instance, that safety measures designed to prevent a few deaths on the railways discourage rail traffic and hence lead to more deaths on the roads. This is a complex area, and we should take account of the knock-on effects of the best-intended measures.

  561
  That is particularly important in respect of this Bill, and it brings us to the crux of the argument. If it were just a question of lives being saved by the compulsory wearing of helmets, no matter how few, I would certainly strongly support such a measure, but what concerns me is the evidence that, if Fewer children rode bicycles, it would increase obesity and have negative public health effects. That might not be a consequence of this measure but the evidence and other arguments strongly suggest that it could be.
  I want to refer to some of the views that have been expressed, albeit not at too great length. The first powerful arguments are those advanced in the Transport Research Laboratory study. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle referred correctly to the conclusion of that extensive, excellent study which stated:
  "There is now a considerable amount of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing head, brain and upper facial injury in bicyclists."
  That is a correct and important point to make. It is a powerful argument, it would appear, in favour of the compulsory wearing of helmets, as proposed in the Bill, but my hon. Friend did not go through the other points in the TRL report. I do not blame him for highlighting that point because it was relevant to his arguments, but the TRL identified four criteria against which any measures for compulsory helmet wearing legislation should be judged. The first is
  "There must be a high level of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets are effective in reducing the rate of head injury to bicyclists."
  The report effectively says that and we do not disagree. However, the second criterion is:
  "The benefits to society and others of mandatory bicycle helmets must be convincingly demonstrated, mandatory bicycle helmets cannot be justified simply to protect individual adult bicyclists."
  The TRL concludes that that criterion
  "is less easy to demonstrate…bicycle helmet promotion and legislation needs to be seen as one part of a broader package of measures which enhances bicycling safety."
  The third criterion probably does not point either way in this argument, so I will not waste the House's time by going over it, but the final criterion is relevant. In the view of the TRL
  "There must be good evidence to suggest that compulsory helmet wearing would not make the public health benefits of increased levels of bicycling significantly harder to obtain."
  The TRL concluded in relation to that criterion that
  "there is some evidence that legislation may have resulted in decreased levels of bicycling…but there are confounding factors and no clear long-term trends. Attention needs to be paid to enhancing the bicycling environment generally rather than concentrating solely on the individual approach of wearing helmets."
  Mr. Martlew: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has given way; he has been very patient with me. My notes are upstairs, but the first quote that he used goes on to say that bicycle helmets are effective for everyone, but especially for children. He did not quote that bit. This measure will apply only to children. I considered whether it should apply across the board. I decided,
  562
  because of the points that he has made, not to go ahead, but I think that the case for protecting children is overwhelming.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend is correct. I did not set out the quote in full simply because I accepted his point on that criterion and did not want to delay the House unduly.
  The TRL report is interesting. It certainly does not point conclusively to the Bill having the overall beneficial effects that my hon. Friend suggests it will.
  My hon. Friend asked for the views of local hospitals. We have a report from the British Medical Association, the conclusions of which are very interesting. It says:
  "Focusing on cycle helmets as the answer to reducing cycle accidents could detract resources from other more effective means of accident prevention. The promotion of cycle helmet wearing"—
  which I understand the BMA supports, as I do—
  "should, therefore, form only one part of a broader strategy to promote cycling as a healthy, physically active, mode of transport. It should be accompanied by other measures for reducing the number and severity of cycle accidents, such as reducing vehicle speeds and traffic volume in urban areas, and the provision of a safer environment for all cyclists, including riders of tandems and tricycles."
  It seems that efforts could be more usefully focused on that than on measures that could have effects, it is strongly suggested, on public health in terms of encouraging obesity, particularly among the young generation of today, who, if they do not cycle as children, are less likely to cycle in later life.
  David Cairns: I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing the preamble to his speech. Much as I am enjoying hearing him reading out the House of Commons Library brief on the debate, the thrust of his argument appears to be that the Bill would lead to a substantial reduction in the number of people who are bicycling. In that case, why does he think that the Bill is supported by Halfords, the largest retailer of bicycles? It cannot just be because it also sells helmets. Helmets are far cheaper than bicycles. Surely, it will have made a business case. If it thought that the Bill would lead to an enormous tailing off in the number of people buying bikes, it would not support the Bill.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I think that we heard earlier that there are those within the industry who are against the Bill. There is a range of views on the matter. I am sure that Halfords has considered the matter carefully in reaching its opinion on the Bill.
  As my hon. Friend rightly indicated, the question has to be seen in its overall context. I am extremely sceptical about the Bill. I have indicated that I could still be persuaded, certainly as far as cycling on the road is concerned, but the proposals on cycling off the road go much too far. What concerns me are the possible public health consequences.
  Mr. Russell Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I will in a second if my hon. Friend will allow me to make a bit more progress.
  The issue that must influence our final decision is the balance between the lives to be saved as a result of the Bill, and its downside in terms of public health. I do not

  563
  want to repeat statistics that, I accept, could be met with other statistics, but it is the case that we have an increasing obesity epidemic in this country. Obesity is becoming more of a serious problem among children in particular. When not just the more opinionated organisations within the cycling lobby but a wide range of reputable organisations—those that are somewhat removed from the high emotions on the subject—express severe concerns about the public health consequences of the Bill, that should make us think before going ahead with it in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle suggested.
  Mr. Eric Joyce: Does my hon. Friend agree that common sense has its place, too? As I was cycling in this morning, I was navigating a busy junction near Brixton and I cycled past someone who had a helmet on—full marks for that—but who was also using a mobile phone. Does my hon. Friend think that common sense and education have their place in reducing injuries among cyclists on the roads?
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I am not entirely certain what my hon. Friend's point is in relation to my argument, but I am certainly to happy to agree with him. As I was cycling to the House of Commons yesterday and while stationary at a red traffic light, I was almost knocked off my bike by another cyclist who went past me at high speed and through the red light. Such behaviour by cyclists is as reprehensible as any breaking of the rules of the highway by other users of public highways.
  Mr. Dismore: Perhaps my hon. Friend could tell us whether the cyclist who sped past him and through the red light was wearing a helmet. One of the important arguments is that helmets can sometimes provide a false sense of security.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Although I was stationary, I was wearing a helmet, but the cyclist who went past me at high speed was not. I am afraid that is a point against my hon. Friend's argument. Because of the speed at which the other cyclist was travelling, I was not able to see whether it was my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) who went past me at high speed.
  Mr. Russell Brown: My hon. Friend suggested that he could be won over and said that he saw some sense in a Bill to deal with cycling on the public roads. However, I remind him that the research paper from the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust showed that 90 per cent. of injuries to child cyclists occur off-road.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: As I have indicated, I want to weight all sides of the argument. If that research is accurate, it may well persuade me not to support the Bill at all. If the issue is off-road cycling, we must ask ourselves whether we should put into effect a measure that would make it illegal for parents to allow young children to cycle around their local public park. That is what the Bill would do. If that it is what we are really proposing, we may be approaching the issue in the wrong way. Perhaps it should be a question of encouraging the wearing of bicycle helmets rather than legislating if legislation has such effects.
  Ms Munn: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said. Is it not sensible that, in off-road conditions, parents or carets should decide whether the circumstances merit the wearing of helmets? In the case that he described involving his five-year-old daughter, wearing a helmet was probably not necessary.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Indeed. The problem is that I do not see how to include in legislation an option for parents to decide whether the wearing of a helmet is appropriate. It would be impossible to draft a Bill that would cover such eventualities.
  It had not been my intention to speak at such length. I have never been in favour of talking out measures by making lengthy speeches, but I do not think that I can be criticised for that on this occasion, because my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle spoke for an hour and took many interventions. However, if we are trying to reduce injuries not just to child cyclists but to all cyclists, our emphasis should be on considering the whole range of conditions on the road. Although they do not make cycling dangerous, they make it more dangerous than it ought to be. They certainly give the impression to many non-cyclists that it is more dangerous than it actually is. Many measures could be brought into effect widely throughout the country to encourage safety for all road users, but particularly for cyclists. The Government have done a lot of good work, with all-party support in some cases, to promote road safety. The overall promotion of road safety is the most pressing need if we are to reduce injuries and deaths among all road users, and particularly children—whether they are cyclists, pedestrians or passengers in motor vehicles.
  Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the House sift in private.
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 (motion to sit in private):—
  The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 25.

  Division No. 141]

  [11.55 am

  AYES

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Mr. Edward Leigh

  NOES

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Lazarowick, Mark

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Martlew, Eric

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Cairns, David

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Spellar, rh John

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Jamieson, David

  Thurso, John

  Jones, Keven (N Durham)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shona McIsaac and

  Lammy, David

  Mr. Andrew Dismore

  It appearing on the report of the Division that 40 Members were not present, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.

  Constitution for the European Union (Referendum) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.9 pm
  Mr. John Maples: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I had not expected to speak for an hour or two yet, but I am delighted to do so. I am also delighted to be, for the first time in 12 years, introducing into the House a Government Bill. It was in 1992 that I last moved a Government Bill. If the Government accept the Bill, which is apparently their policy now, it would save us all a great deal of time and trouble. We will come to the one clause on which, I expect, they will hang their objection.
  I introduced an almost identical Bill as a ten-minute Bill in November. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke against it with passion and at length, although I imagine that in pursuit of his career he has now changed his views. The Government Whips whipped Labour Members to vote against that Bill and killed it off. This is the same Bill, and the Government's policy has changed to the point where this is what they say they intend to do, sooner or later. Far from the fox having been shot, he is now the king of the jungle, and when his head finally goes on the wall when the British public vote "No", it will be accompanied by the Prime Minister's head.
  That is the nemesis for the Government's appallingly hypocritical policy of going along with everything the European Union proposes. The policy of never being isolated means that they never stand up for their rights, however right they think they are. We are seeing the culmination of that. The Government have performed not just a U-turn, but have spun an almost infinite number of times and ended up facing 180° from where they started.
  I suspect that the reasons for that have nothing to do with the Prime Minister's desire to consult the peasants on what they think about the issue, but everything to do with electoral advantage—with removing the matter as an issue at the European elections and, more importantly, at the general election, in the same way as the commitment to allow a referendum on the euro meant that at the last election the Prime Minister was able to say, "This election isn't about the euro. You'll get a separate vote on that." He will now be able to say, "This election isn't about the European constitution. You'll get a separate vote on that."
  The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Would the hon. Gentleman remind us of how he voted on the question whether there should be a referendum on the Single European Act? I know that he was not in the House during the Maastricht debate, but presumably he thinks that the Conservative Government were wrong to deny a referendum on Maastricht, too.
  Mr. Maples: I shall come to that. One of my arguments is that at some point between the treaty of Rome in 1956 and the federal superstate to which I believe we are headed, there should be a referendum.
  566
  The fact that there was not one at the time of Maastricht—I was not in the House and did not vote on it, though in my usual loyal way I would probably have voted with the Government of the day—reinforces rather than undermines the case for a referendum now. I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that there was a general election between the signing and adoption of the Maastricht treaty and the Bill ratifying it. They took place in different Parliaments. There was a general election in between, which alters the case.
  The Government's proposed referendum has nothing to do with consulting the people; it is to do with saving the Prime Minister's skin. Perhaps he does admit to fundamental change. He would have to, given that he said on 29 October—not that long ago, though an aeon in the Prime Minister's ideological positioning:
  "I do not believe it is necessary to have a referendum"—
  on an EU constitution—
  "unless there is a fundamental change in the nature of the relationship between the member state and the European Union."—[Official Report, 29 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 298.]
  The fact that we are to have a referendum presumably means that the Prime Minister concedes that there is a fundamental change.
  I would not go quite that far. I think that there is a significant change, and the fact that what is proposed is called a constitution introduces some legal points that I should like to explore. There has been a piecemeal collection of treaties that have advanced the position considerably during the past 48 years.
  The Government have held 34 referendums so far. I am probably one of the few people who know that, as I had to count them up for my ten-minute Bill. Most of those have been held from the desire to do something positive or to give people a positive choice. This is the first to be held by the Government out of fear. That will come back to haunt them whatever they do on the issue, because they have got the fundamentals wrong and they do not have a policy that makes sense.
  David Cairns: The question to be put in the referendum appears in the Bill. How many other referendum questions were included in legislation, and how many were devised through some other mechanism?
  Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. In the case of the Scottish Parliament, this House decided on the powers of that Parliament, so the legislation enacted those powers. If the Government adopt the treaty establishing the European Union constitution at Dublin, or whenever it comes up, the House can only ratify it or not; it cannot amend it. The difference in the case of the other referendums that there have been is that the House was in a position to set the substance of the legislation on which the country was voting. In this case the question is simple: "Do you or do you not approve the ratification of the treaty establishing the European Union constitution?" I imagine that when the Government come forward with their Bill, they will pose a similar question.
  David Cairns: Just to clarify this point, because I am not sure what the process will be, the question that the hon. Gentleman wants to be put to the British public is one that presumably he has devised and has put in the Bill. It is not as he just said; it is subtly different. It is:
  "Should the United Kingdom be bound by the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?"
  It could be argued that the way in which he has framed that question betrays his view of what the answer should be. Should we not be trying to devise a question that is a bit more neutral than that?
  Mr. Maples: I am missing the hon. Gentleman's point. I would be perfectly happy in Committee to accept an amendment that made the question neutral. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the question is not neutral and seeks a "No" vote, I would be perfectly happy to accept an amendment to achieve neutrality. At the end of the day, the Electoral Commission will have something to say about the nature of the question. I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's first intervention.
  If the treaty is adopted in June, the Government can set about this in two ways. They can combine ratification and the referendum in one Bill. They can set out the treaty in the Bill and then say that it will not be ratified unless and until there has been a referendum, and that Bill could go through the House. Alternatively, they could separate the matters into two Bills, and it would be possible to pass the referendum Bill and seek the referendum before even introducing the ratification Bill. The simplest way is probably to make the referendum a pre-condition for ratification and to have them in the same Bill, but the point that I was seeking to make is that the constitution itself, when it comes before the House, will not be amendable by us. We either have to accept it or reject it in total. Therefore, the legislation will be fairly simple, and it could go through Parliament fairly quickly.
  My Bill calls for the referendum to be held within six months of the treaty being adopted, and I understand that that technically means the point at which it is agreed at the intergovernmental conference. There will then be a delay during which the full text is made available for signature, which usually happens a few weeks later, and then ratification. I want the six months to run from when our Government and every other Government agree the constitution and adopt it at an intergovernmental conference. It looks as though that will happen between 18 and 20 June. It could run longer, but I do not think that there is any need to delay past that. There is a serious issue, for reasons that I will come to, and if the British public are to be invited to settle the matter, they should be invited to do so fairly soon.
  The only matter of substance in my Bill to which the Government might object is the call for that referendum to be within six months. Who would want to delay the referendum beyond six months? Not even the most Eurosceptic Conservative Member would want to delay the referendum, because that is what we have been asking for. We are willing to abide by the decision of the British public, so we will not try to delay it. The House of Lords will not try to delay it. One of the reasons why the Government have changed their policy is that they feared that the House of Lords would introduce into the Bill a provision for a referendum.
  568
  The only people who have an interest in delaying the referendum after the treaty is adopted are the Government. The reason for that is that they do not want it before the general election; they want to defer it beyond the general election. The earliest that the general election might be is next spring or summer, so we are talking about a referendum in the autumn of 2005, which will be 15 months after the treaty setting out the constitution was adopted. What can possibly be the excuse or justification for that, other than proving what I firmly believe to be the case—that this referendum is nothing to do with asking the British people what they think about this issue but with getting the Prime Minister and his skin through the next general election?
  I suggest to the Government that it would be simpler to use my Bill. We could all save each other and the House of Commons an awful lot of trouble by letting the Bill go into Committee. I would very much welcome any such concession from the Minister. I am sure that, in such a Committee, we could accept amendments or agree a text for the resolution, timetable and everything else that is necessary. The measure would be on the statute book, and the Prime Minister and Government would not be able to say, "Oh well, we've got to get the referendum Bill through Parliament", because it would have been done in advance.
  I believe that the ratification Bill could then be passed very quickly. It would be for those above my pay grade and that of my hon Friends who are present to agree a timetable with the Government now, but I think that I can confidently say that the Conservative party would be willing to ensure that the two necessary measures, if there are to be separate ratification and referendum Bills, go through Parliament in very short order. I agree that they should be properly debated. A very important issue is at stake, and before the public make up their mind it would be best for them to hear what their representatives in Parliament have to say. However, that could be done in two or three days on the Floor of the House. Such a Bill Would not be amendable; there would be no point in having a Committee stage or, for that matter, even a Report stage. It would need fairly lengthy consideration on Second Reading.
  I am sure that my party would like to see such a measure on the statute book. Obviously, I cannot speak for the Liberal Democrats, who have been in favour of a referendum for a very long time, for slightly different reasons and rather more honourably than the Government, but I am sure that they would also like to see such a measure If the Government do not accept my Bill, it will prove my point, which is that their desire for a referendum is nothing to do with seeking the public's decision.
  I do not know whether my neighbour, the Minister for Trade and Investment, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), can speak for the Prime Minister, but I ask him whether the Government are going to accept the result of the referendum. We do not know about that. The Prime Minister said yes in his news conference, but a hurried press release—no doubt it would have been drafted by one of these part-time Mandelson or Campbell figures—said "Oh no, that is not what we meant al all." There is a wonderful Brookes cartoon in today's edition of The Times; I recommend it to those who have not seen it. In the top left hand corner, under "2005", it has a big "No", along with "The plebs

  569
  have spoken". After that, there are three pictures showing the Prime Minister rearranging the pieces of the "No" into a "Yes".
  That cartoon speaks volumes about what I suspect is going on. In respect of both the Danish and Irish people, we heard Governments say: "You've got the answer wrong guys, peasants; you don't understand this issue, but we in the Government understand it. Have another go and see if you can get it right next time; take another GCSE next year and see whether you can do a little better." That is what is going to happen, but I would prefer to hear the Government say that the referendum is a genuinely democratic move and t hit they will accept the result.
  What is happening in other EU countries? Of the 14 countries, I think that six are committed to holding referendums. France and Italy are consulting. I suspect that the Government's decision to hold a referendum will mean that we see one in France, and I do not suppose that that will earn the Prime Minister any brownie points with President Chirac. It was not so long ago that the Government's mission in Paris was lobbying the French Government not to hold a referendum, because if they held one, we would have had to do so. Now, the pass has been sold by the Prime Minister. No doubt, Mr. Chirac was not one of the two or three people whom the Prime Minister consulted on the U-turn, and I suspect that he is pretty upset about it. Nevertheless, I am sure that the result will be that the French will hold a referendum too, and there will also be referendums in several of the accession countries.
  The Laeken declaration, which set up the Convention, did not ask for a constitution at all. The issue was hijacked by the arch federalists—Dehaene, Giscard d'Estaing and Amato—and they produced a draft constitution pretty much before anybody knew what had happened. During the process, I spent a lot of time talking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who was one of the representatives of the House of Commons on the Convention. Latterly, I talked to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who was the other representative, and read her pamphlet. They both said that the constitution was railroaded through the Convention. A small group of people decided what the text should say and pushed it through. There was no formal procedure enabling people to table amendments that would be voted on—they were simply ignored. Nobody would accuse the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston of being a Eurosceptic, but she said that even the sort of things that she was proposing were left to one side. She was on the politburo, or whatever it was called, that ran the Convention, but even she was unable to have any influence.
  What we have seen is a racket. The Euro-elite, which I long tried to kid myself did not exist arid is really not very interested in what people think, see the constitution as a huge and wonderful way of extending their influence and power at an international level. That is given away by the incredibly pompous preamble—all
  570
  about democracy and including quotes from Thucydides—to the Convention. I recommend it to anyone who wants a lesson in pomposity. It says:
  "Our Constitution…is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number."
  Well, we are about to find out.
  Mr. Eric Forth: If my hon. Friend is in the mood, he might turn back a page and go to the preface, which is signed by three of the more pompous figures in Europe: Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Giuliano Amato and Jean-Luc Dehaene. They are three of the perpetrators of this outrage. The amount of Euro-balls in the preface is similar to that in the preamble, which my hon. Friend just quoted, and he might consider sharing it with the House, if he feels in the mood.
  Mr. Maples: My right hon. Friend has done that for me.
  Another interesting piece of the preamble is where it says:
  "Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their ancient divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny."
  That is what these three guys, and the people who go along with them, really think.
  I shall quote another telling piece, which may have escaped the attention of my right hon. Friend. Article 1, part of the treaty, refers to
  "Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future".
  How do we know that that represents the will of the people? The constitution was not an issue at the general election, or in the elections in any other European Union or accession country. The Government have now conceded that we will find out, but they have been fighting that for a long time. As I said, they resisted my ten-minute rule Bill, which was in almost exactly the same terms, three or four months ago. We need to find out the will of the people.
  The existence of that ambitious European elite is always denied by middle-of-the-road Europhiles, who say, "No, no, no. That's not the agenda. This treaty is more intergovernmental; it weakens the power of the Commission." We were told that at Maastricht, at Amsterdam and at Nice, and we are being told it about the constitution. I heard a couple of my hon. Friends say privately the other day that the constitution weakens the power of the Commission. How does it weaken the power of the Commission to give it a role in foreign policy and the whole of the home affairs pillar? How does it weaken its power to have the Foreign Minister, dual-hatted, in the Commission? It does not weaken its power at all.
  Mr. Forth: I am sticking with the preface, which says that the Convention
  "establishes the necessary measures to improve the structure and enhance the role of each of the Union's three institutions".
  There, again, one does not have to guess these people's motivation; it is there in black and white. In that sense they are transparent; they do not hide anything from us, but state, in black and white, what they want to do.
  Mr. Maples: I am sure that my right hon. Friend, like me, has an argument with, but no moral objection to, the people who espouse that cause. There is an argument for a united states of Europe, and there is an argument against it, which I will make during the course of my speech. What there is no argument for is pretending that the agenda does not exist, and that is what is happening.
  I return to my conversation with a couple of my hon. Friends who are, by my standards at any rate—and probably by the nation's standards—Europhiles. It was a private conversation, so I will not mention their names. One of them asked me, "What are you going to do at the next IGC?" I said, "Hang on a minute. This is not the end of the road." Once we've got the constitution, we'll have another IGC, perhaps in two or three years time, and there will be an attempt to erode the few things left in the treaty which stop it being the constitution of a united states of Europe. I will come on to the detail of what will have to be done to make this the constitution of a superstate. It is not that yet; I can see that, but it is jolly close. The establishment of full-scale qualified majority voting, the inclusion of powers for harmonising direct taxes and the removal of the veto on foreign and defence affairs would do it. They are big steps, and they are three of the Government's red lines, but we are getting very close to them.
  We are an awfully long way from 1956, when we signed the treaty of Rome. We lived with that, perfectly happily, for 29 years, until 1985, when we collectively decided—I was a Member of the House at that time, although, perhaps regrettably, it was not an issue to which I paid much attention—that a single market was a good idea and it needed additional powers for the European Union in the form of qualified majority voting. We were told that that would be confined to making the single market work, since when, under the Single European Act, we have had a raft of legislation about employment, health and safety and the environment. If one asked Lady Thatcher, who was Prime Minister at the time, about that, she would say—in fact, I think that she does in her memoirs—how seriously betrayed and misled she felt over undertakings that she was given at that time. It only took her one betrayal to wise up. Since then, we have had Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice: next, presumably, will be Dublin.
  It is time for those of us who do not share the agenda of a united states of Europe to wise up. The Treaty of Rome was purely a customs union, a free trade area and an attempt to ensure that business could develop. It flew the free market flag in a Europe that was not at that time much in favour of the free market. The treaty of 1985 took that a bit further, but was distorted by the way the powers contained in it were used. Maastricht took the big steps, including the treaty of the European Union, the setting up of the single currency and the social chapter. It had a pillar structure. Home affairs and foreign affairs remained intergovernmental—the Commission had no role in them at all. Nevertheless, the social chapter opt-out that we secured in Maastricht was bypassed. The working time directive was passed under health and safety provisions: a different legislative basis was used to bring it into effect because we would not be bound under the social chapter. That is an example of how such provisions are distorted.
  In Amsterdam we saw the partial collapse of the home affairs pillar and the extension of qualified majority voting. Nice is the least offensive of all the treaties,
  572
  because we needed it to make provision for enlargement. When the Prime Minister sold the Nice treaty in this House—I had Front-Bench responsibility for foreign affairs at the time—he said that it was needed to make enlargement work. We were never told that we would need another intergovernmental conference, a constitution or a treaty to make it work. Not everybody was happy with the system of qualified majority voting and the nature of the Commission that came out of Nice, but nobody said at the time that another intergovernmental conference was needed. One is pocketed, then we are told two or three years later that we must have another one.
  David Cairns: I recall the debate in this Chamber on the ratification of the treaty of Nice. It happened to be the debate in which I made my maiden speech, as history will recall. A series of Conservative Members said there should be a referendum on Nice. Now, the hon. Gentleman is saying that it was not that significant, but that was not the message from his Back Benchers at the time.
  Mr. Maples: One of the joys of being a Back Bencher is that one has only to speak for oneself, and on that basis I think that the treaty of Nice was the least offensive of all the treaties.
  Each of these treaties advances the process of ever closer union, and it will not stop advancing until we have a united states of Europe. A referendum is required at some point between the treaty of Rome and a federal superstate. One could argue that it should have been at Maastricht or at Nice, but we must have it some time. Such treaties provide an opportunity for a referendum to take place, because one can ask this very simple question: do we or do we not ratify it? We have not yet reached a superstate, but we are well on the way to it, and there has to be a referendum at some point. I suggest that now is the time
  If the constitution is ratified and put into place, and the intergovernmental conference about which my hon. Friend told me in confidence takes place in 2008, what has to be done to move from what I foresee will be the treaty of Dublin to a federal superstate? The competences are pretty much complete—the only thing that is not in there is direct taxation. On QMV, there are few areas where the veto is still applicable, but they mainly relate to the Government's red line areas of tax, social security and foreign policy.
  It will be necessary for the European Court of Justice, and perhaps the supreme courts of one or two member states, to elevate the EU constitution over member states' constitutions. That is not the same as the supremacy of EU law. One of my fears about this being called a constitution is that courts may interpret it very differently from normal law that results from treaties.
  The only safeguard that we are left with is the ability to leave, which is a very crude weapon. I do not want to leave the European Union, because there are many things that we need to do together, especially in business and trade—for example, in negotiating with Japan and the United States. If we did that as individual countries in World Trade Organisation negotiations, we would get absolutely nowhere. It is tremendously important to perceive that we have many common interests. The

  573
  history of Europe has been a history of warfare and the closer we are and the stronger our business and personal relationships, the better. I do not want to have to use the nuclear weapon of leaving as a way of preventing the European Union from doing things that we do not support.
  One can make an intellectually coherent case for a federal European superstate.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Earlier, he conceded that, if the Government's red lines on defence, social security and taxation were adhered to, a superstate would not be created. If we stick to the red lines and adopt a constitution that places limitations on the role of the EU, we must accept that the limitations would not exist without a constitution. The Conservative party position of not having a constitution at all would therefore be more likely to lead to some sort of European superstate than the adoption of a constitution with the red lines. Surely that would provide the limitations.
  Mr. Maples: My hon. neighbour and friend can do much better than that. The constitution advances the competences of the Union and qualified majority voting. There is currently a veto over foreign affairs and defence positions. Taxation is not even a competence. Some aspects of taxation could become the subject of qualified majority voting. The passerelle clause, or whatever one wants to call it, allows the Council of Ministers to institute qualified majority voting on other subjects. We are better off without the constitution, which considerably advances the federalist cause.
  There is a respectable case for a united states of Europe. I understand it and perhaps someone will make it in the debate. It contends that pooling our resources and our power in the modern world where there are giant superpowers such as China and the United States is the way forward. I have great respect for people who make that case openly. I have been on platforms with them and I especially remember a Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament who presented that respectable case openly.
  However, I believe that I am making a respectable case for saying that although we want close relations with other European countries and that we need institutionalised arrangements to deal with some common problems and issues, we do not want a constitution or to go any further in the direction of a federal superstate.
  There is no respectable argument for pretending that we are on the second track when we are on the first. The Government do that all the time.
  There is another good reason for holding a referendum at some stage in the process. Perhaps it should have happened when the Amsterdam or Maastricht treaties were considered, or during the passage of the Single European Act; perhaps the 2008 intergovernmental conference might be a good opportunity. The decision about whether we are wholeheartedly in the European Union fundamentally bedevils British policy making. Successive Governments have experienced that—it is not new to this Government and it was not a characteristic only of the previous Administration. Some Labour Members are worried
  574
  about the advance of European federalism and some Conservative Members wholly support it. It is not a party issue but it bedevils policy making. That applies to defence in particular. The Prime Minister asserted that NATO was the only institution that had a defence role, subsequently signed up to the St. Malo agreement and then tried to extricate himself from holding two positions at once.
  Anyone who spoke to people in the United States State Department, as I did at that time, knew about all their work to unscramble the matter. I agree that it has largely been done and that the European defence capability has been effectively hauled back into NATO. However, in a giveaway action in November 1998, the Prime Minister signed the St. Malo agreement because we were not joining the euro the following year and he wanted to be at the top table at the next intergovernmental conference, then spent four years trying to row back from it. In the process, he upset all sorts of people, including the United States and Turkey, and European allies such as France and Germany, which wanted a European defence policy and now feel that the Prime Minister misled them.
  Until we settle the matter one way or another, it will continue to bedevil us. A referendum will settle it. Without it, the problem will continue. We want to cooperate on many issues where our interests are the same. We need institutional arrangements to effect that but our alliance with the United States is fundamentally important to our security. We have a worldwide outlook and interest that is shared in the European Union only by France—certainly nobody else. What is more, we have a history of successful institutions of government; no other member of the European Union or accession state does. The second world war was a complete constitutional disaster for all those countries. They either put in place fascist Governments or were defeated, and they all had to reinvent their institutions after 1945.
  For us, the second world war was the triumph of the nation state, the triumph of our institutions, the triumph of virtually uninterrupted parliamentary government for several hundred years. Why do we want to change that? I can understand why those other countries want to change. I can understand fully why countries such as Belgium, which do not have a strong national identity, countries that do not have much power and countries which are difficult to run as a unitary state because of large regional factors would want to be in this arrangement. I can understand why France and Germany want to tie each other down, although I can never understand why the Germans are prepared to play junior partner to the French the whole time. Nevertheless, I can understand their agendas. I cannot understand ours. We have very successful institutions of state. We have had a successful history as a nation state over many hundreds of years. Why do we want to abandon that?
  I want to spend a few minutes considering some of the provisions of the constitution. One of the things that bothers me about calling it a constitution is that that makes it more than just a treaty. Article 10 gives this away when it states:
  "The constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of Member States."

  575
  So far, we have had a series of decisions in the courts in Germany, France, Denmark and—sort of—here, which effectively say that European law takes primacy over domestic law, but it cannot take primacy over the constitutional arrangements of the country in question. In other words, the law that is made at European level must comply with the powers that were delegated to the EU in the various treaties in pursuance of the constitutional arrangements of the nation states. There are quite a lot of cases to illustrate that, and I shall come to them in a moment. A constitution would normally set itself above that, and I am concerned, given that phrase in article 10, that by calling it a constitution we should be implanting it as a constitution in the domestic law of member states and not simply as another intergovernmental treaty.
  It is worth pointing out that that supremacy covers everything. There are bits later in the treaty that exclude elements of the common foreign policy, for example, from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, but that supremacy includes the common foreign policy and the charter of fundamental rights, and I believe that there is a danger that if we implant a constitution in domestic law it might eventually be seen to be superior to that law, perhaps not here but in other countries. That is something that the European Court of Justice will try to achieve, because it is a very constructivist court. We have seen how, given a little power and a bit of a gateway, it advances that idea. That is what the supreme courts of all federal states do. The United States was effectively built by Supreme Court decisions.
  Case law in several European countries illustrates the point that I have just made. The supremacy of law does not extend to supremacy over the constitutional arrangements. I shall quote from rather a good pamphlet by Martin Howe QC, who is something of an expert on these matters. He is a European lawyer, practising in the European courts. He says that the European Court has argued that
  "Community law is even supreme over the constitutional laws of the Member States."
  I should like to quote from the Handelsgesellschaft case, which was probably the most famous ECJ case on this matter:
  "The law stemming from the Treaty, an independent source of law, cannot because of its very nature be overridden by the rules of national law, however framed"—
  I think that most of us would accept that that is the position—
  "…therefore the validity of a Community measure or its effect within a Member State remains unimpaired even if it is alleged that it runs counter to either fundamental rights as formulated by the Constitution of that State or the principles of a national constitutional structure."
  The German constitutional court gave that short shrift in the Maastricht case, stating that, if international conventions impose binding obligations on Germany
  "which require internal implementation in a way which would infringe guaranteed constitutional rights, then the measures providing for internal implementation are 'subject to review in full by German courts. In this respect the protection of basic rights provided by the Constitution is not displaced by supra-national law that could claim precedence."'
  576
  The judgment in that case continues:
  "the resultant legislative instruments would not be legally binding within the sphere of German sovereignty. The German state organs would be prevented for constitutional reasons from applying them in Germany. The Federal Constitutional Court will review legal instruments of European institutions and agencies to see whether they remain within the limits of the sovereign rights conferred on them or transgress them."
  In France, there has been a similar case in the Court de Cassation, which is the supreme court.
  In the so-called "metric martyrs" case here, Lord Justice Laws reiterated the position that there is nothing that the European Union could do that would take away Parliament's right to change the law—in other words, to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, or for that matter any other law, even if it put us in breach of the treaty. However, counsel for a United Kingdom public authority—admittedly, it was only Sunderland borough council—argued that Parliament could not do that.
  Here we have a lawyer for a United Kingdom public authority arguing that the British Parliament cannot repeal EU legislation, or cannot repeal the foundations of such legislation. What concerns me is that we are in danger of moving much further in that direction by calling this measure a constitution, and that the European Court of Justice will certainly suggest that it can override domestic constitutional arrangements—it has done so already, and article 1–10 will give it far greater power and reason to do it.
  I suggest to hon. Members that a constitution is conceptually different from other law, although it is difficult for us to understand that because we do not have a written constitution. Law is made pursuant to a constitution while a constitution is an organic measure. From it, other things flow. I am concerned that, by calling this measure a constitution as opposed to just another treaty that changes the powers. In one way or another, we are opening the way for courts in member states—and perhaps, eventually, even in our own country—to do just that.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I want to raise with the hon. Gentleman his definition of a constitution, and to put to him the mirror image of that point, which is that a constitution also circumscribes what laws can be passed by member states.
  Mr. Maples: Of course it does. We do not have that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are few limits on the powers of Parliament to do things, but my point is this: why should our legal arrangements be subject to being overruled by the European Court of Justice? If we are to have a written constitution, let us have a British supreme court with those powers, as is the case in the United States.
  It is worth recalling that on 20 December 1860 a constitutional convention in the state of—
  David Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maples: I have been interrupted as I was about to make a rather nice point, but I give way.
  David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman has been given the chance to start his point again from the beginning. He

  577
  advocates a British supreme court—or perhaps he is saying that that would be preferable to having the European constitution. As a first step towards that, will he support the Government's proposal for a supreme court in this country?
  Mr. Maples: What the Government propose is not a supreme court in the sense of a constitutional court, but simply renaming the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords the supreme court. I think that that is a mistake, because it implies that it will have the powers of a supreme court. The Lord Chief Justice said that we are exchanging an extremely good court of final appeal for a poor man's supreme court. Government policy in that respect is a mistake. A supreme court where there is a written constitution is an entirely different matter from something that is called a supreme court where there is not.
  I quote for the House an 1860 constitutional convention in South Carolina, unanimously passed:
  "That the Ordinance adopted by us in Convention on 23rd May 1788, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also, all Acts and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, known as the United States of America, is hereby dissolved."
  As we all know, the US federal authorities took a different view of that matter.
  David Cairns: As did the rest of the world.
  Mr. Maples: It does not matter what the rest of the world thought about the United States civil war; the question was what the US federal authorities thought.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I remind hon. Members that if they want to intervene they must rise in their place in the normal manner.
  Mr. Maples: As I was saying, we all know where those matters led.
  People will say, "This is incredibly far fetched. We are talking about Europe in the 21st century. People aren't going to fight each other again." I am sure that people said the same thing at the 1788 constitutional convention in Philadelphia. I do not suggest that anyone will attack us, but I suspect that if a small European country tried to go its own way, very heavy pressure would be put on it not to do so. We have seen the pressure that was put on Ireland to sign up to the Nice treaty. That was kids' stuff compared with what could happen.
  My first substantive point to the Government, which I reach shortly after starting, is that article I-14 needs to be clarified to make it clear that while we call this a constitution, it is not a constitution in the sense of creating an organic law. It is simply another intergovernmental treaty that changes the arrangements for managing the European Union. I do not particularly care what it is called, although I would prefer that it was not called a constitution, but that bit in article I-10 that says that the constitution will have precedence over member states' laws, and, as an afterthought, the laws that are passed under it, is dangerous.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I was bemused by the hon. Gentleman's references to the American civil war, and
  578
  was moved to suggest that he looks up the Lincoln-Douglas debates. These issues in American history were far more complex than he suggests, and in terms of drawing analogies, his point verges on being utterly ridiculous.
  Mr. Maples: I am sure that if somebody in South Carolina had made that point in Philadelphia in 1788, James Madison, Samuel Adams or somebody else would have made exactly the point that the Minister has made. Seventy-two years later, however, the issue became slightly different. As he has jogged my memory about the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln's quote about Douglas,
  "I will promise to stop telling the truth about him if he will stop telling lies about me"
  seems very apposite to the way in which the Government handle these issues, because they lie about them. They do not tell the truth about what they are doing, why they are doing it, and what the consequences are.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend agree that one example of that was the Prime Minister's answer in Prime Minister's questions the other day, when he implied that the whole of the common fisheries policy would still be an issue of shared competence, when we know that part of the common fisheries policy, under this constitution, would be under the exclusive competence of the Commission?
  Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I ask the hon. Gentleman to choose his words carefully. The words that he just used were in a general sense. I am sure that he would not want to refer to anybody in particular.
  Mr. Maples: They were carefully chosen, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Is the European Union a state or not? I believe that it is getting close, but it is not a state yet. The most commonly accepted definition in international law of a state, however, is contained in the Montevideo convention, which strictly applies only to the American hemisphere. Nevertheless, it gives four characteristics for being considered a state:
  "the state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications…a permanent population"
  which Europe has, "a defined territory", which we have, "government", to which we are getting very close, and crucially,
  "capacity to enter into relations with the other states",
  which is what this treaty gives. It gives that to the whole Union, not just the Community—previously, the Community, for the purposes of trade issues, had legal personality, but the Union as a whole did not. By giving it that legal personality, and the exclusive right to enter into treaties, certainly, by the Montevideo convention definition, we are coming very close to being a state.
  I have talked about tax, social security and foreign policy remaining at least partly inter-governmental. The erosion of the veto in those areas, however, would end it. The constitution involves the Commission in those areas in a way in which it has not been involved previously. All that is needed is an erosion of those qualified majority voting provisions, which can come

  579
  through article 24 by a so-called passerelle clause without further reference to this Parliament or an intergovernmental conference—the inter-governmental conference in 2008 will not be needed to do it. I think I am right that the Council of Ministers can give up its veto and introduce qualified majority voting in any area in which it wishes to do so.
  I suspect that were we sitting our GCSE politics exams and being asked to list the characteristics of a state, we would come pretty close to an A* if we wrote down that it has a Parliament, a President, a constitution, a Foreign Minister, a supreme court, a bill of rights, a central bank, a common foreign and security policy, military capability, a public prosecutor, a currency, a police force, supremacy of federal law over state law, treaty-making powers, legal personality and citizenship. That is not an exhaustive list, but any 16-year-old would get an A* for listing those in answer to what constitutes a state. The fact is that a huge number of the characteristics that, to most people, imply a state, are there. A great many of those that I have listed—nine of the 16—are in the constitution. Nine of those 16 do not currently exist. We do not have a president, we do not have a constitution, we do not have a Foreign Minister, we do not have a Bill of Rights—only an annexe to the Nice treaty—and we do not have a public prosecutor. Federal law is not supreme. It does not have treaty-making powers in all areas. It does not have legal personality. All those things stem from the constitution. We are taking a huge step down that road.
  I think it is crucial for common foreign and security policy to remain inter-governmental. The Government have said that that is one of their red lines; but they have agreed to the collapse of the pillar. Under the Maastricht treaty, pillar two—I think; I also get two and three mixed up—remained inter-governmental. Now it is collapsing. The European Union is getting a Foreign Minister. It has not had one so far; it has had a high representative of the Council. I am a great fan of Mr. Solana, who does a very worthwhile job extremely well, but he will now be called the Foreign Minister—and he will have two hats: he will also be a Vice-President of the Commission. The Commission is securing an involvement in foreign affairs that it has not had before, which is an important departure.
  Article 39.5 in part 1 of the treaty says, in regard to common foreign and security policy,
  "Before undertaking any action on the international scene or any commitment which could affect the Union's interests, each Member State shall consult the others within the European Council or the Council of Ministers."
  That applies to virtually any international action we might wish to take. It means that we must tell those others what we are going to do, or thinking about doing; we must share our analysis with them, and share the issue with them as it affects the United Kingdom. It is a very wide provision. Article 201 contains a let-out proviso, which says that if we think that vital issues of national policy are at stake we can insist that a vote is not taken. Perhaps we, France or Germany could do that, but I think it would be very difficult for any other country to exercise the power. It is like nuclear weapons again: it is like threatening to withdraw.
  580
  The European Court of Justice is excluded from articles 39 and 40, but not from the whole common foreign and security policy. It is not, for instance, excluded from article 15, which states:
  "Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity…They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."
  That means that although they could not interfere under articles 39 or 40 with decisions on the common foreign and security policy, the European Court of Justice will have an overview of how member states behave in relation to it. Article 282, which concerns the imposition of economic sanctions, gives the European Court of Justice oversight of that as well, and I am sure that there are other examples.
  There are two big gateways allowing the Court a role in foreign policy decisions. If the Government are really going to draw their red lines around the common foreign and security policy, which I believe they want to do, they must tighten up those arrangements considerably. The European Court of Justice does not need very big gateways; the gate needs to be open by just a fraction of a millimetre, and a couple of cases later it will be through. The Government would be well advised to make sure that the gate is firmly closed, and that there is no way in which the European Court of Justice can secure any role whatever in reviewing this country's foreign policy decisions.
  Home affairs is now fully under pillar one. It was under pillar three, I think. We gave up part of that at Amsterdam, when immigration and asylum were given a role. We have nova gone the whole hog, and home affairs has been sold out to the Commission. That is clear from page 89 of the treaty, which states that the Union
  "shall ensure the absence of internal border controls for persons and shall frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border control based on solidarity"—
  whatever "solidarity" means.
  The home affairs pillar goes very much further than that. Article 170 confers a great deal of power over the harmonisation of civil law. Article 171 deals with criminal law. Article 175 deals with police capabilities, and article 176 establishes a public prosecutor. Those are characteristics of a state. We are giving the European Union enormous powers to take action in areas that we have hitherto considered to be the exclusive preserve of domestic law. That is one huge area in which we have given up power. Those who say that the treaty makes no difference should look at that section and at what has happened to the home affairs pillar, which has remained intergovernmental before.
  May I make one technical point to the Minister, to which he may like to reply now or, if not, write to me about? What has happened to the Schengen opt-out? A protocol to the Amsterdam treaty gave us an opt-out from the Schengen arrangements. That protocol is not repeated in the treaty. I should be grateful if he would take that matter on board. He does not need to listen to the whole of my speech, but I should be grateful if he would listen to one or two points to which I shall draw his attention. This constitutional treaty repeals the Amsterdam treaty. The protocol is not repeated in it. The same point applies to our opt-out on the euro in a

  581
  protocol to the Maastricht treaty. When Maastricht and Amsterdam are repealed, any halfway-good lawyer will be able to argue that the protocols have gone too, because there will be no treaty on which they are based. Where, then, do our opt-outs on Schengen and the single currency survive in the new treaty? I hope that the Minister can satisfy me on that point, either now or at some later time.
  Anyone who reads the charter of fundamental rights can see that it is not a Bill of Rights in the sense that most of us would understand our Bill of Rights or that of the United States. It is a list of political aspirations. They are pretty good political aspirations and I do not argue against them, but they are very vague. Again, we are leaving the door open to the European Court of Justice running roughshod all over our domestic law.
  Let me give an example. Article 11.50 on fundamental rights says:
  "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law."
  We have recently passed—or at least if not passed, the Government have proposed—measures providing that the double jeopardy rule be set aside in the case of compelling new evidence. The European convention on human rights, from which this was drawn, contains that proviso, but it is not in the charter of fundamental rights. If we were to agree this, we would be unable to do as we want—I do not particularly want to do it, but the Government do—which is to say that people can be tried again if compelling new evidence comes to light. That is just one example of how that measure will be stretched.
  If people do not think that this is the sort of thing the European Court of Justice does, it is worth reflecting on what happened with the equal treatment directive, which I think was adopted in 1978—quite a long time ago. It was designed to give equal treatment to men and women, and it has resulted in the European Court of Justice saying that Germany must include women among its tank crews in front-line units. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) knows more about this than me. One may or may not think that having women in front-line tank units is a good idea. I think that this Parliament should be free to decide that, but the European Court of Justice has built on the equal rights and equal treatment provision. That is how far it has got. That is why I say that, if we leave a chink open to it, it is through it.
  The Government think that the "horizontal clauses" that they have had put in will protect them against that, but they are very weak and clumsily drafted. The treaty says that the charter is confined to EU institutions and EU law, but EU law now includes almost everything. Of course, EU law includes the European Court of Justice. Whatever the European Court of Justice does, it is by implication EU law. Let us consider some of the gateways in the constitution through which it may go. It is worth reflecting that the United States Supreme Court got whole rafts of stuff in place using the equal protection amendment. Those things exist in the constitution. Article 111.7 prohibits discrimination on the ground of nationality, while article 111.8 permits measures to combat discrimination on the grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin. All that people have to be
  582
  able to do is hang it on that. If they can show that they are being discriminated against on the ground of nationality, they get the right in one country but not in another. It therefore seems that the ECJ will find a way of getting through.
  Let us take the health article, which says that everyone has the right to access preventive health care and to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. The Government say that the conditions established by national laws and practices safeguard us from the European Court of Justice telling Britain what preventive health arrangements we must have. If that is the case, the whole paragraph is completely unnecessary and meaningless. It does nothing; it does not create an additional right. If it does not create a right over and above what we have under national law, why is it there at all?
  If I were sitting as a judge in a supreme court, I could say that the intention manifestly must have been to give some superior rights to what were being given under national law, otherwise there would have been no point putting the provision in the charter or the declaration of fundamental rights. When we have a constructivist court such as the European Court of Justice, it will be through there in a flash.
  Another issue on which the Government will run into trouble is their quite tough proposals for asylum seekers. I am not arguing the merits or otherwise of withdrawing the social security benefits from asylum seekers, but I very much doubt that the Government will be able to do so once the constitution is in place. The first chapter of the declaration of fundamental rights is pretty all encompassing. It states:
  "Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected."
  One does not have to be a very clever judge to hang on to that almost anything that one wants in respect of how human beings are treated, particularly if it is alleged that they are being treated badly.
  On employment law, the issue of collective bargaining rights may be dear to some Members' hearts. Article 28 confers rights to take collective action, including strike action. There is no limit on that in the charter but, under our law, there are serious limitations on the right to take strike action. The ECJ, and not Parliament, will have the ultimate power to decide whether restrictions on strike action or collective bargaining should be allowed in circumstances that might have a vital effect on national security. GCHQ is an example. However, we place many more restrictions on strikes. There must be ballots and cooling-off periods, and certain things have to happen first. There are also certain industries in which strikes cannot take place. We will also find it difficult to maintain the conditionality of the working time directive whereby people can contract out or a number of occupations are exempt.
  The charter of fundamental rights is really dangerous. The Government resisted it for a long time. They did not want it in the Nice treaty or in an annexe, but they got it in an annexe. Now they have it in the constitution, so why do they not just say "No"? The charter is not fundamental to the constitution; it is a political agenda to which most of us at a political level could subscribe. We would not argue with much of it in an election

  583
  campaign. Why do we not just exclude it from the treaty? Why does the Prime Minister not simply go back to Dublin and say, "Listen guys. I've got to have a referendum and they are never going to agree to this. Take it out. It does not make the constitution less effective in terms of making the EU's institutions function. We never wanted it in the Nice treaty even as an annexe in the first place"? This is an illustration of the Government's appallingly weak negotiating abilities. They make pre-emptive concessions just because they want to feel good in Europe. They think that they are at the top table and they want to sit alongside Mr. Schröder and Chirac at dinners. If the Government do not like the provision, they should just say that they will not have it. They have a veto. However, once the provision is in the constitution, the gateway will be open and they will regret that at leisure.
  The Prime Minister has told us that we have raised a completely false scare about energy. However, page 89 of the draft treaty states:
  "In establishing an internal market"—
  which means qualified majority voting—
  "and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, Union policy on energy shall aim to:

  (a) ensure the functioning of the energy market,

  (b) ensure security of energy supply…and

  (c) promote energy efficiency".

  That is pretty all encompassing and it means that, when the Union has acted, we cannot. Does that cover nuclear power generation? Will we be subject to Union rules about our nuclear power stations of which we still have quite a lot?
  What about our treaty over North sea oil with Norway? Under the constitution, we cannot make treaties with other countries in areas where the Union is empowered to make them. We have treaties with Norway over North sea oil and gas. Will they go out of the window? We cannot make any third-party agreements. Therefore, it is true that we are opening up an area of our energy policy. I think that we are the only country in the EU that has oil and gas—Holland may have some access, but only to the gas fields—but we are surrendering that policy to the Union. We were one of the only countries in Europe that had a decent fishing industry, but we gave control of that away. Why do we give such things away? Why do not we say that energy is a matter of particular concern to us and that we want unanimity on it or its exclusion from the treaty altogether?
  I mentioned to the Minister how the protocol on the euro in the Maastricht treaty will be extended. Article 14 of the draft constitution gives the Union complete competence over economic policy:
  "The Union shall adopt measures to ensure coordination of the economic policies of the Member States…The Member States shall coordinate their economic policies with the Union…The Union shall adopt measures to ensure coordination of the employment policies of the Member States…The Union may adopt initiatives to ensure coordination of Member States' social policies."
  Frankly, I do not know what is left. Outside foreign policy and defence, there is little that Parliament or the Government do that does not come within that definition. Not only economic policy, but employment and social policy are being opened up.
  584
  I should be grateful if the Minister would reply to this particular point. Article 53(4) addresses the Union's resources and qualified majority voting:
  "A European law of the Council shall lay down the modalities relating to the Union's resources."
  I am concerned that our rebate may have gone to qualified majority voting. If the Minister cannot reply today, I should be grateful if he would confirm that that point is covered in some other way—I cannot pretend to have read every word of the treaty. Our rebate is worth a lot of money—some £2 billion a year—and it is tremendously important that any change requires unanimity and cannot be done under qualified majority voting.
  My final specific point on the treaty concerns tax. Article III-62 contains the power to harmonise indirect taxes by a unanimous vote, although it reduces that condition to qualified majority voting in
  "combating tax fraud and tax evasion.".
  The same is true of company taxation, which can also operate by qualified majority voting on tax fraud and tax evasion. I used to be a tax lawyer, and one can hang an awful lot around tax evasion and tax fraud. One man's definition of tax evasion is not another's definition of tax evasion—the European savings directive is all about what the Union calls tax evasion. We are opening a big gateway for the European Union.
  Finally, I shall examine the consequences of a refusal to ratify the draft constitution. We are being sold all sorts of scare stories that a refusal to ratify would be a disaster. If we refuse to ratify the treaty, as far as the European Union's organisational and institutional arrangements are concerned, we will end up where we are now—at the end of the Nice treaty—and there is no need to do anything else. The European Union functions reasonably satisfactorily, and it functioned satisfactorily before the Nice treaty, too.
  The other countries of Europe cannot go ahead without us. They can use the enhanced co-operation provisions of the existing Maastricht treaty, but they cannot tear up the existing treaties and sign this constitution. There is no provision for them to leave the European Union, to renounce the treaty establishing the European Community or to renounce the treaty establishing the European Union. If they did so, it would be a clear breach of those treaties, and they could not inherit the European Union institutions—effectively, they cannot leave. If we, or any other country, veto the draft constitution, we will be where we are now, which is a perfectly acceptable status quo. The scare stories about the consequences of not ratifying the treaty are simply not true. On other European countries renouncing the Maastricht treaty, it is also worth bearing it in mind that the Maastricht treaty is the basis for the euro, and that the 11 countries that have the euro do not want to scrap it.
  The ultimate protection is the right to leave, which was one of my red lines, which I discussed earlier. The right to leave requires a leaver's agreement, and the arrangements that reduce that right to qualified majority voting are not entirely satisfactory. If such an agreement cannot be obtained within two years, the constitution ceases to apply to the member who wants to leave, and such arrangements should be more even-handed.

  585
  The treaty moves things along in several fundamental areas, and it is not only a tidying-up exercise. It opens gateways for interference by the European Court of Justice in all sorts of areas in which it should not be involved, including foreign and security policy. Finally, the danger of creating a European constitution is that we create a different kind of law within the EU. I believe that that is what it would do in its present form, although that could be dealt with fairly easily by amending article 1–10.
  The former right hon. Member for Chesterfield used to say that the two fundamental characteristics of a democracy are that the voters can throw out the Government and the Government can change the law. If voters do not like the way in which the Government are behaving, they can throw them out. The electors threw out the Conservatives in 1997, but when they throw the Labour party out of government—next year, we hope, but it will happen at some point—they will not be electing a Government who can change laws made pursuant to the European treaties We are agreeing to delegate Parliament's power to make legislation to a group of people who cannot in any circumstances be controlled by the British electorate.
  Let us take an example of an action taken domestically—that the Bank of England should set interest rates. A new Government could change that, perhaps even without legislation being passed, but certainly with it. Parliament could change that law. However, the House cannot change laws, regulations and directives—or framework laws, as they will be known in future—introduced by the European Union. There is a fundamental question of democratic accountability to be addressed: such accountability does not and will not exist. As elected politicians, we all share the view that those in opposition can hope that, one day, the voters will throw out the Government and they will be able to put right all the awful and stupid things that that Government did. There are fewer and fewer things that we can put right, and once the treaty is in place there will be very few indeed.
  I welcome wholeheartedly the Government's conversion to holding to a referendum, but I believe that they are making a terrible mistake in leaving it until after the next election. First, that will enable people like me to traduce their motives. Secondly, and more important, it will leave outstanding an issue that has bedevilled British politics for two generations and will continue to do so until it is settled. I shall accept the results of the referendum. If the answer is "yes", it is clear to me what direction a chunk of British policy will take in future. I believe that, however much jiggery-pokery and gerrymandering they try, the Government will have to accept a no vote, and it will also be clear in that case where things go from there. I believe that the sooner the question is settled in a referendum, the better for all of us.
  1.17 pm
  David Cairns: I begin, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by wishing you and all hon. Members a happy St. George's day. I have been going out of my way to say that to as many of my English colleagues as possible, to which their response is to look at me bizarrely. They are swift to complain when people
  586
  celebrate St. Patrick's day or St. Andrew's day, but when one tries to generate support for St. George's day, no one seems to reciprocate.
  Mr. Forth: Thank you.
  David Cairns: The right hon. Gentleman is a Scottish exile, but he is the only one to have reciprocated when I mention St. George's day. I thought that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) might have made some sort of reference to it—perhaps in connection with slaying the mighty Euro-dragons that he paraded before us. However, they were inflatable dragons, which he had to blow up himself in order to slay them during the course of his speech.
  Mr. Dismore: Without wishing to derail my hon. Friend's peroration about St. George, it is important to point out that St. George is the patron saint not only of England, but of several European nations.
  David Cairns: Indeed, he is a great European figure, even though I believe he originated in Palestine. Anyway, happy St. George's day and happy birthday to my brother, too—
  Mr. Dismore: And Shakespeare.
  David Cairns: Indeed.
  In the course of my speech, I shall do something that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon did not do in the one hour and 10 minutes that he spoke, which is address the Bill. I stand to be corrected, but I never heard him do so: he spent the whole time speaking about the draft constitution. I shall mention that, too. He presented it as axiomatic that those who support a referendum—as we all do—must support his Bill; but as one who is profoundly attached to the idea of a referendum, I cannot support his Bill, because it is deeply flawed. I shall go through it, even though the duration of his speech might mean—I do not presume to know the will of the House in advance—that we do not have time today to commit his Bill to Committee.
  Mr. Maples: And that is the end of it.
  David Cairns: As the hon. Gentleman says, that will be the end of it. The Bill may never reach Committee. I do not want the record to show that I voted against the Bill, if given an opportunity, because I am against the idea of a referendum. I would vote against it because I am against the Bill, which is profoundly flawed. It is not in the interests of democracy to pass a Bill that contains such profound flaws, which I shall detail in the course of my speech. Those of us who believe that the British public have a right to have final say on the matter, and that they should be consulted as a result of the constitutional treaty negotiations, do not think the Bill is the mechanism by which to deliver that.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon on securing a place so high in the ballot for private Members' Bills. Last year I came second in the ballot and succeeded in getting my own private Member's Bill, a much smaller and more modest measure, on to the

  587
  statute book. It came into force a fortnight ago today, so I know how exciting it is to pilot a private Member's Bill.
  Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  David Cairns: I happily give way to another champion of private Members' business.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are here today to legislate—to try to get Bills through the House. Perhaps we will be able to vote on the Bill today; perhaps we will not. If the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) was serious about trying to achieve a referendum on the basis of his Bill, he would have not have spent so much time arguing about it himself. He would have allowed a proper debate to take place in the House with all hon. Members present contributing, which would have given it a better chance of being debated, rather than talked out. That is inevitable, given the short time left to debate the Bill.
  David Cairns: I am, sadly, forced to agree with my hon. Friend. I expect the headline on the press releases has already been written—"Government talk out Euro referendum Bill"—and that there will be yet more confusion, not just the alleged confusion that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon spoke about at great length at the beginning. I do not know what will happen. We might draw matters to a conclusion and have a vote, with the Bill going into Committee.
  Mr. Forth: Since we are in a relaxed conversational Friday mood, I remind the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spent an hour introducing his Bill, which, sadly, fell as a result of a pathetic lack of support, so the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made an excellent speech setting out his views for about the same length of time is not exceptional. It is almost normal for a Friday.
  David Cairns: I posit one distinction. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) referred to his Bill during his speech. The record will show that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon made almost no reference to his Bill. He spoke at enormous length about the constitution, which is obviously at the heart of the matter, but he hardly referred to his own Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle talked us through his Bill and explained the effect of the various clauses. He took a considerable time to do that. I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. Unlike the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I was present for the entirety of his hon. Friend's very good speech. The right hon. Gentleman flitted in and out of the Chamber.
  Mr. Forth: I distinctly remember my hon. Friend referring explicitly to clause 1(2), saying that although the Government now happily supported the thrust of most of his Bill, that element might be more contentious. That is one example of a reference that my hon. Friend
  588
  made to his Bill. Perhaps he did not have to go into quite as much detail as usual because, as he pointed out, the Bill is in all other respects Government policy.
  David Cairns: Whit the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon did not do when he spoke to clause 1(2) was explain what he meant by "adoption" of the treaty.
  Mr. Maples rose—
  David Cairns: If the hon. Gentleman did explain that, I apologise. If he wishes to clarify the matter, I am happy to give way.
  Mr. Maples: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I did speak for a long time. I specifically said that "adoption" is a term of art meaning that when the treaty is agreed at the intergovernmental conference, it is usually signed two or three weeks later when the text is finalised. The hon. Gentleman is being unfair on me. I did speak about my Bill but, as it is Government policy, there did not seem to be much on which the Minister and I differed.
  David Cairns: "Adoption", as the hon. Gentleman knows, is not the normal word used in the present context. It needs clarification, and I intended to ask him to provide such clarification, should his Bill go into Committee. It may be a matter of weeks between the intergovernmental conference and the signing of the treaty, but, on an issue of such magnitude, there could be many months between it being agreed and it being signed. Merely to talk about adoption without specifying that further is one of the many flaws in the Bill, which means that regrettably, although I support a referendum, I am unable to support the Bill today.
  Mr. Dismore: The only part of the Bill to which I recall the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) referring was the referendum question itself, which of course goes to the heart of it, but he simply said that if we do not like the question it can be changed in Committee. If the heart of the Bill is the referendum question, does not that simply show that the hon. Gentleman has no real intention of taking the Bill forward, but is simply playing with the House's time?
  David Cairns: Yes and one cannot condone such an infantile approach to making laws as simply speaking for the sake of speaking. My hon. Friend tempts me to pre-empt my own speech because I want to speak at some length on the question. He is right to say that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon spoke about the question, but he did so only because I asked him about it. I intervened on him twice to clarify the matter and he conceded immediately that the question could be amended in Committee. How often do we hear Opposition spokesmen and spokeswomen condemning the Government for introducing amendments in Committee?
  At the moment I am serving on the Committee considering the Pensions Bill—a magnificent measure representing real social progress—but because of its technical nature the Government have had to introduce a large number of amendments, and every amendment that we introduce is heralded by Conservative

  589
  spokespeople whingeing about the fact that we are introducing amendments that should have been on the face of the Bill so that they could have been properly scrutinised on Second Reading.
  Yet here we have the hon. Gentleman saying that if we do not like the referendum question, which is at the heart of this Bill, it can be amended in Committee. That approach is entirely unsatisfactory. As far as possible, Bills should be accurately drafted in time for Second Reading so that hon. Members can scrutinise them, not send them off to a Room Upstairs for debate. Again, that is part of the flawed nature of the Bill.
  Mr. Dismore: Would it not be far better for the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr Maples) simply to withdraw the Bill, get it in order and perhaps try to secure a further ten-minute rule slot? In Committee on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, I remember the Opposition jumping up and down and protesting about changes to the verb nature of the Bill, which meant that it had to be withdrawn, redrafted and have a second Committee stage. Would it not be far better for the hon. Gentleman simply to withdraw the Bill and start again?
  David Cairns: I fear that my hon. Friend is correct, and I have mentioned only two of the flaws; I have yet to reach the meat of the Bill. It has many other flaws.
  Walking towards King's Cross tube station coming into the House today, I saw a huge poster saying "Kill Bill". I thought that the Labour Whips had generated such a magnificent operation that every Member of Parliament making their way to the Commons today would get the message to kill the Bill. However, I have been told by those more culturally aware than I am that it is the name of a film. It is not my intention to kill the Bill, but to vote against it because of its flawed nature.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tries to make his case by attacking the constitution, on some elements of which I would agree, and inventing other reasons for attacking the constitution and for voting no, irrespective of what is in the treaty. His case was about as credible as Kevin Spacey. [Interruption.] At least my references are contemporary. At Prime Minister's questions this week the Leader of the Opposition referred to the words "Help me, Rhondda. Help, help me Rhondda." I had to have that explained to me because I am far too young to know what he was talking about. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is an Elvis Presley fan and a Beach Boys fan, too. I did not know that song and I had to have the reference explained to me, as did other youngsters here.
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the Bill needs detailed scrutiny—it affects the whole of the United Kingdom. More than half the Government Members present represent Scottish constituencies, and I see that the Liberal Democrats are represented 100 per cent. by Members from Scottish constituencies. What does my hon. Friend say about the absence from the
  590
  Chamber of any Scottish National party Members, who advocate a referendum in Scotland but are not here today—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not only is that a very long intervention, but it is totally irrelevant to the debate.
  David Cairns: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course I shall not stray down that path, other than to say that the Bill that was considered earlier would also apply throughout the United Kingdom, as would the Bill that is scheduled to be debated after this one. Three United Kingdom-wide Bills have been scheduled for debate this morning, so my hon. Friend has made his point very well.
  Mr. Dismore: Would my hon. Friend care to explain the example that he cited earlier, for the benefit of those who did not understand it? I congratulate him on making a contemporary reference, when the best references that we heard from the Opposition were to 1860 and the American civil war.
  David Cairns: Now my hon. Friend really is pre-empting my speech, as I have some thoughts about the civil war. I might not be a great constitutional expert, but I happen to know a wee bit about the American civil war and the experiences that led up to the secession of the south. That period is directly relevant to our discussion. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon spoke about it at length, and he will be delighted to hear that I will say more about it anon.
  The first flaws in the Bill have already been mentioned in passing, but they require further reflection. Clause 1(2) states:
  "A referendum shall be held within six months of the adoption of the Treaty."
  We are entitled to ask what adoption of the treaty means. The term "adoption" is not common in respect of European treaties, which are not spoken of as adopted. They can be agreed, ratified, signed and endorsed by Parliament, but not adopted. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is therefore including in the Bill a brand-new term. It might be the correct term and precisely the one that we need in this case, but we would need to examine the implications for future treaties and consequent Acts of introducing that new legal term into the corpus of our domestic law. He admitted that the term is not commonly used in this context and had to define it, and it would be unwise to proceed with the Bill while it remains. He might say "Okay, we'll amend the Bill in Committee", but that brings me back to my original point: it is not acceptable to bring a Bill to the House for its Second Reading having had quite a while to prepare it, and then immediately say that we can amend it in Committee. That is not a good way of making laws. If we had 5p for every time we heard the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst make precisely that point—I am indebted to him for drawing it to my attention—we would all be considerably better off.
  Mr. Maples: I explained what the word "adoption" means. It is a term of art and I checked it with the Clerks. Furthermore, this Bill is, word for word, exactly the Bill

  591
  that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) introduced in the previous Session. I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Hansard and to the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the drafting.
  David Cairns: I have enormous respect and admiration for my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but there are many things on which I firmly disagree with him. If he were present, I would tell him so to his face, but perhaps he is visiting a school or something. As he is not present, I do not think that we should discuss his views in any great depth.
  Mr. Dismore: Perhaps the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) would like the House to start adopting Bills. In the context of his own Bill, perhaps he is asking us to take on a somewhat unwanted orphan. Perhaps that is what he means by "adoption".
  David Cairns: That may well be the case, which illustrates the problem: as the term is not usually used in such a context, it is open to various interpretations. Frankly, such a situation is not good enough when we are passing laws. We will not adopt the Bill, foster it or take it into care; we will vote either for it or against it on the basis of what it contains. Such loose language is not acceptable, which is why the Bill should not be given its Second Reading.
  Ms Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for being away from the Chamber while I gave in to the temptation to have a bit of lunch.
  The Bill says that a referendum should be held "within six months", and a great deal was made of the need to proceed swiftly. Does my hon. Friend have views about how soon after a treaty is adopted or ratified, or whatever the correct term is, we could try to hold a referendum?
  David Cairns: It is not so much how many months, but whether the Bill can be given adequate parliamentary scrutiny. That is what is at stake, not whether we set up an artificial guillotine or time frame. We need to get a treaty that is acceptable to the UK and recognises our red-line issues; in other words, one that does not encroach on the UK's veto powers on central issues and does not take over our foreign policy or our policy on defence, taxation, immigration and so on. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred to many of those matters during his speech.
  If we can secure a treaty that we agree with, it must then be formally written up and signed, which could take months. As with the treaty of Nice, a Bill has to be published and introduced, and parliamentary time has to be set aside for scrutinising it in both Houses. Then, and only then, can we consider having a referendum. In other words, the timetable leading up to a referendum will be dictated by the process of parliamentary scrutiny—and we would have to ensure that the treaty received the closest possible scrutiny—and could not be arbitrarily set at six months.
  Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what would happen if we were trying to stick to a timetable but there was a delay in the signing ceremony? There would then
  592
  be a delay in bringing the Bill to the House, and midway through our debate or perhaps even before it had started we would have to have a referendum simply because we were adhering to a timetable that had been plucked out of the sky and included in this flawed Bill. My approach, then, is to think in terms not of weeks or months but of the process of parliamentary scrutiny.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Is there not another possibility that we should consider? What if, as a result of negotiations, the Conservatives did a U-turn and were no longer against a constitutional treaty? If there were unanimity among the major political forces in the country, there might not be a case for a referendum at that time. There might be a case for a referendum at some future date, but it would be premature to assume that the political position in the House would be the same a few months later.
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I slightly disagree with him because I am wedded to the notion of a referendum. I believe that that is the right policy, and I can foresee no circumstances in which we would not have a referendum, unless the constitutional treaty had already been killed off by a series of "no" votes elsewhere and the whole process had ground to a halt. Even in those circumstances, however, we might still go ahead with a referendum. Although I hear what my hon. Friend says, and we should not prejudge what will happen in the months ahead, I am firmly convinced that the policy of committing the matter to a referendum is right, and I look forward to that happening.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend has highlighted the issue of the six months, which start from the date of adoption, although we do not know what that means. Of course, we do not know when the Bill itself will come into force, because yet another of its flaws is the fact that it contains no commencement provisions. I should have thought that one way round that issue would be to insert a commencement clause at the end. Will my hon. Friend give us his views on that?
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend never ceases to amaze me. I studied the Bill in depth in preparation for today's debate, and I thought that I had picked out all its flaws, but I missed that very glaring one. I can therefore forgive the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for making that mistake. Is not this an example of parliamentary scrutiny at its very best? Hon. Members can study a measure in detail and point out its flaws.
  The same will happen when we scrutinise any constitutional treaty laid before the House as a Command Paper. However, the Conservatives do not want us to do any of that; they want the treaty to go straight to a referendum before it has even received parliamentary scrutiny. The intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) brilliantly highlights why our policy of scrutinising a treaty in the House before a referendum is correct. The official policy of Opposition Front Benchers, which is to have the referendum before we even have the treaty, is flawed, and the policy of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, which nuances that by saying that we should

  593
  have a referendum six months after the treaty's adoption, whatever that means, is equally flawed for the reasons that my hon. Friend just gave.
  Mr. Dismore: Let us suppose that adoption means agreement in principle in June. Bearing in mind the parliamentary timetable, the six months for which the Bill provides could expire before the Bill comes into force.
  David Cairns: That is yet another flaw in the Bill and another reason why even those of us who are wedded to the idea of a referendum cannot support it.
  My next problem with the Bill concerns the question that will be asked in the referendum.
  Mr. Dismore: I am sorry to keep pursuing this point, but the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon looks bemused by my last intervention, and I should perhaps explain what I mean. Let us suppose that the Bill passed through to Committee today. It would then have to come back on Report, which I envisage would not happen much before June, and go to the other place. The prospect of its completing its parliamentary passage much before the spillover Session is pretty limited. As there is no commencement date, it would come into force three months later, by which time six months would already be up.
  David Cairns: We would have to have a retrospective referendum of some kind. My hon. Friend is deep into the realms of metaphysics, but I think that I follow him. The Bill would come into force more than six months after the treaty had been adopted, so we could not have the referendum laid by down by the timetable in the Bill because six months would already have lapsed. I am glad that he clarified that, because I did not quite get it the first time round either.
  Ms Munn: Neither did I.
  David Cairns: Now that my hon. Friend has confessed, I do not feel uniquely stupid.
  Mr. Maples: Are the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) suggesting that the Government would delay the Bill to that extent? Otherwise, it could go through Parliament very quickly, as all hon. Members appear to be in favour of the principle.
  David Cairns: I am in favour not of the principle of the Bill, but the principle of referendums. The hon. Gentleman has consistently conflates the two—
  Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend is clamouring for me to give way, but I will just finish this point. The hon. Gentleman has consistently conflated the two notions to suggest that if one loves good and hates evil one must support this Bill, but that does not follow. I support the idea of a referendum following the successful completion of negotiations and the securing of a treaty that respects the British red lines. Given the involvement
  594
  in those negotiations of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment, who is on the Front Bench, I have every confidence that the Government will secure such a treaty.
  Following that—we do not know whether it will be during the summer or later than that—we must subject the treaty to parliamentary scrutiny. That process will take a few months. I have no idea how long the passage of the Bill would last, but, given its many flaws, including his failure to specify a commencement date, I would expect it to have to spend quite a while in Committee. He has already said that he would table a couple of amendments, and we have not yet got through Second Reading. It is not a question of padding it out; it would take such a long time to rectify its flaws that the bizarre parallel time line outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon is plausible.
  Ms Munn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Gentleman's great haste to rush to a referendum is about ensuring that the people of Britain do not have the opportunity properly to examine and understand the constitution, which would be more likely lead to a no vote than a proper discussion in this Parliament and in the country on the important issues that it contains?
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend is being uncharacteristically unkind to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he genuinely has concerns about the constitutional treaty—as do I, as do the Government, and as does my hon. Friend, I am sure—but the arbitrary nature of the timetable that he sets out and the difficulties that I envisage, which have been complicated further by the forensic insight of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, mean that the Bill cannot be allowed to continue.
  I want to speak about the issues that we must tackle before the constitution is put to a referendum. Parliament must be at the heart of dealing with those matters. One cannot simply pluck an arbitrary period, for example six months, out of thin air, include it in the Bill and tell people, "If you oppose the Bill, you oppose a referendum and you don't want the people to have their say. If you oppose the Bill, you want a European superstate, straight bananas, people driving on the right-hand side of the road" and all the usual nonsense. I support a referendum but I oppose the Bill.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. Perhaps I can help him a little with the previous intervention by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). I assume that he did not consult the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) before he made it. If he had done so and was a more regular attender on Fridays, he would know that a private Member's Bill has a timetable and a specific date is set for it. That means that he should take his turn in the queue with everybody else. If he was genuinely worried about enacting his Bill in time, he would have set a commencement date—either on Royal Assent or within a month of Royal Assent—that would have enabled his timetable, such as it is, to be fulfilled. That shows how badly drafted the Bill is.
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend amplifies the point that he made earlier with great clarity. There was a vote on the young cyclists helmets Bill—it was called something like that—
  Ms Munn: Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill.
  David Cairns: Yes, that was the title. It has now been shunted to 18 June, when my ten-minute Bill is scheduled for Second Reading. As I understand it, the Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill will take precedence because it is a ballot measure. My Bill is currently scheduled to be considered first on 18 June. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle is disappointed, and I was keen to support his Bill. It will now be considered before my Bill on 18 June. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon is therefore right to say that there is a set timetable that is not arbitrary.
  The Government are not trying to pad matters out until the Bill falls off the end of the cliff. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon need only look through the Order Paper, which sets out all the Fridays when such matters will be debated. I am not trying to ensure that the Bill does not succeed through some sort of procedural mechanism. I should be happy to vote against it, not because I oppose a referendum—I am not sure whether I have made it clear that I support a referendum—but because I oppose the Bill.
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants an opportunity to vote against the Bill, but he has been speaking for half an hour. Does he realise that if the Minister is to have time to respond to the pertinent questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) asked, he should sit down soon? Or is his motive to talk out the Bill?
  David Cairns: It will take me a few moments to deal with that question. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said earlier, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon took an hour and 10 minutes, not at the beginning of the day but halfway through the morning, to make his case. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, on one of his periodic visits to the Chamber, which seem to last approximately 10 minutes before he leaves again, leapt to his feet and accused my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon of committing an outrage. He asked how my hon. Friend dared criticise the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for speaking for an hour and 10 minutes and whether he realised that the material was important and salient. I pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had not been present for most of the speech. None the less, I agreed that it was a good speech and an hour and 10 minutes well spent.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now start to talk about the Bill.
  David Cairns: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been striving to do so. I was about to speak about the Bill when I was interrupted from the Opposition Front Bench. Let us revert to the measure.
  Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  David Cairns: I shall not on this occasion. If my hon. Friend lets me make a little progress, I shall happily give
  596
  way later. I want to continue my analysis of the measure because, as I have already said, I would be the first speaker to conduct such an analysis.
  Let us consider the second flaw in the series of flaws that means that the Bill cannot be supported—the referendum question. When the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred to the 34 referendums that have already taken place, I asked him how many had the question decided by an Act of Parliament. I genuinely did not know the answer. I was not a Member of Parliament when the Bill that dealt with the Greater London authority was considered and I do not know whether the referendum question was included in the measure. I am happy to give way to any hon. Member who can tell me whether it is custom and practice to specify the question in the Bill.
  Clause 3(6) states:
  "The Electoral Commission shall publish a report setting out when and how the referendum shall be conducted",
  but that presumably does not include the wording of the question, because that is on the face of the Bill. That being the case, the Electoral Commission would have no say in that matter and would simply have to implement the measure.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: We are now coming to the crux of the Bill, namely, the wording of the question. My hon. Friend makes a relevant point about the Electoral Commission. Does he accept that the way in which a question is phrased can often determine the type of response that it gets? The question in the Bill asks:
  "Should the United Kingdom be bound by the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?"
  Does not that give a hint, at least, of the Conservatives' view that the treaty in some way restricts the sovereign rights of the UK? Is not the question itself designed to get a "no" answer?
  David Cairns: I fear that it is. My hon. Friend's hackles were raised in the same way as mine were when I first read the question. I think that he might have been taking some refreshment after his magnificent speech in the earlier debate when I made precisely that point to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. I scored a bull's eye when I did so, because as soon as I had made the point, the hon. Gentleman said, "Fair enough; let's amend it in Committee." It was hardly the most robust defence of his own Bill to say, "Well, okay, if you think it's a bit biased we'll discuss it in Committee."
  I want to explore the general principle of whether we should put the wording of a referendum question into primary legislation. If someone can convince me that that is where it belongs, and that that is what we have done for the last 36 referendums, my fears would be calmed. Perhaps the Minister can help me here; he used to be in the Home Office. No one has yet explained to me why this wording needs to be in the Bill.
  Mr. Dismore: Did not the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon give the game away when he said that this was exactly the same Bill as the one that was promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)? Is he not simply using the Bill as a vehicle to

  597
  expound his anti-European views, rather than seriously intending to legislate? If he had had serious intentions, he would have made sure that his Bill was in order.
  David Cairns: I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is a parliamentarian of long standing. Indeed, he was the author of the Maples memorandum—if I am allowed to call it that—which Labour Members thoroughly enjoyed reading. I think that at one stage I knew every word of it and was able to campaign on it during the 1997 election. He had a brilliant forensic mind when he was setting out the flaws of the then Conservative Government. Unfortunately, it seems to have deserted him when he was drafting this Bill.
  If the hon. Gentleman has lifted a previous, flawed Bill without studying it in any great depth and put his own name to it, that would be a tiny bit irresponsible. Hon. Members tell me that that has been done in the past, but I cannot imagine that it is a common occurrence. I certainly would not want to put my name on a Bill as flawed as this one. I know that this might sound self-aggrandising, but my private Member's Bill went through all its parliamentary stages in both Houses last year without the need for any amendments.
  Mr. Dismore: It seems to be a Tory party tactic to do this. The Retirement Income Reform Bill and the Food Labelling Bill have been brought back time and again without any of their flaws being corrected, and the result is the same every time: they get thrown out.
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend is a more assiduous attender here on a Friday than I am, and I bow to his superior knowledge of these matters. It is a terrible shame if that is what is happening, and if this is part of a pattern. I thought that this was just a random occurrence, but it is very sad if my hon. Friend is right.
  There are two issues relating to the wording of the question. The first is the principle of whether a referendum question should be included in a Bill, irrespective of what it says. Hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that, as and when we have a referendum on the euro, the question will be framed by the Electoral Commission or some sort of independent body. I might be wrong; the Government might be intending to frame the question themselves—I am not entirely sure. However, if we were to give the Electoral Commission a significant role in the conduct of this referendum, excluding it as a point of principle from having anything to do with the framing of the question—after all, what is a referendum if it is not a question?—seems to be the major flaw in the Bill. I might have been more inclined to support it, the other flaws notwithstanding, had it said, "The question to be asked in the referendum shall be decided by the Electoral Commission and ratified by Parliament." However, it says:
  "The question to be asked in a referendum held in pursuance of section 1 is"
  and it goes on to outline a question.
  I want to talk about the question—the words themselves—in a moment, but we must not pass on to that discussion without discussing the principle of fettering the Electoral Commission in its rightly
  598
  ordained role. This Parliament gave the commission powers so that there would be no hint of party political bias in any such sensitive matter to do with elections or referendums. It would have had a lot to say about how the 1975 referendum was conducted—it was clearly one-sided in terms of the money spent and the publicity given to the "Yes" campaign. [Interruption.] I am far too young to remember it; I have read about it in the history books.
  The commission exists to ensure that no hint of bias or one-sidedness can creep into any part of the electoral process, including a referendum. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon recognises that, because he would give the Electoral Commission a key role in publishing
  "a report setting out when and how the referendum shall be conducted".
  However, the commission may decide when the referendum is to be conducted provided that it is six months after the date of the adoption, whatever that is, of the constitutional treaty. The commission would be told, "You can oversee the referendum, but you can't decide what the question is because we have already decided it. You can't decide on the timing of the thing because we have already decided it." The Bill also refers to the referendum being held on a public holiday, so the commission would also be told, "You can decide when it is, provided that it is on a public holiday six months after the adoption of a treaty." The commission would be outraged to be so fettered.
  John Thurso rose—
  Mr. Lazarowicz rose—
  David Cairns: I give way first to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso); I will come back to my hon. Friend.
  John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman made a point about the referendum being held on a public holiday, which is referred to in clause 3(10). It states:
  "The day chosen for holding the referendum shall be a public holiday."
  Does he interpret that to mean that there shall be a holiday on the day of the referendum or that thereafter, for ever, it shall be a holiday to celebrate it?
  David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman has succeeded in getting a laugh from a joke that I was hoping to make later, so I may not give way again during my speech. That is precisely the point that I wanted to make and I will return to it.
  Mr. Dismore: Assuming that the Bill did not come into force until autumn, the first public holiday on which the referendum could be held might be Christmas day. Bearing it in mind that we have previously debated Christmas day trading, does my hon. Friend believe that it would be appropriate to hold the referendum on Christmas day, which is the implication of the Bill?
  David Cairns: I have not studied the timetable in such depth, but clearly that would not be acceptable. My hon. Friend highlights the point that the Electoral

  599
  Commission, which is supposed to decide such things, would be so fettered—so hemmed in—by this flawed Bill that its freedom for manoeuvre would be nugatory. He has pointed out yet another anomaly.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way once more; he is being very generous with his time.
  Surely another reason for it being wrong to exclude the Electoral Commission from the process in such a way is that, on the face of it, the Bill takes no account of any minor name changes to whatever treaty eventually emerges from the European negotiations. If the treaty were called the treaty establishing a constitutional framework for the EU, or if there were some other change to the wording that was not covered by the Bill, no referendum could be held. The Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), rather than enabling a referendum to be held, could prevent it.
  David Cairns: I had not even considered that, but of course my hon. Friend is right. The flawed nature of the Bill involves not only how it would fetter the Electoral Commission, but how it would fetter us. We might have to wait to hold a referendum and perhaps this issue would become another important matter for the Government: our hands would be tied by such an Act of Parliament, so the name of the treaty that emerges would have to be a red-line issue. We will have to insist that it translates into English as a constitution for the European Union, and we cannot have it any other way because we have already been fettered by this legislation.
  Mr. Maples: I want to deal with the public holiday point. I thought that the Liberal Democrats had understood the provision properly, whereas the hon. Gentleman had not. I take it to mean, and it is intended to mean, that whatever day is chosen for the referendum shall also be designated a public holiday, not that the referendum must be held on what is an existing public holiday, because that would constrain the timetable seriously and we would have had to have it on Christmas day. My intention, and what the Bill says, is that whatever day is chosen—let us say that it is 31 October or 15 November—will as a consequence also be a public holiday.
  Mr. Dismore: It does not say that.
  David Cairns: As my hon. Friend anticipates from a sedentary position, it does not say that. It says:
  "The day chosen for holding the referendum shall be a public holiday."
  There are three interpretations of that: one is that it must be held on a public holiday that was going to be a public holiday anyway; another is that whatever the day is, it will be made a public holiday; and the third is that it will become a public holiday for ever, heading off into the future. The Bill is ridden with flaws—not just the ones that I have noticed, but the ones that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith has drawn to my attention, and the nuance in the flaw that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter
  600
  Ross has drawn to our attention. It is almost embarrassing to point it out to the hon. Gentleman, but it must be done.
  Mr. Dismore: If the promoter of the Bill is correct, although he is probably making it up on the hoof, there are two possible interpretations. One is a significant impact on the British economy from losing a working day, and the second, if it turns out to be a public holiday for ever more, is a significant bribe to the electorate, which he could claim as a result of his Bill to try to persuade people to vote the way that he wants.
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend highlights another point. Where is the regulatory impact assessment? If it is going to be a public holiday, we need to know the cost to the British economy. However, there is no such assessment. I understand, because I have introduced my own private Member's Bill, that the promoter is not obligated to provide a regulatory impact assessment, economic impact assessment or environmental impact assessment, but every time that someone asks for a new public holiday—whether Trafalgar day or some other day—the CBI rushes forward with some figure of billions of pounds that it will cost the economy. I presume that there is a standard figure, whereby a day's public holiday costs X billion pounds—the hon. Gentleman does not have to do the calculation himself but just ring up one of his mates at the CBI who could tell him. I would have expected to know such a figure. I will not vote for any legislation today that makes a commitment to have a public holiday when I have no idea what the cost to the British economy might be. It would have helped the hon. Gentleman's case if he had been able to provide an explanatory note or impact assessment saying what the cost would be.
  Of course, that only follows from the second of the three interpretations, which is that it should be a new public holiday. My first reading was that the referendum must take place on a day that is already a public holiday, which was my hon. Friend's understanding when he was looking to have it on Christmas day. Whether it is option one, two or three, it is simply not clear. The hon. Gentleman said that it was perfectly clear and then used a completely different formula and set of words, which, to his credit, were crystal clear, but they were not what is in the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we should bring forward an amendment in Committee. I hope that somebody, somewhere, is making a tally of all the amendments that must be tabled in Committee—my hon. Friend on the Front Bench might be doing that. It is not treating the House with contempt, but it is stretching the patience of the House to introduce legislation that is so flawed that, before we have even reached Committee, it requires a string of amendments. Under these circumstances, all that we can say is that the Bill has become nothing more than a long string of amendments held together with a few standard clauses, which is simply not acceptable and simply should not be given a Second Reading.
  Mr. Dismore: Did not the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) give the game away when he made a passing reference to the Electoral Commission, saying that it could be involved further down the line? If

  601
  he was serious about legislating, surely he should have consulted the commission before drafting the Bill to make sure that it did not contain so many flaws.
  David Cairns: Absolutely.
  We have discussed the flaws relating to the issue of adoption and the insertion of words that fetter the Electoral Commission, which was probably not even consulted. The next major flaw lies in the wording of the referendum question. I suspect that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon—or the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, if he drafted the Bill—tried hard to think of wording that was studiously neutral. Speaking as one who would be more inclined to vote yes than no, I do not consider this wording to be studiously neutral. My hackles are raised by the word "bound". Voters are to be asked:
  "Should the United Kingdom be bound by the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?"
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) also felt that the question was not entirely even-handed and free from bias.
  Those of us who think that the British people should be given the final say cannot support the Bill. We did not observe the process that created that question. How did it come about? Who was consulted? What are the precedents? Is the question modelled on referendum questions that have been asked in Britain, or across Europe? There may be perfectly good answers to all those queries, but I do not know what they are, and in a speech lasting an hour and 10 minutes the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon left us none the wiser. Unless we gain some understanding of where the question has sprung from, I shall certainly not be minded to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. Dismore: One body that was clearly not consulted is the Plain English Campaign. If subjunctives are built into a question, it becomes extremely complicated. Why not simply ask, "Do you agree or not?"?
  David Cairns: I understand that a best-selling book at Christmas was about grammar. It was called "Eats, Shoots and Leaves", and concerned the apostrophe. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon might have done well to study that book before framing the question, because I think that it contains grammatical errors. I am not as concerned about grammar as my hon. Friend, who is far more learned in these matters, but I do not like the notion of being "bound" by the treaty.
  The hon. Gentleman could argue that that is precisely what the treaty does—that it does what it says on the tin—and in one sense he would be right. We should, however, bear in mind the connotations of "bound". Someone who is bound is tied up and constrained. His freedom of movement and freedom to act independently are severely limited. The hon. Gentleman may say that that is exactly what he meant. Of course it is what he meant, for it is what he believes, although it is not what I believe. His belief, either consciously or subconsciously, affected the drafting of the question. He, or perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, has allowed his better judgment to be clouded.
  602
  There are two problems with the question. First, should any question be included in the Bill? I am open to persuasion, but I think that the answer is probably no. Secondly, is this question acceptable? In my view it is biased, and designed to elicit a "No" vote. Certainly it has negative connotations. Even if I were minded to support the principle of including a question in the Bill, I would not support this question.
  Mr. Dismore: There is one good reason for not including the question. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) argued that the wording could be amended in Committee, and indeed on Report. We might find ourselves dealing with a dozen amendments with a dozen different wordings, ranging from what Conservative Members might prefer—"Do you want Britain out of Europe?"—to something more neutral, and from that to a question biased in favour of a "Yes" vote. We could debate all that for ever.
  David Cairns: That is true, and the Bill will follow the usual route of a private Member's Bill. Debates will be timetabled—which does not mean that they can go on for ever, but they will have to take place on certain days.
  I want to talk about some of the other flaws before discussing where I think the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon was wrong in his comparisons with the Americans. Clause 3(6) says:
  "The Electoral Commission shall publish a report setting out when and how the referendum shall be conducted"—
  but not the question, because that has already been decided, and actually not when it will be conducted, because it has to take place within six months of the adoption of the treaty and on a public holiday, or perhaps not. The clause says that the report should include
  "what information is to be provided to those entitled to vote."
  This is a very interesting point.
  Ms Munn: I want to clarify one issue before my hon. Friend goes into further detail. One thing that concerns me is that the Bill says that the Electoral Commission "shall publish a report". It does not say when or how soon, so we have a time scale within which the referendum has to take place but we do not have a time scale that sets out at what point before the referendum the Electoral Commission report should be published. There may be provisions that I am not aware of, but it seems that, if we want an informed debate about the referendum, there must be sufficient time for that information to be provided. I am sorry that I seem to be boring the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), but there has to be time for that information to be duly provided. If that is not sufficient, how can Parliament be satisfied that the population of Britain will have a real chance to discuss these very important issues?
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend is correct. We have three parallel timetables, three parallel universes. The first is the timetable for the agreement of the actual treaty. It may be agreed this summer. It may not be. It may be months before the thing is agreed. Let us say that it is agreed this summer. We have summer holidays. It is a very long document. It may be a long while before it is

  603
  signed. We do not know what adoption means, so we do not know when that particular timetable even starts. However, let us say that it starts in the summer. That is one hare that is off and running. The second hare that is off and running is the business of six months. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and I will not repeat the arguments. We have gone over that matter in some depth because of its importance.
  The second timetable is off and running. Because the Bill is coming through the private Members' route, it is constrained. The dates are all set out and we know that its passage could last longer than that timetable. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) has highlighted brilliantly the timetable within the timetable. We are working within a six months total. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said that six months is fair and gives us plenty of time to study and discuss all these things, but there is no timetable for when the Electoral Commission should produce that material. Within that overall six months, the commission has to do a job of work, decide what materials people need, what the format will be. Presumably, it works within its own statutes and consultation procedures. Then the report has to come back to the House. When it does so, it is laid by the Secretary of State in the form of regulations.
  That brings me to a favourite bête noire of the Opposition. They always grudgingly say, "Why are we agreeing this before we see draft regulations?" We cannot see draft regulations in respect of the provision—we cannot see any regulations—until the Electoral Commission has done its work. It writes a report. It gives it to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State drafts regulations and the regulations are considered not on the Floor of the House, where those important matters should be considered, but in Committee. However, we have absolutely no idea what they will be. We have subcontracted that to the Electoral Commission, fettering it all the way. We are being asked to give the green light to a process that deprives us of the chance to scrutinise those matters further on the Floor of the House. There is a structural flaw. Whenever the Government introduce a Bill and it is not specified when regulations will be laid and there is no concept of what will be in the regulations—they may not exist even in draft form—Opposition Members line up to condemn the Government for asking people to vote regulation-making powers through.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend may have skated over clause 3(1). Does he not find it peculiar, as I do, that the hon. Gentleman has taken the position that the electorate for the referendum should be the same as that for the European parliamentary elections? I understand that there are about 600,000 French nationals resident in the UK. If the Bill is about defending the British position in terms of the constitution, does my hon. Friend not find it peculiar that all other EU nationals will be able to vote when they may have their own national interests in the debate?
  David Cairns: I had considered that point, and I would have come to it if I had had the time.
  604
  My hon. Friend is right. The provision is peculiar. Unlike the arrangements pertaining in elections to the House, EU citizens living in the UK are entitled to vote in European elections and they would be able to vote on the binding issue of whether Britain accepted or rejected the constitution. I do not know—the question has not been answered—whether other countries would also allow someone who is resident here and on the electoral register to vote in chat country. For example, someone from Ireland might end up having two votes. They could be registered in Ireland to vote in domestic Irish elections. They would therefore have a vote in the Irish referendum, but they could be registered here for European elections because they lived here and paid taxes. They could therefore vote in two referendums and, although that might be a good thing, it is a bit odd. For the life of me, I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman has specified this electorate who are different from the electorate for UK national elections.
  Mr. Dismore: The position gets even worse. I think I am right in saying that a citizen of the EU can vote in European parliamentary elections in one country or the other, but not in both. However, if the referendums are on different days, a wealthy business man, who may have houses in six or seven different European countries or dual nationality, could hop around and vote in a series of referendums.
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend extrapolates from my basic point.
  Broadly speaking, I am pro-Europe and believe that it would be in Britain's interests to secure a constitutional treaty that respected our red line issues. That would be good for Europe and make a Europe of 25 work better than the Europe of seven or eight when many of the original treaties were drafted. I do not want to be a little Britisher on this issue, but the people who are eligible to vote in UK parliamentary elections should vote in the referendum. I am concerned about the possibility of people having serial votes around Europe and, although this may be tending towards Euroscepticism, I am concerned about hundreds of thousands of people—I am trying not to use the word "foreigners"—
  Mr. Dismore: EU nationals.
  David Cairns: I am concerned about the prospect of EU nationals who are not entitled to vote in UK parliamentary elections having a vote in the referendum.
  The timetable that the hon. Gentleman sets out is dictated by his six months and not by the scrutiny process of Parliament. Like me, my hon. Friend believes that the proper process is to secure the treaty and have it debated on the Floor of the House of Commons by elected Members of Parliament and by Lords in another place. That is when we should go to a referendum. We should not subvert that process, but the hon. Gentleman adds insult to injury by proposing that people who are not entitled to vote in UK domestic elections should be able to vote in the referendum. That is puzzling, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to address that issue.
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for more than an hour. It is St. George's day

  605
  and millions of English people want to hear the response of the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and to the many others throughout the country who are concerned about the referendum and Government contusion on the issue. Is the hon. Gentleman intent on preventing that response from taking place?
  David Cairns: I am intent on exposing the flaws in the Bill, and I am barely halfway through the process. I am sorry that I will not be allowed to do a thorough job in exposing the flaws, which is my only motivation—I do not want to prevent anyone from doing anything else.
  Mr. Dismore: Again, I can only assume that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has not contacted the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Our job in this Chamber is to scrutinise and legislate; it is not to provide vehicles for people to argue about general policy. The debate concerns this particular Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) has done the House a service by exposing the flaws in it, and I hope to continues to do so.
  David Cairns: I fully intend to do so. I am mildly hurt by the implication that the Minister has more weighty things to say about the Bill than me. I am personally grateful to him, because without his championing a previous piece of legislation, I would not even be here. As an elected Member of Parliament, my views on the Bill are as valid as anyone else's. This is a private Member's Bill, not Government legislation, and I am a Back Bencher doing my job, which I was elected to do, by making a speech exposing its flaws. There is no time limit on my speech, and I regret that I have so few minutes left, because I want to address other major flaws.
  Before moving on, I want to stick to the issue of the Electoral Commission report. Clause 3 states:
  "The Electoral Commission shall publish a report setting out when and how the referendum shall be conducted"—
  apart from the question and the date, which will already have been decided—
  "including what information is to be provided to those entitled to vote…The Secretary of State shall give effect to the provisions contained in a report of the Electoral Commission under subsection (6) by means of regulations."
  The Bill does not allow the Secretary of State to reject any of the proposals—it only allows him to give effect to them—and he is bound by the report of the Electoral Commission.
  Clause 4 states:
  "There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament"—
  taxpayers' money—
  "any expenditure of the Secretary of State in consequence of this Act".
  Let us think the Bill through. The Electoral Commission produces a report, with no timetable on when it should be produced—presumably it has its own statutory guidelines on how it consults and reports. Next, we make a report, which includes the information provided to those entitled to vote. Finally, we give that report to the Secretary of State, who enables the referendum to
  606
  happen by regulation, and the taxpayer pays for it. The Bill asks us to provide the Electoral Commission with a blank cheque.
  If the Electoral Commission were to decide that every person in the country should have a 60-minute video on Europe, for and against, that the video should be shot across the European Union, that Kevin Spacey should introduce it, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon should be in it, that it should feature the beauties of the European city of culture, which will be Liverpool in a few years' time, and that it should be narrated by Sir Sean Connery, the Secretary of State would have no say in the matter and must produce it. Who would pay for it? The taxpayer. The Bill does not state how much the referendum should cost. We are being asked to produce a blank cheque, which is irresponsible.
  The Bill has two major financial implications: one is the cost of the new bank holiday—presumably a bespoke figure for that exists in the annals of the Department of Trade and Industry, but nobody has ventured it today—the other is the blank cheque to the Electoral Commission to come up with any scheme. The Electoral Commission might decide to stage an opera about European integration and tour the country with it, and British taxpayers would have to pay. My hon. Friends laugh because they think that I overstate the case, but this deeply flawed Bill does not fetter the Electoral Commission.
  Mr. Dismore: I regret to say that my hon. Friend is overstating the case, because the regulations are subject to approval by each House of Parliament. Let us suppose that the Electoral Commission produced a silly report, which the Secretary of State would be bound to bring to Parliament. We would then have an affirmative debate in both Houses on whether it should be ratified, and Parliament would reject it, in which case we would be back to square one. If Parliament rejects the regulations, there is a lacuna in the Bill.
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend is right to interrupt my flight of fantasy and anchor me back to the real world, but he has also highlighted yet another flaw in the Bill. It does not say that the Electoral Commission shall produce a leaflet or present its report in some other limited form, nor that the Secretary of State shall reflect upon the commission's recommendations and bring forward the measures that he deems necessary for their implementation. The Bill says simply that the Electoral Commission shall produce a report, the Secretary of State shall bring that to Parliament, where it shall be implemented—or not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon points out—by means of regulation.
  Consider the impact on public opinion if the Bill were to receive Royal Assent after hundreds of MPs came in and voted for it because it reflects the will of Parliament—
  Mr. Dismore: There are not many Tories here.
  David Cairns: To be frank, there are not many on our Benches either. Suppose, in all seriousness, that we sent the Electoral Commission to do the job of work. The Secretary of State—a profoundly serious person—

  607
  would consider it, time would be spent preparing a report, which would then go to a statutory instrument Committee, where a handful of Members would decide its fate and the whole thing would grind to a shuddering halt. What would be the response not only of the rest of Parliament, which voted to set the whole train in motion, but of the people, who would see their long-promised referendum snatched away from them in a statutory instrument Committee sitting in Committee Room 13 on a wet Tuesday afternoon? Is that remotely the right way to approach the subject? Absolutely not. The Government's way is the right one—to argue for the treaty, secure the treaty, debate it on the Floor of the House, as such treaties are, and then move the debate out to the country.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's argument, but in view of the limited time, he needs to cut to the chase. I really want to hear his view on the fact that the Bill makes no reference to ensuring that Parliament can debate the substance of any constitutional treaty before it is put to the country. The Opposition want any debate to be based on the myths that they propagate, rather than on proper parliamentary scrutiny. Will my hon. Friend say where the Bill provides for full parliamentary scrutiny to enable the public to hold a proper discussion on the issues?
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That that is not the process is not an accident, an oversight, a mistake or a flaw in the Bill; it is deliberate. A six-month timetable is set out, although we are not sure when it starts, and that is the process. It does not include the people's representatives debating the matter here, on the Floor of the House where everyone has a chance to have
  608
  their say, it then going to the other place, and the debate then being taken out into the country. Parliament is deliberately set aside.
  Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  David Cairns: Not now—I have been generous.
  My point is that it is possible to be staunchly in favour of a referendum—I am and so are all my hon. Friends: we want the people to be part of the process of scrutinising the treaty—but to believe that the Bill is utterly flawed and a complete dog's breakfast. The speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon was entirely about the substance of the constitutional treaty. I suspect that he is aware—whether consciously or subconsciously—that the vehicle that he proposes to bring about a referendum is deeply flawed, which is why he has not marshalled the necessary number of troops to get it past a Division.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is correctly suggesting that the Conservatives are not intent on providing for a proper discussion, followed by a proper referendum. This country's only referendum in relation to Europe was provided by the Labour Government in 1975. The Labour party is now offering people the opportunity to take a view on a constitutional treaty. It was the Conservative party that, in the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, denied the people that opportunity. Labour trusts the people; the Conservatives never have, even though they have had the opportunity to do so.
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. That is absolutely the case. I—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 18 June.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    OLDER PEOPLE'S COMMISSIONERS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 15 October.
    Mr. John Maples: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you help me find out what methods there are to draw the attention of the public to the fact that the Prime Minister says he is in favour of a referendum, but sends his Members of Parliament to talk my Bill out, abusing the rules of the House to do so and thereby belying the honesty of his intention to hold a referendum?
    David Cairns: Further to that point of order—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I think I can deal with the point of order once and for all. That is a matter rather more of debate than for the Chair. We should now move on.

  Community Hospitals (Oxfordshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  2.31 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the important topic of community hospitals in south Oxfordshire, and I am grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity as a relatively late substitution for the original business set out on the Order Paper before the recess. I am particularly pleased to see that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), will respond to the debate. It makes a change for us to be discussing community hospitals on this occasion, rather than aspects, gruesome or otherwise, of human organs, which we have been dealing with in the Committee considering the Human Tissue Bill.
  I draw the attention of the House to proposals from the South East Oxfordshire and South West Oxfordshire primary care trusts in a pre-consultation to reduce beds and close community hospitals in the south of Oxfordshire. The proposal could affect beds in six hospitals—Witney in the west, Henley in the east, Didcot, Wantage and Wallingford hospitals towards the south and, in my constituency, Abingdon community hospital in the middle of the south of Oxfordshire.
  There is strong support for the stance that I have taken in a cross-party campaign in which people from all parties have been represented, as well as people with no strong political views. I express my gratitude for the support that the campaign has had from the hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Johnson), for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). The hon. Member for Wantage has three hospitals that could be closed under the proposals and is therefore particularly badly affected.
  In the debate, I shall highlight significant flaws in the proposals set out in the pre-consultation document and raise concerns with the Minister about the fact that such a substantial reduction in community hospital beds, with or without an increase in domiciliary care, would not benefit the Oxfordshire health economy as a whole. We must bear it in mind that the Oxfordshire health economy is in deep trouble financially and in terms of meeting the activity targets that the Government set. Many of those targets are inappropriate and distort clinical priorities, but if the Government use them to measure how well the health economy is doing, they will see that they are being met—where they are being met—only at the expense of significant overspends and enormous pressures in the system. Areas not covered by targets and the need to report are left to wither and be starved of resources.
  The health economy is facing significant challenges from the cost of implementing the GP contract and, in the acute trusts, the cost of implementing and backdating the consultant contract, because it appears that the costings for that were based on a smaller number of sessions than the average in a large teaching hospital such as the Oxford Radcliffe, where it should have been predicted that the management would find that consultant staff were working harder than management thought their contracts required. In addition, there are significant pressures to meet national service framework targets, which are some of the more rational targets, and the requirements to fund National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance for new drugs.

  611
  The Government say that there is significant growth in the budget this year—and there is—and in future years. That is something that I voted for, and which the Liberal Democrats recommended before the election rather than simply coming up with after the election. But despite that, I have been told by all sides of the Oxfordshire health economy that the cost pressures that they face, even restricting themselves to what they call the "mustdos"—the things that they have to do, not things that they want to do—come to more than the growth in the budget. That is why many of us suspect that the move to reduce the number of community hospital beds, and as a consequence of that to close hospitals, is financially driven.
  One of the problems with the consultation process has been that it is opaque on whether there is a financial motivation behind it. If there is a financial motivation, so be it, because the priorities of the health economy must be juggled, and it may be felt that it is not a false economy to reduce community hospital beds and to seek to reinvest that money in some of the must-do areas that I have described. But at the public meetings there has been a big inconsistency about whether it is financially driven or whether the idea is to close community hospitals and cut community hospital beds for the benefit of patients. That is hard to understand, but it is defended on the basis that those resources can be switched to providing increased domiciliary care, and I shall come on to the problem with that in a moment.
  If we look at the numbers that the primary care trusts in the south-east and south-west use in their south locality plan, there are real problems with even the basic assumptions. First, it is hard to find out what sort of numbers there are overall to start with, because two different figures are given in the document. In the table on page 6, 192 beds are defined as open, and then there is a proposal to reduce that overall to a total of 153, but on page 14 in the table of options at the back, which has a range of 11 options detailing various hospital closures, it suggests that there are 228 beds, of which 24 are closed. That gives a different basic start figure. Whether one includes or excludes the 15 separate beds at Townlands hospital in Henley, they still do not round down. It is worrying to people reading the document that the basis of the research behind it seems so poor that it is not clear that the people proposing this know how many beds there are in total.
  Then there are other concerns about the calculations that have been made on the need for beds. First, the beds required to cater for population growth are deemed to be an additional five on the basis of a population growth between 2001 and 2005 of 1.26 per cent. Very graciously, the authors of the document round that up to 3 per cent. because of an increase in elderly patients in particular, but we must ask why, in 2004, for a proposal that might happen in 2005, we are basing our bed numbers on a projection up to 2005. If this is really a long-term proposal, surely it is rational to go beyond 2005, even if one accepts the figures—many people recognise that there is, and will be much more significant population growth than that, including among the elderly.
  There is a proposal that beds be reduced by five through a transfer of respite care—that is, people who currently receive free NHS care on a respite basis being
  612
  forced into social services care where they will be means-tested. It says that there will be a separate consultation, and when I saw that I thought, "Quite right, so there should be." Then we find that, despite those words, there is to be no separate consultation. I question whether it is a lawful act to reprovide that service through social services without proper consultation of those involved, when one is proposing permanently to withdraw their care.
  An analysis has been done through the Jonah project, which suggests that the length of stay for patients in community hospitals can be reduced through better discharge planning—I certainly accept that—and that beds can be reduced by 25. One would like to see the detail behind that, hut it was not available online. Nevertheless, if one accepts that throughput can be increased in such a way—I do not necessarily deny that that is the case—one must recognise that the same will apply in the acute sector. Increased throughput in the acute sector will mean increased demands on the community hospital sector and other forms of intermediate care. The idea that the health economy should implement faster throughput only in the community hospitals when, if anything, there are greater efficiency gains to be made in the acute sector is wrong, but there is no area in which that is factored in.
  There is a question about the findings of the balance of care project, which looked at where people should be at any given time. In its snapshot calculations, it recognised that 21 more beds would be needed, because so many people in the acute trust and the Oxford Radcliffe hospital could be better cared for in the community hospitals and other settings. That is certainly true, but I imagine that, to anyone coming to the matter anew, the two obvious empirical factors in terms of the total number of beds needed would be the occupancy level of the existing beds, which would demonstrate whether there was spare capacity, and the waiting list for those beds.
  Those are two reasonable measures of whether current capacity is adequate, and they should be considered before deciding whether it can be slashed by 40 or 50 beds from a total of about 200, but, strangely, the document contains no data on occupancy levels, which prompts the question "Why?". I think that the reason is that such data would show that occupancy is almost 100 per cent. If occupancy were running at 70 per cent. or even 80 per cent., which is not far from the maximum optimal level in terms of ensuring that beds are available—beds are often wanted in surges from the Oxford Radcliffe hospital—one could understand the rationalisation. However, there is not 70 per cent. occupancy. One might understand rationalisation and the need for good use of resources in such circumstances, and I am not arguing in principle against any reprovision of services or cuts. However, a snapshot that I asked for, dated 9 March, shows that, of the total of about 213 beds in the six hospitals that we are talking about, out of the 185 or 190 beds in use—about 24 beds were closed at the time when the information was obtained—only six beds were available. One does not need to be an advanced-level mathematician to recognise that that is near maximum occupancy.
  I put it to the Minister that there should be no question of closing beds until it can be demonstrated that there is spare capacity, especially in respect of the

  613
  waiting lists. The Oxford Radcliffe hospital is under huge pressure, partly because of delayed discharges. Asking the hospital for its figures shows that, despite the fining arrangements that the Government have introduced, which were controversial enough, there were still 140 delays in the week starting 12 February 2004, for example. The figure was 160 for a similar week in January, so I am not simply choosing a particularly high figure.
  If one looks at the reasons for delayed discharge—clearly, not all the patients are waiting to go into community hospitals—for the Oxford Radcliffe hospital, which is the main acute hospital in the area, one sees that by far the largest reason for delayed discharge is further non-acute NHS care. Some 62 out of the 141 delayed discharges for the week ending 12 February 2004 were for further non-acute NHS care, which will generally be provided in community hospitals. When we ask the PCTs about the matter, they do not deny that there is a waiting list, and it is clear that the waits are not mainly for community hospitals in the north of the county, where there have historically been fewer community hospital beds. There are still significant numbers from the south-west and south-east areas. Indeed, the smallest number is for the north-east. Arguably, the catchment areas for four of the six hospitals are within the South West Oxfordshire PCT, whose residents have significantly greater waits for community hospitals than for hospitals in the south-east. More figures are available, but I hope that the Minister gets the picture.
  The case has not been made for a reduction in bed numbers, and the onus should be on the PCT to demonstrate the need for such a reduction because of spare capacity before it starts to suggest which hospitals should close. I suspect that the table of 11 options for closing different hospitals was an attempt to change the valid question, "Should we reduce community hospital bed numbers?" to "Which hospitals will close?" and to set one hospital against another.
  I do not dispute the need to ensure that there is more domiciliary care, and I am sure that I share with the Minister the view that domiciliary care, with assistance, is more appropriate for some patients than residential care and that it is the best option for some patients who do not need to be in a hospital setting of any kind, with the risks that that entails. One can countenance a switch of provision when shown that there would be an alternative increase in domiciliary care provision. The people to whom I have spoken, who populate the committees that have considered issuing a response to this document, share that view—they do not say that we should never close any beds—but they are concerned that the health economy and social services have to demonstrate that staff are available for domiciliary care before they start closing hospitals, which is an irreversible step.
  Although it is difficult to recruit nurses, and beds in community hospitals close partly because of that difficulty—although I think that planning blight is also a factor to bear in mind—I am told that it is even more difficult to recruit domiciliary care workers. Their job is more difficult; they receive less support because they are moving around; and of course they are paid even less than nurses in community hospitals. It is incumbent on
  614
  the health economy to show that it can afford and resource the other option before closing beds in community hospitals.
  A number of people from across the parties and of no particular political persuasion have taken a mature look at the proposals, and hospital groups have made responses to the pre-consultation document. I have met the South West Oxfordshire primary care trust, which covers my constituency, and I make no criticism, in general terms, of its leadership. They have been willing to meet me, and they have performed a pre-consultation exercise, which is more than the statutory requirement; I want to put that on the record. It is still not clear to me, however, and I am not convinced that it is clear to the PCT, what are the real reasons for making these proposals at this point, without having done the work that is required.
  I have raised the matter with the strategic health authority, asking it to take a view on whether it is appropriate to seek to reduce community hospital capacity when the Oxford John Radcliffe hospital is under enormous strain, as I think it will be for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the hospital is extremely concerned about the change, given the huge number of delayed discharges that occur due to a wait to get into a community hospital. When I worked at the John Radcliffe as a senior house officer in emergency medicine, my colleagues and I found community hospitals to be an extremely valuable source of step-down rehabilitation care, and I know that the staff still find that to be the case.
  I am now bringing the argument to a higher level, to this House and the Minister. I hope that she will recognise that this is not an antediluvian opposition to all change, but a serious worry that the change is not thought out, it is not yet justified and, financially and in terms of patient care, it will make matters worse.
  I pay tribute to the people working in community hospitals and those trying to balance the books in the health economy, but these proposals will not do, and I believe that my constituents share that view.
  2.48 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing this debate on what is obviously a matter of great concern to his constituents. I join him in paying tribute to the staff in his area, including not only those on the front line but those working in the PCT, who are obviously committed to making improvements to the local NHS.
  The hon. Gentleman expressed a number of concerns about the situation in his area. As I am sure he is aware, it is our policy, within the framework set out in the NHS plan and the "Shifting the Balance of Power" initiative, to devolve funding decisions to the front line. Oxfordshire PCTs received an extra £41.7 million this year and will receive an extra £134 million over the next three years to 2005–06. With that extra funding, it is for PCTs, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequality and modernising services. They are obviously best placed to do that because they have specialist knowledge of the local community.

  615
  As part of the modernisation programme set out in the NHS plan, many NHS economies and organisations are considering, with local stakeholders, changes to the way in which they organise their services. In doing so, they need to take a whole- systems approach that takes account of the contributions of different hospitals and primary, intermediate and social care providers. They need to work in partnership and to have genuine integration and joint planning of services.
  To help the NHS to build those local solutions, in February 2003 the Department published guidance that set out the principles and approach that should be applied to all proposals for service change, as well as the various stages of the consultation process. The initial stage should commence with the local health economy engaging stakeholders—staff, patients and the public—and, ideally, the process should end with the local health economy moving on to implementation once a preferred option is agreed: of course, that is what Ministers would prefer. There may be instances where, for example, an overview and scrutiny committee of a local council refers decisions to the Secretary of State for Health, who can then call on an independent reconfiguration panel to investigate the situation and to offer advice.
  As regards intermediate care, our policy aim is to maximise choice, control and independence for individuals, whether they live at home, in supported housing or in a care home. We know that most older people wish to live in their own homes for as long as possible, but that requires a wide range of high-quality support services and, again, good partnership between service providers.
  I am aware that a great deal of excellent work is being carried out by PCTs and social services in Oxfordshire to improve intermediate care in the county by developing services for older people that are easy to access and are provided, where possible, in people's homes, whether it be their own home or a nursing home. In Oxfordshire, primary care trusts and social services operate a pooled budget of approximately £45 million. The aim is to ensure that resources are used in the best possible way to meet the needs of older people and people with physical disabilities.
  As I said, health services will wish to respond to the changing needs of local people. I understand that that is why PCTs in the south of Oxfordshire decided to review the provision of community hospital services and intermediate care. The informal consultation paper, "South Locality Plan—The way forward for community hospital and intermediate care services", proposed options for improving levels of care, providing support to other parts of the NHS and providing sustainable services within allocated resources.
  The south Oxfordshire primary care trusts took the view that the south of the county has traditionally offered a more bed-based service, given the number of community hospitals. There are established intermediate care support services teams in the PCTs but the service is not available to all areas. I understand that the PCTs' preferred option has been to develop equitable domiciliary care services in partnership with local authorities and in line with progress in north Oxfordshire. The services have jointly developed access to care and rehabilitation, which brings together NHS
  616
  intermediate care support services arid the rapid response, re-enablement and community rehabilitation services that social services provide. The idea was to offer rapid assessment of individuals followed by intensive home support.
  In May 2003, before the informal consultation, the Oxfordshire health care system commissioned "Balance of Care", a survey of the health needs of more than 1,000 patients. Several issues were highlighted in the report that followed, including work force medical cover, emergency care, out-of-hours services and delayed discharges, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  I appreciate the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expressed about the validity of the survey and its subsequent contribution to the south locality plan. However, I understand that the aim of the informal consultation was to gather stakeholders' views. The hon. Gentleman may know that the strategic health authority currently recommends that PCTs do not proceed to formal consultation on existing options. The work is continuing with PCTs, in conjunction with the strategic health authority and local communities, including the local authority, to consider other care options for people in south Oxfordshire in the context of local community services.
  Dr. Harris: Will the Minister confirm that that means that the immediate threat to cut the number of community hospital beds and close hospitals is effectively withdrawn and that she is referring to an instruction or recommendation to the strategic health authority not simply not to consult on the matter but not to go down that path?
  Ms Winterton: Yes. The strategic health authority has recommended not to proceed with those options and to consider other options of care for people in the area. I understand that work is in progress to deal with some of the local issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
  I am advised that the strategic health authority is leading on supporting trusts in implementing the European working time directive. Trusts are promoting the "improving working lives" initiative, which encourages flexible working and the provision of opportunities for training and development. Significant effort is also being made to recruit staff to the community hospitals with a series of joint recruitment open days in some hospitals.
  As I said earlier, it is our policy that PCTs, in partnership with other local NHS trusts and the strategic health authority, decide the priorities for the NHS locally. That is where specific local knowledge and expertise lie. It is not appropriate for Ministers to decide on the direction of travel and exactly how services should be reconfigured—we have made that clear. The NHS locally should do that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who introduced a debate that is so important to his constituents, will be reassured by the points that I have made, not only about the reconfiguration of services but the action that is being taken to deal with the genuine issues that he raised.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agriculture (Environmental Damage)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on damage caused to the environment by animal agriculture. [164224]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is as follows.

  (a)Defra has commissioned a wide range of studies on this topic. These programmes and their associated studies have been addressed by "pollutant" (eg greenhouse gas, ammonia, nitrate, phosphorus) rather than by farming sector (eg animal, arable). Full details of the numerous studies, both on-going and those completed in and after 1999, can be found on http://www2.defra.gov.uk/research/project_data/subject.asp?SCOPE=0. Most of this extensive research is listed under the policy areas "Environmental Protection (Agriculture)" and "Farmland Conservation". Some of the output of this research is summarised in National Inventories for Greenhouse Gases and Ammonia.

  (b)Defra R&D programmes are subjected to periodic review (usually triennial). In addition, individual studies are subject to an expanding programme of peer review. An economic evaluation of the nitrate R&D programme was published in 2002 and can be found at http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/evaluation/nitrate/default.asp.

  Amazon Basin
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the globalised beef market on deforestation in the Amazon basin. [166834]

  Mr. Morley
  The international beef export market is expanding and Brazilian production is rising to meet demand. The vast majority of Brazil's export trade is currently with countries outside the European Community.

  We have not undertaken our own assessment of the impact of the globalised beef market on deforestation in the Amazon Basin, but we are aware of work undertaken and published on 2 April 2004 by CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research), which suggests that Brazil's beef production contribute to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

  The Government takes sustainable forest management seriously and is playing a leading role in international negotiations on forests in a number of fora, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), Forest Law Enforcement and Governance processes and the G8.
  672W
  The Government is committed to tackling illegal logging. Under EU law, a ban on the import of illegally logged timber can be imposed only at EU level. We are therefore showing leadership within the European Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) process. The FLEGT action plan includes the proposal to negotiate voluntary partnership agreements with timber producing countries. These agreements would be underpinned by a new EU import Regulation that would deny access to EU markets for illegally harvested timber from those countries.

  BACS
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress her Department has made to manage the changeover from the Bank Automated Clearing System to the new BACSTEL-IP system for electronic payments. [164328]

  Alun Michael
  Defra has been in discussion with our Bank Automated Clearing System (BACS) software provider and we have also been in communication with our sponsoring bank for BACS payments (The Bank of England). Defra will be migrating to BACSTEL-IP in accordance with the timetable issued by BACS Ltd. and guidance from The Office of the Paymaster General.

  BSE/nvCJD
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the latest evidence on the links between BSE and new variant CJD. [164072]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The research referred to is published in international scientific literature, not by the Government.

  The two latest published findings are Asante E. A. et al (2002)—the European Molecular Biology Organisation Journal, vol. 21, pp. 6358–6366 and proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA) vol. 98, pp 4142–4147. Copies of both have been placed in the Library.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the factors accounting for the trend in UK carbon dioxide emissions since 1996. [165455]

  Alun Michael
  UK emissions of CO2 in 2003 were some seven million tonnes of carbon (MtC) lower than in 1996. Broadly speaking this can be accounted for by warmer temperatures in 2003 (-4MtC), greater economic output (+29MtC), lower energy consumption per unit of economic output (-26 MtC), and lower average carbon content of fuels per unit of energy consumption (-6 MtC). The figures in brackets indicate approximately the contribution of each effect, positive and negative signs indicating respectively a contribution to higher or lower emissions.

  Chardon LL Fodder Maize
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will
  673W
  withdraw her request to the French competent authority for a variation in the conditions attached to the Part C consent for Chardon LL fodder maize. [166421]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 April 2004]: No. The consent issued by the French Authorities applies to all types of maize genetically modified with the event known as T25, not just to specific varieties, such as Chardon LL.

  Climate Change
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent estimate the Government has made of the annual costs to the insurance industry resulting from climate change. [165815]

  Mr. Morley
  According to the Association of British Insurers storm and flood insurance losses in the UK over the past five years have totalled £5 billion, twice that of previous years. At present, it is not possible scientifically, to attribute such changes and the associated weather events to climate change absolutely. However, what is clear is that the extreme weather events experienced in the UK over recent years (for example, the floods in 2000 and the hot summer in 2003) are typical of what is likely to be experienced with even greater frequency as a result of man-made climate change.

  Environment Agency
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to review the Environment Agency's pollution incident recording system. [166051]

  Mr. Morley
  I have no plans to review the Environment Agency's National Incident Recording System (NIRS).

  The Agency carries out an ongoing review of the effectiveness of the system and liaises with the user community, making changes where appropriate.

  Over the next five years, the Agency will be looking to move towards one fully integrated web-based tracking system to encompass incident reporting and enforcement.

  Environmental Problems (Costs)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Treasury on the cost to the economy of environmental problems. [166670]

  Mr. Morley
  Officials and Ministers from Defra and the Treasury frequently discuss the cost to the economy of environmental problems and how best this can be mitigated. To inform these discussions and policy development more generally Defra undertakes analysis of the economic costs and benefits of policies to protect the environment, including a continuous programme of impact assessments and an annual national survey of environmental expenditure by businesses.

  Recent examples of such discussions include the development of proposals for returning the revenue from the new landfill tax escalator to business and
  674W
  consideration of the scope for cost savings through more sustainable patterns of consumption and production.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 435W, on GM crops, whether the investigations were conducted by the Robert Koch Institute on behalf of the Syngenta Corporation. [166109]

  Mr. Morley
  The German Government has appointed the Robert Koch Institute as its competent authority under Directive 2001/18. The Institute's investigation was undertaken as the competent authority with the full co-operation of Syngenta, who hold the consent for marketing of Bt176 maize.

  Sustainable Development
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to deliver sustainable development within Government. [165657]

  Mr. Morley
  Sustainable development is the responsibility of all Government Departments, but one for which Defra takes the lead. Defra actively promotes sustainable development across Whitehall in many ways in line with the Department's primary Public Service Agreement. Current initiatives include:Annual reporting on the Government's progress towards sustainable development in the UK since the launch of the 1999 strategy for sustainable development. The 2003 "Achieving a better quality of life" report updates progress on the UK Government's l5 headline indicators of sustainable development and gives an overview of the main strategic developments and actions.
  Drawing up new UK sustainable development strategy, including a strategic framework covering both domestic and international dimensions, co-owned and agreed by the devolved Administrations and the UK Government. The consultation was launched on 21 April.
  Development of the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. This is the main vehicle for improving the way in which Government Departments manage their business operations.
  Ensuring that domestic and international sustainable development is an important consideration in HM Treasury's Spending Review 2004.
  Pursuing, along with other Government Departments, implementation of the commitments stemming from the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made on her Department's Sustainable Development Strategy. [165658]

  Mr. Morley
  Progress towards meeting the targets listed in the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate is detailed in the Sustainable Development in Government report published in November 2003.

  Sustainable development, as the Department's overarching aim, also underpins Defra's work, which is reported in the departmental annual reports.
  675W
  A review of progress on Defra's SD strategy, "Foundations for our Future", will be published later in the year. We also published a five-year review of progress on the UK Government strategy, "Achieving a better quality of life", on 16 March 2004, together with updates on the headline indicators. Defra, together with the devolved Administrations and other Government Departments, will be launching a consultation on a future UK strategy, including both domestic and international dimensions, later this month.

  Hazardous Waste
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 March 2004,Official Report, column 1621W, on hazardous waste, if she will make a statement on the (a) detection and (b) prosecution rates she expects the Environment Agency to achieve. [165295]

  Mr. Morley
  It is not possible to predict detection and prosecution rates for hazardous waste. However, Environment Agency data for prosecutions brought relating to illegal waste activity as a whole is available for the years 1999–2003 as follows:

  Year (financial)

  Number of prosecutions

  1999–2000

  366

  2000–01

  446

  2001–02

  484

  2002–03

  511

  The Environment Agency takes enforcement action against incidents and breaches of permit conditions in accordance with its enforcement and prosecution policies.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many press officers were employed in her Department in each year from 1990–91 to 2003–04; what the total cost was in each year; and if she will make a statement. [162852]

  Alun Michael
  Defra was not set up until June 2001. Figures relating to numbers of press officers employed by the organisations whose functions were subsumed into the new department would not correspond accurately to the distribution and scope of the present work areas.

  The number of press officers employed at Defra has been as follows:

  Number

  June 2001

  22

  June 2002

  22

  June 2003

  22

  As at 18 March 2004

  19

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Airs what the budget for administration was for each non-departmental public body for which she is responsible that are in the following 676W
  categories (a) public corporation, (b) executive, (c) advisory and (d) tribunal non-departmental public bodies in financial year 2002–03. [164460]

  Alun Michael
  Details of the administration costs of executive, tribunal and advisory NDPBs and public corporations are as follows:

  Executive NDPBs and Public Corporations

  Both management accounting practices and the definition of administration costs differ from organisation to organisation. Therefore comparisons between NDPBs may not be appropriate.

  Advisory and Tribunal NDPBs

  Administration costs for advisory and tribunal NDPBs include the costs of board members (fees and expenses) and any associated direct costs of running the NDPB. It does not include the costs of the secretariats within Defra.

  Administration costs of executive, advisory and tribunal NDPBs and public corporations

  £

  Administration costs

  Executive NDPBs

  Agricultural Wages Board

  129,902

  Agricultural Wages Committee

  12,547

  British Potato Council

  1,758,718

  Countryside Agency

  17,500,000

  Environment Agency

  113,000,000

  English Nature

  10,581,000

  Food From Britain

  2,059,105

  Horticultural Development Council

  257,366

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  1596,000

  Horticultural Research International

  1,667,000

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  1,344,000

  Royal Botanical Gardens—Kew

  2,281,000

  Milk Development Council

  1,035,939

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  2,200,000

  National Forest Company

  1,006,233

  Seafish Industry Authority

  1,820,000

  Wine Standards Board

  254,675

  Public corporations

  British Waterways

  28,500,000

  Covent Garden Market Authority

  1,648,467

  Advisory NDPBs

  Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment

  5,000

  Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment

  5,573

  Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances

  16,114

  Advisory Committee on Packaging

  2—

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides

  110,000

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment

  35,000

  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees

  12,849

  Air Quality Expert Group

  46,500

  Committee on Products and Processes for Use in Public Water

  Supply

  21,637

  Darwin Advisory Committee (The Darwin Initiative)

  2,750

  Expert Group on Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies

  3,425

  Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards

  3,460

  Farm Animal Welfare Council

  109,000

  Government Industry Forum on Non-Food Uses of Crops

  14,040

  Independent Scientific Group on TB in Cattle

  155,424

  Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council

  190,000

  Integrated Administration and Control System Appeals Panel

  2,750

  Pesticides Residues Committee

  28,500

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee

  148,000

  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

  440,000

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Council

  157,072

  Sustainable Development Commission

  75,839

  Veterinary Products Committee

  174,092

  Veterinary Residues Committee

  17,575

  Zoos Forum

  3,997

  677W

  Administration costs of executive, advisory and tribunal NDPBs and public corporations

  £

  Administration costs

  Tribunal NDPBs

  Agricultural Land Tribunals

  48,835

  Commons Commissioners

  29,106

  Dairy Produce Quote Tribunal

  0

  Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal

  30

  1 Estimated figure to reflect the costs of internal administration.

  2 No information.

  3 There was no call on the services of the tribunal in 2002–03.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management will take evidence from the relevant bodies in(a) Sweden, (b) Finland and (c) the USA. [159024]

  Mr. Morley
  CoRWM is an independent Committee and will gather information from any organisations it considers relevant.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many formal complaints were made against the Rural Payments Agency's Northallerton office in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [164597]

  Alun Michael
  Complaints against the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) are interpreted as complaints in respect of decisions made under the Common Agricultural Policy schemes which it administers. Such complaints are therefore recorded against scheme type and not on a site by site basis.

  Defoliation of all species by classes and class aggregates (2002)

  Participating Countries

  Area surveyed (1,000 ha)

  No. of sample trees

  0 none

  1 slight

  2 moderate

  3+4 severe and dead

  2+3+4

  Albania

  1,028

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Austria

  3,481

  7,029

  60.2

  29.6

  8.5

  1.7

  10.2

  Belarus

  7,845

  9,690

  34.9

  55.6

  8.2

  1.3

  9.5

  Belgium

  691

  3,079

  38.7

  43.5

  16.1

  1.7

  17.8

  Bulgaria

  3,314

  5,303

  24.1

  38.8

  29.9

  7.2

  37.1

  Croatia

  1,175

  1,910

  38.4

  41.0

  18.6

  2.0

  20.6

  Cyprus

  138

  360

  30.8

  66.4

  2.8

  0.0

  2.8

  Czech Republic

  2,630

  7,013

  11.6

  35.0

  52.7

  0.7

  53.4

  Denmark

  468

  480

  61.5

  29.8

  7.3

  1.4

  8.7

  Estonia

  2,249

  2,169

  45.9

  46.5

  6.6

  1.0

  7.6

  Finland

  15,006

  8,593

  54.6

  33.9

  10.5

  1.0

  11.5

  France

  13,100

  10,355

  40.1

  38.0

  20.3

  1.6

  21.9

  Germany

  10,264

  13,534

  35.1

  43.5

  20.0

  1.4

  21.4

  Greece1

  2,512

  1,768

  42.1

  37.0

  16.6

  4.3

  20.9

  Hungary

  1,804

  26,921

  38.1

  40.7

  16.0

  5.2

  21.2

  Ireland

  399

  424

  43.9

  35.4

  16.0

  4.7

  20.7

  Italy

  7,699

  7,165

  20.3

  42.4

  33.4

  3.9

  37.3

  Latvia

  2,902

  8,682

  19.8

  66.4

  12.0

  1.8

  13.8

  Liechtenstein

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Lithuania

  1,858

  5,162

  16.4

  70.8

  9.6

  3.2

  12.8

  Luxembourg

  84

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Rep. Of Moldova

  318

  11,489

  25.2

  32.3

  32.6

  9.9

  42.5

  The Netherlands

  210

  231

  57.1

  21.2

  20.4

  1.3

  21.7

  Norway

  12,000

  7,421

  35.0

  39.5

  22.0

  3.5

  25.5

  Poland

  6,868

  24,580

  8.8

  58.5

  30.7

  2.0

  32.7

  Portugal

  3,233

  4,350

  47.8

  42.6

  8.9

  0.7

  9.6

  Romania

  6,244

  104,366

  62.7

  23.8

  12.0

  1.5

  13.5

  Russian Federation3

  6,315

  4,144

  37.9

  51.2

  10.2

  0.7

  10.9

  Serbia/Montenegro4

  —

  1,104

  80.8

  15.3

  3.7

  0.2

  3.9

  678W
  The RPA could not extrapolate the data required to break this figure down to site level without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are being implemented by the Environment Agency to ensure that all timber used on the construction sites of new offices will come from legal and sustainable sources, and if she will list those sites. [166717]

  Mr. Morley
  The procurement by the Environment Agency of sustainably managed timber is reported publicly at quarterly Board meetings and in the Agency's Annual Environmental Report. Preliminary indications are that in 2003–04, all of the timber used was from a sustainably managed source.

  The Agency is currently having a new leasehold office built to its requirements at Wallingford, near Oxford.

  Trees
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of trees(a) had full crowns, (b) had slight defoliation, (c) had moderate defoliation, (d) had severe defoliation and (e) were dead in the most recent survey of tree health in Europe under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution, broken down by country. [165742]

  Mr. Morley
  The results of the 2002 Large-scale Survey of Forest Condition in Europe is published by the UNECE and European Commission are shown in the table. The report did not separate the 'severe defoliation' and 'dead' categories.
  679W

  Defoliation of all species by classes and class aggregates (2002)

  Participating Countries

  Area surveyed (1,000 ha)

  No. of sample trees

  0 none

  1 slight

  2 moderate

  3+4 severe and dead

  2+3+4

  Slovak Republic

  1,961

  4,207

  17.3

  57.9

  23.3

  1.5

  24.8

  Slovenia

  1,099

  936

  32.3

  39.6

  24.2

  3.9

  28.1

  Spain

  11,588

  14,880

  24.2

  59.4

  13.2

  3.2

  16.4

  Sweden

  20,600

  16,671

  49.2

  35.0

  13.4

  2.4

  15.8

  Switzerland

  1,186

  1,064

  23.4

  58.0

  11.7

  6.9

  18.6

  Turkey

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Ukraine

  1,285

  1,204

  8.9

  63.4

  23.8

  3.9

  27.7

  United Kingdom

  2,156

  8,532

  27.3

  45.4

  25.7

  1.6

  27.3

  1Excluding Maquis.

  2No survey in 2002.

  3Only regional surveys in north-western and central European parts of Russia.

  4Montenegro only.

  Waste
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on projects her Department supports which aim to produce road fuel from waste material. [162255]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not support financially any projects which aim to produce road fuel from waste material.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the effect of new legislation on current methods of disposing of farm waste plastics. [162256]

  Mr. Morley
  Plastic packaging waste from farms is already subject to the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) which encourage the reuse of packaging where possible and require businesses to recover and recycle packaging waste to target levels.

  Waste from premises used for agriculture is currently excluded from national waste management controls by section 75(7)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Draft regulations and an associated consultation document are being drafted for publication later in the spring and the consultation will include proposals for a producer responsibility scheme for increasing the collection and recycling of non-packaging agricultural waste plastic.

  Currently the majority of agricultural waste plastic is disposed of by burial in un-licensed "farm tips" or by unregulated open burning with consequential risks to the environment and human health. The proposed regulations will prohibit the on-farm disposal of agricultural waste without a waste management licence or a registered licence exemption. Waste agricultural plastic will have to be disposed of or recovered in appropriately licensed or registered sites in line with other sectors of industry.

TRANSPORT

  Airport Capacity (South-East)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether comprehensive simulation of the airspace management implications of possible runway development options for the south east of England was undertaken prior to the publication of the Aviation 680W
  White Paper on 16 December 2003; and what plans (a) National Air Traffic Services and (b) the Civil Aviation Authority have to undertake such a simulation. [166544]

  Mr. Darling
  Pursuant to my answer of 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 307W, I referred to the level of airspace modelling work that the Department commissioned CAA-DAP and NATS to carry out as part of the SERAS Study in advance of the White Paper. The primary objective of this work was to simulate several airport development scenarios to assess whether the London airspace system could accommodate runway capacities of the order envisaged by the development options.

  However, now that the White Paper has been published, it is necessary to move from simulations to develop a comprehensive redesign of London's airspace. Paragraph 12.26 of the White Paper confirms that the Government looks to CAA to make early progress in bringing forward a structured programme for this work. The White Paper also makes it clear that CAA will need to involve NATS in working up its detailed proposals.

  Refuelling Depots
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many liquefied petroleum gas refuelling depots there were in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [167233]

  (2) how many compressed natural gas refuelling depots there were in the UK in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [167234]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table shows, for the UK, the number of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) refuelling sites in the last five years and the number of publicly accessible compressed natural gas refuelling sites in the last three years.

  Year

  Liquefied petroleum gas refuelling sites1

  Compressed antural gas refuelling sites2

  1999

  285

  N/a

  2000

  610

  N/a

  2001

  1000

  13

  2002

  1200

  14

  2003

  1272

  19

  1Liquid Petroleum Gas Association

  2Natural Gas Vehicle Association

  681W
  The Government is committed to the uptake of alternatively fuelled vehicles. Government grants are provided for the purchase of both LPG and natural gas vehicles and the installation of refuelling infrastructure under the Powershift programme. Further Government support is provided for alternatively fuelled vehicles through reduced fuel duty for road fuel gases and reduced Vehicle Excise Duty. Alternatively fuelled vehicles may also be exempt from the London congestion charge.

  Vehicle Use
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes there have been to the amount of vehicle kilometres travelled over the last five years within(a) the North Somerset local authority and (b) Weston-super-Mare. [167526]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Traffic estimates for counties and unitary authorities have been published on my Department's web site. These show that there was an estimated 14 per cent. increase in vehicle kilometres in North Somerset between 1997 and 2002, the latest year for which figures are available. The corresponding information for district authorities, including Weston-super-Mare, is not available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money her Department has invested in renewable energy in Liverpool from 1997 to 2003. [166954]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2003 the Department awarded a capital grant of £10 million to Seascape Energy towards the costs of developing the Burbo Bank offshore wind farm in Liverpool Bay.

  In 1999, Mersey Docks and Harbour Company were awarded a contract under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) arrangements for electricity to be generated from six 600 kW wind turbines in Seaforth Dock.

  A grant of £94,647 was awarded under the DTI's PV Domestic Field Trial to CDS Housing for a project at Pinehurst Estate, Liverpool.

  A grant of £11,759 was awarded to Cosmopolitan Housing Association under stream 1 of the DTI's Photovoltaic (PV) Major Demonstration Programme for a project in Liverpool.

  A grant of £1,250 was awarded to Liverpool county council under the DTI's Clear Skies scheme for a community project in Liverpool.

  Some initiatives relating to the North West region as a whole may result in benefits for Liverpool. In 2000–01, the DTI contributed £50,000 towards a study of the potential for renewable energy throughout the North West region. Between 2002–04, the DTI contributed £208,060 towards a regional renewable energy planning facilitation fund administered through the Government Office for the North West.
  682W
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to differentiate between offshore and onshore wind farms in the subsidy system for selling renewable obligation certificates. [165518]

  Mr. Timms
  None.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effects of recent trends in investment in renewable energy upon residents of Burnley. [168305]

  Mr. Timms
  Recent trends in renewable energy investment have been highly encouraging. More new capacity has been constructed in the last few years than in the previous decade, and a significant amount is currently in the pipeline. This covers a wide range of technologies including onshore and offshore wind, solar and biomass.

  Whilst this investment has not translated into capacity within Burnley itself, there are wind farm developments, both constructed and proposed, in the surrounding area. There is the 9.6 MW 24 turbine development at Coal Clough, built in 1992. The application for the Hameldon Hill wind farm, a 3 turbine 5 MW development has recently been approved on appeal.

  Overseas Trade
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will break down the UK's trade figures with(a) China and (b) Taiwan in the past 12 months into (i) imports and (ii) exports. [165860]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on UK imports and exports of goods, from and to China and Taiwan, is given in the following table.

  align="right">£ million1

  China

  Taiwan

  UK imports

  UK exports

  UK imports

  UK exports

  2003

  February

  601

  150

  185

  68

  March

  626

  153

  185

  65

  April

  657

  191

  175

  87

  May

  675

  181

  186

  68

  June

  684

  157

  176

  65

  July

  622

  155

  181

  74

  August

  723

  165

  187

  68

  September

  745

  134

  180

  78

  October

  749

  180

  182

  82

  November

  773

  149

  170

  87

  December

  794

  193

  175

  82

  2004

  January

  791

  128

  182

  72

  1Seasonally adjusted

  >Source:

  >Business Monitor MM24, Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics, ONS

  Post Office (Closures)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the post offices which have been closed since 1907 in the Carshalton and Wallington constituency; and when each closed. [167649]
  683W
  Mr. Timms
  Decisions on post office closures are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Post Office Network
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to make an announcement on the future of the rural post office network subsidy. [168226]

  Mr. Timms
  The Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) report on the future of the post office network recommended that the Postal Services Commission should advise the Government on the main options for the policy framework after 2006. The Government is currently considering the advice and will take decisions on the shape of the rural post office network after 2006 in good time to allow for a smooth transition from the current support arrangements.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) rural and (b) urban post offices have (i) closed and (ii) been opened since 1997. [168227]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that details of net post office closures in the United Kingdom, recorded by urban/rural classification are only available from March 2000 and are as follows:

  Post office closures

  Urban

  Rural

  2000–01

  106

  441

  2001–02

  68

  194

  2002–03

  1230

  115

  1Includes 102 closures under the urban network reinvention programme.

  Post Office Ltd. is yet to report a detailed breakdown of closures for the financial year 2003–04. The latest quarter for which information on post office closures is available (December 2003)—reveals that net closures were as follows:

  2003–04–to end of December 2003

  Urban

  Rural

  1642

  132

  1Includes 592 closures under the urban network reinvention programme.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of rural post offices protected from closure by the rural network subsidy. [168228]

  Mr. Timms
  No such estimate has been carried out. All rural sub-post offices benefit from the Government's package of support which is used to maintain the 'Assigned Office Payments' to sub-postmasters and to fund the front-line services necessary for each and every post office to operate—for example IT and cash. Without Government support, large parts of the rural network would have faced closure.

  The funding ensures that, at least until 2006, Post Office Ltd. can maintain the rural network and prevent avoidable closures. Nevertheless, some closures are
  684W
  inevitable, for example where a sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress retires and no one can be found to take on the service. However, where a rural office closes permanently, alternative forms of providing the post office service in that area will be explored.

  Royal Mail
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims for compensation were made and how much Royal Mail Group paid in compensation in each year since 1997 in respect of(a) first class, (b) second class, (c) special delivery next day, (d) special delivery 9.00 am, (e) recorded signed for and (f) standard parcels mail which was (i) delayed and (ii) severely delayed; and how many claims were made, and how much was paid in compensation, in each year since 1997 for (A) damage to valuable mail, (B) consequential loss and (C) delay to bulk mailings. [168671]

  Mr. Timms
  Compensation claims are an operational matter for Royal Mail Group and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Utility Companies
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints were received by Energywatch on switching energy suppliers in the last year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [167772]

  Mr. Timms
  During 2003, 3.1 million domestic gas customers and 4.2 million domestic electricity customers changed their suppler. In that period, Energywatch received 22,437 complaints from domestic consumers about the transfer process, including complaints about both erroneous transfers and problems in switching supplier. The gas and electricity industry, with the involvement of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) and Energywatch, and with the encouragement of DTI, is currently engaged in a three-stage programme to establish the causes of difficulties within the transfer process and identify and implement solutions.

  Vessel Procurements
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which sea-going vessel procurements she is considering; when she plans to issue invitations to tender; and whether the procurement will be limited to the UK for strategic reasons. [166539]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The General Lighthouse Authorities (GLAs) are developing proposals for the procurement of two multi-function tenders and a rapid response vessel to replace three of the GLAs1 current tenders. It is too early to know when invitations to tender will be issued or how and when the build contract will be placed.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been provided in capital grants to(a) off-shore and (b) onshore wind farms since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [168055]
  685W
  Mr. Timms
  Since 1997, the Government have committed £117 million in grant support to early off-shore wind farm development. No direct grant support has been provided for on-shore wind farm development.

DEFENCE

  Airfield Support Services Project
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on ensuring that the Airfield Support Services Project solution is compatible with the modernisation agenda for fire services. [167251]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been no formal discussions between the Ministry of Defence and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the compatibility of the Airfield Support Services Project (ASSP) with the modernisation agenda for the Fire and Rescue Service.

  The ASSP will be sufficiently flexible to adapt to any changes that might be brought about as a result of the modernisation programme.

  Funding
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) resource and (b) capital expenditure was vired from RfR1 to RfR2 in the most recent financial year for which figures are available, in (i) cash and (ii) resource terms. [167047]

  Mr. Ingram
  Outturn for 2003–04 is not yet available. No funds were vired from RfR1 to RfR2 during 2002–03.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the amounts of reparations that have been paid to Iraqis. [166927]

  Mr. Ingram
  Reparations are the compensation extracted as an indemnity from a defeated nation by the victors. Neither Iraq nor the United Kingdom has sought or paid reparations to the other.

  Land Mines (Cress)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has evaluated on genetically modified cress that changes colour when it comes into contact with landmine explosives. [166846]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is not currently involved in any research into mine detection using genetically modified cress.

  A Danish company, Aresa Biotechnology, has developed a genetically modified cress plant that changes colour in response to nitrogen dioxide, which is sometimes a by-product of degrading explosives, in soil. The colour change has the potential to indicate the presence of mines, although not in all cases.

  The MOD continues to monitor the progress of this research as it develops.

TREASURY

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Burnley have received child tax credit. [167906]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on 15 March 2004,Official Report, column 98W.

  Gift Aid
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) pursuant to the answer of 30 March 2004,Official Report, columns 1350–51W, on Gift Aid, how many responses his Department received to the original consultation that followed the pre-Budget report; [166990]

  (2) whether an assessment was made of the additional income that would be raised from the proposed changes to Gift Aid rules on clay memberships, based on the responses received from charities in the original consultation that followed the pre-Budget report. [166991]

  John Healey
  Inland Revenue received 57 responses during the original consultation period. These came from charities, representative bodies and associations and other interested parties.

  Tax reclaimed on so called "day memberships" using the Gift Aid scheme is not differentiated from tax reclaimed on other Gift Aid donations, so it is not possible to estimate the saving to the Exchequer of ending Gift Aid on admission charges. Information supplied during the original consultation would not enable an assessment to be made. However, the purpose of this measure is not revenue-raising, but is about maintaining the principles of Gift Aid as a scheme designed to encourage donations to charity.

  Income Tax (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many senior citizens in Manchester Gorton qualified for the 10p rate of income tax in each year since its introduction. [167472]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reliable information is not available. The sample size of pensioners living in the Manchester Gorton constituency is relatively small compared to other constituencies in the Survey of Personal Incomes.

  IT Equipment (Tax Exemption)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses in Burnley have benefited from the 100 per cent. tax exemption for the purchase of computer and internet equipment. [167907]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is not available.

  Self-Assessment
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance his Department issues to individuals who make a mistake when completing an on-line self
  687W
  assessment tax return because of misunderstanding whether the form P60 refers to gross or net income. [160102]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue provides no specific guidance to individuals who make a mistake when completing an on-line self assessment tax return because of misunderstanding whether the form P60 refers to gross or net income but online help is available when completing the boxes relevant to information on P60.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints he has received over problems with the operation of the on-lint self assessment tax return form. [160103]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has received four complaints in connection with the operation of the on-line self assessment tax return form since 6 April 2003.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has carried out of the amount of tax due in respect of taxpayers who have failed to return self-assessment forms over the last five years. [166420]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to calculate an accurate figure of the amount of tax due in respect of taxpayers who have failed to re turn self-assessment forms. The Inland Revenue have launched a three-year initiative to recover outstanding tax returns and any 688W
  associated tax due from taxpayers who have failed to file, concentrating on cases where, on past history, there appears likely to be tax due.

  Senior Citizens (Burnley)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many senior citizens in Burnley qualified for the 10p rate of income tax in each year since its introduction. [167905]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All income taxpayers benefit from the 10p starting rate. The Survey of Personal Incomes estimates there are about 4,000 and 5,000 state retirement pension age taxpayers in the Burnley constituency in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively. Figures for 1999–2000 are currently not available.

  Tax Exemptions (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses in Manchester Gorton have benefited from the 100 per cent. tax exemption for the purchase of computer and internet equipment. [167474]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax returns have been issued to trustees of pension schemes who carry no tax liability or refund in each tax year since 1997. [167584]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not available.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many injunctions for antisocial behaviour from tenants have been requested by Merseyside's local authorities in the past 12 months. [165916]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not request that local authorities supply information on the number of injunctions they seek relating to the antisocial behaviour of tenants.

  Asbestos
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the buildings occupied by his staff, including agencies, which require(a) remedial work on and (b) the removal of asbestos; what that work will cost; what budgets are available for this work for (i) 2004 and (ii) 2005; and what budget is available for future asbestos surveys. [159363]

  Yvette Cooper
  Asbestos surveys undertaken in accordance with the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 have revealed that the following buildings occupied staff of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, including agencies, contain asbestos-based materials:Ashdown House, Victoria Street, Westminster.
  Fire Service College, Moreton-in-Marsh, Gloucestershire.
  Government Office for London, Riverwalk House, Westminster.
  Government Office for the North East—Wellbar House, Newcastle.

  The Budget allocated for asbestos removal and remedial action is:
  2004–05–£800,000
  2005–06–£0

  The budget figure of £800,000 in 2004–05 is for asbestos removal from Riverwalk House. Although the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has overall responsibility for this building, the Government Offices carry out functions on behalf of 10 Departments.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not allocated specific funds for future asbestos surveys; these will be funded from existing maintenance budgets.

  Computer Services
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to update computer(a) hardware and (b) software standard packages used in his Department. [166360]

  Yvette Cooper
  Plans to update computer hardware and software packages used by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are covered by our Corporate Information and Communications Technology Strategy and underpinned by Service level Agreements with our IT suppliers.
  690W
  Over the next year we will be upgrading our corporate desktop software from Microsoft NT to Microsoft XP. Our computer hardware is upgraded as part of a rolling equipment upgrade and replacement programme for obsolete equipment.

  Development Planning
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will set out a timetable for the revision of planning guidance notes into planning policy statements; what his policy is on reallocation of land zoned for employment, industrial and commercial development into residential land; and what action he is taking to ensure that each authority provides sufficient affordable housing. [166944]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to make an announcement shortly on the timetable for the revision of Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG) into Planning Policy Statements (PPS).

  In July 2003, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published the consultation document 'Supporting the delivery of new housing'. This proposed to add new policy to PPG3: Housing requiring local planning authorities to consider favourably applications for housing development on allocated unneeded industrial and employment sites unless it can be demonstrated that the site is still needed for that purpose or that it would undermine the planning for housing strategy. This would complement paragraph 42 of PPG3 which expects local authorities, when revising their plans, to review all their non-housing allocations, including those for employment, and consider whether some of this land might better be used for housing or mixed use developments.

  The consultation closed on 31 October 2003. Our aim is to publish the final policy in the summer, alongside practice guidance to help local planning authorities in reviewing employment land allocations.

  The "Sustainable Communities Plan" (published on 5 February 2003) set out a comprehensive programme of action to increase the provision of affordable housing, including a large increase in expenditure. £3.3 billion is being provided for the Housing Corporation's programme over the next two years (2004–06). This will provide funding for 67,000 new affordable homes for both rent and low cost home ownership.

  Also in July 2003, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published the consultation document 'Influencing the size, type and affordability of housing'. It proposed that local planning authorities should address the housing requirements of the whole community by ensuring a better match between a community's housing needs and supply, and that all local planning authorities must have policies on affordable housing to help deliver affordable housing where it is needed. We aim to publish the final update in the autumn, alongside practice guidance.
  691W
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 16 December, 2003, Official Report, column 856W, on the mechanism for monitoring local planning authority performance and the actions that could be taken where their policies are not having the desired effect.

  Homelessness
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the Answer of 9 March 2004,Official Report, columns 1440–1W, on homelessness, if he will introduce best value performance indicators on (a) homelessness prevention and (b) tenancy sustainment. [166128]

  Yvette Cooper
  A review of the Best Value Performance Indicators is currently being taken forward in order to ensure that they reflect the key national and local priorities, and accurately inform Comprehensive Performance Assessment ratings. As part of that review, we are considering whether there is a need for extra homelessness related performance indicators in addition to those which are already in place.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the actual expenditure of the Housing Corporation was over the last 10 years; and what its budget is for the next three years. [166894]

  Keith Hill
  The expenditure by the Housing Corporation over each of the past 10 years is tabled as follows, together with the indicative budget for 2004–05 and 2005–06. The figures do not include spending on the Housing Corporation's administration.

  Housing Corporation Expenditure

  Total (£ million)

  1993–94

  2,297.80

  1994–95

  2,038.40

  1995–96

  1,722.60

  1996–97

  1,608.20

  1997–98

  1,298.80

  1998–99

  1,217.00

  1999–2000

  1,300.00

  2000–01

  1,374.20

  2001–02

  1,387.40

  2002–03

  1,712.90

  2003–04 (Provisional outturn)

  2,059.95

  2004–05 (Budget)

  1,660.61

  2005–06 (Budget)

  1,680.74

  Note:

  Figures for 2001–02 to 2003–04 include expenditure on the Starter Home Initiative and the Safer Communities Supported Housing. Budgets for 2006–07 are subject to the outcome of the 2004 Spending Review. The Housing Corporal ion Final Accounts for 2003–04 are expected to be published in June.

  Land Searches
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of local authorities are able to undertake land searches electronically; and when this is expected to be extended to all authorities. [166892]
  692W
  Phil Hope
  For land searches to be carried out electronically, local authorities must first have set up electronic Local Land and Property Gazetteers (LLPGs). All authorities in England have been encouraged to set these up as part of their individual programmes to electronically enable 100 per cent. of their priority services by 2005. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Local e-Government programme is helping local authorities to achieve this target, in particular by allocating a flat rate grant of £200,000 per annum in 2002 and 2003 to each authority submitting a satisfactory Implementing e-Government (IEG) statement. The IEGs submitted in 2003 indicated that on average every authority would have electronically enabled 66 per cent. of their priority services by March 2004; most authorities indicated that they would have electronic LLPGs by that date.

  Local authorities have also been encouraged to have automated links with the National Land Information Service (NLIS), which is an electronic search engine intended to be a one-stop shop for information about land and property in England and Wales. It was developed in the 1990s by a group of public sector bodies, but was transferred in 2000 to the Local Government Information House (LGIH), a private, wholly-owned subsidiary of the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA), to take forward. The IDeA has told us that by January 2004, two-thirds of authorities in England and Wales had enabled electronic responses to searches via NLIS. It is important to note, however, that authorities do not have to be linked to NLIS to offer searchers an electronic search option.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total amount of section 106 payments for the last year in which figures were available was; what his estimate is of the percentage of section 106 payments likely to be transferred to the new tariff system when it is introduced; what his estimate is of the compliance cost of the new tariff system; and when he expects to publish all of the regulations relating to the tariff system. [166888]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not currently collect statistics centrally for total amounts secured through section 106 payments, and could therefore provide this information only at disproportionate cost. It is not possible to say what percentage of planning obligations will be covered by the proposed optional planning charge, as it will be for individual applicants to choose whether or not they want to pursue this option. While we accept that setting up a charge system could lead to an increased burden on local planning authorities in the short term, this should be more than, offset by the longer term pay-off in being able to process individual planning obligations much more quickly and efficiently.
  693W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister aims to consult on its draft revised policy and draft regulations later this year.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last used a train in connection with his ministerial duties. [167422]

  Yvette Cooper
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister travels by train regularly on official business. He last travelled by train on official business from London to York on Thursday 22 April 2004.

  All travel by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the "Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers", copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  New Deal for Communities
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the value of the contract given to the National Evaluation Team for the New Deal for Communities was; and if he will make a statement on its work. [166908]

  Yvette Cooper
  The value of the contract between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and a consortium led by Sheffield Hallam University for the interim phase of the national evaluation of the New Deal for Communities programme is £16.4 million. The contract covers work on the national evaluation to the end of September 2005.

  The national NDC evaluation is supporting the work of the 39 individual NDC Partnerships, the nine respective Government Offices and the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit by providing evidence about how well the NDCs are delivering against their outcome targets.

  For each of the 39 NDCs, the evaluation is providing an initial baseline household survey, a follow-up survey two years later and annual detailed reports on a wide range of process issues, such as community engagement and mainstreaming. In addition, the evaluation is providing NDC-area specific analysis of administrative data from DWP, DH, DfES and the Home Office, among others The annual NDC reports inform the Government Office reviews of the Partnerships and are collated into an annual NDC programme-wide report. The 2002–03 NDC evaluation report was published in October last year.

  The report of the interim evaluation, due in mid-2005, will provide detailed evidence of how much progress each of the 39 NDCs has made in closing the gap between conditions in the partnership neighbourhood and the wider district and identify the critical success factors and barriers to performance.

  Non-domestic Hereditaments
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many non-domestic hereditaments with a rateable value of(a) less than £8,000, (b) between £8,001 and £25,000 and (c) over £25,001 there were in each billing authority in the last year for which figures are available. [167502]
  694W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested has been made available in the Library of the House.

  Planning
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average amount of time taken by his Department to give permission for planning to go ahead was in(a) 2003 and (b) 1997. [168276]

  Keith Hill
  The average time taken to grant planning permission was 24 weeks in 2003 and 25 weeks in 1997.

  Public Lavatories
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the valuation of public lavatories is affected by(a) usage and (b) takings. [165936]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The valuation for rating of public conveniences is normally reached taking account of the cost of construction and making allowance for obsolescence, expense of upkeep and location.

  (a) The number of persons using a public lavatory will depend on its location. A town centre convenience is likely to have greater usage than one in a remote location. In some coastal resorts, public lavatories may be used relatively intensively during the summer but closed altogether in the winter. The valuation of a public convenience is unaffected by usage. It is valued by reference to the cost which the occupier would otherwise incur if it had to construct an alternative facility. The cost of providing a facility which is intensively used is no greater than that of providing a facility which is less used, or used only seasonally. Exceptionally, instances have arisen where conveniences have been permanently closed at or before the relevant valuation date, and are thus not used at all in such cases the Valuation Office Agency's Rating Manual recommends that no value is assessed.

  The VOA recognises that in some instances local authorities may be operating public conveniences where, in present circumstances, the cost of provision would not be justified. In such cases, current capital cost may be a doubtful indication of value. The VOA has addressed this by applying an age-related scale of obsolescence allowance, which is more generous than applied to other classes of property valued by reference to cost.

  (b) Since public conveniences are not operated for commercial profit, takings are irrelevant to valuation, and rateable value is unaffected by the absence, or presence/amount of revenue.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the(a) dates and (b) venues of all meetings open to members of the public or by special invitation held in the (i) North East, (ii) North West and (iii) Yorkshire and the Humber organised by the relevant Government regional offices to discuss the Government's proposals to establish regional assemblies at which a Government Minister spoke; what the cost was of holding each meeting; how many (A) members of the public and

  695W
  (B) invitees attended; what the schedule is for future meetings; and what the budget is for each meeting in each of the relevant regions. [165977]

  Date

  Venue

  Region

  Public

  Invitees

  Cost (£)

  4 March 2004

  Ewood Park, Blackburn

  North West

  210

  40

  5,400

  4 March 2004

  Berwick Community High School, Berwick

  North East

  55

  65

  6,600

  18 March 2004

  Pennine Theatre, Sheffield Hallam University

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  68

  67

  10,300

  25 March 2004

  University of Newcastle

  North East

  132

  88

  9,700

  1 April 2004

  Windsor Suite, Quality Royal Hotel, Hull

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  180

  170

  6,900

  5 April 2004

  Liverpool Marriott City Centre Hotel

  North West

  126

  42

  12,400

  15 April 2004

  Stonecross Manor Hotel, Kendal

  North West

  179

  31

  5,100

  Ministers have attended public meetings in Middlesbrough and Halifax on 22 April at estimated costs of £11,400 and £7,700 respectively.

  Future meetings are being scheduled, but details of these meetings have yet to be finalised.

  Date

  Venue

  Region

  Public

  Invitees

  Cost (£)

  3 November 2003

  Durham Castle

  North East

  —

  100

  Total of 25,000

  3 November 2003

  St. William's College, York

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  —

  57

  4 November 2003

  The Village Hotel, Warrington

  North West

  —

  80

  1 December 2003

  The Door, Hanover St, Liverpool

  North West

  —

  15

  —

  4 December 2003

  Town Hall, Barnsley

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  —

  31

  —

  22 January 2004

  Midland Hotel, Manchester

  North West

  —

  400

  3,200

  23 January 2004

  West Yorkshire Playhouse, Leeds

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  —

  240

  6,000

  23 January 2004

  Vermont Hotel, Newcastle

  North East

  —

  120

  6,200

  29 January 2004

  Speke, Parklands Youth Centre,

  North West

  —

  25–30

  44

  King George V College, Sefton

  North West

  —

  20

  25 February 2004

  North Manchester Chambers of Commerce, Bolton

  North West

  —

  30

  —

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total spending relating to the proposed elected regional assemblies by regional chambers has been in the(a) North West, (b) North East and (c) Yorkshire and the Humber; and, for each of these regions, what the total anticipated spending is for the period up to the regional referendums. [166561]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Regional Chambers have not spent, and will not spend, any Government grant money campaigning for, publicising or promoting the case for an elected regional assembly. They are prohibited from doing so under the terms of their funding agreements, by which they receive Government grant.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) council houses and (b) registered social landlord houses he anticipates will be built in each of the next three years. [166890]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister set out in the Sustainable Communities action plan proposals to tackle the issues including the supply of affordable housing.

  £5 billion is being invested in housing over the next two years (2004–06) and the role of the regions is being strengthened to ensure this investment is targeted more effectively on local and regional investment priorities.

  Registered Social Landlords are the main providers of affordable housing and £3.3 billion finding was recently agreed for the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme for 2004–05 and 2005–06 to
  696W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The dates, venues, audience size and cost of the Hearings in the regions attended by Ministers so far are tabled:

  In addition, the dates, venues, audience size and cost of previous meetings with an invited audience attended by Ministers, as indicated in the written statement on 3 November 2003 are tabled as follows:

  provide homes for both rent and low cost home ownership. This funding will provide around 67,000 new affordable homes in England. The number of homes to be provided in 2006–07 will be the subject of the outcome of the Spending Review 2004.

  The number of council houses built has fallen with only a small number of dwellings being provided in recent years. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not have estimates of the number of homes that will be provided by councils over the next three years. It is estimated from local authority housing investment returns that some 260 were planned to be built in 2003–04.

  Thames Gateway
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from English Heritage on development in the Thames Gateway; and if he will make a statement. [167221]

  Keith Hill
  Officials at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have met with representatives from English Heritage to discuss the Historic Landscape Characterisation assessment of the Thames Gateway that English Heritage has commissioned. The aim of this work is to help planners, developers and regeneration agencies to understand the rich historic environment that exists in the Thames Gateway, to identify the capacity that specific places have to accommodate change, and to ensure that the historic environment can be integrated into the design of new development.
  697W
  Our heritage is an essential part of creating sustainable communities that are attractive places to live and work, with a positive sense of place. Officials will continue to work closely with English Heritage on historic environment issues in the Thames Gateway.

SCOTLAND

  Fisheries
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry. [165968]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I regularly meet representatives of a wide range of organisations in Scotland, and I keep in close touch with developments affecting the Scottish fishing industry.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the benefits to Scottish fishermen of continued membership of the EU Common Fisheries Policy. [165969]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The effects of the Common Fisheries Policy are regularly monitored by the Fisheries Departments.

  Project Funding
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many(a) solely state-financed and (b) public-private partnership and private finance initiative projects for which his Department is responsible have been launched in each region in each of the last 10 years; [160967]

  (2) how much was spent by (a) the Government on solely state-financed projects and (b) the (i) Government and (ii) private sector on public-private and private finance initiative projects for which his Department is responsible, in each of the last 10 years, broken down by region. [160968]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Since its inception in 1999 the Scotland Office has been responsible for no such projects. Responsibility for solely state-funded major projects in Scotland was previously dispersed across the various Departments and agencies of the former Scottish Office and a number of Non-Departmental Public Bodies sponsored by the former Scottish Office, and subsequently transferred to the Scottish Executive. No central record of these conventionally procured projects has been kept. Information on signed private finance initiative projects is available from the HM Treasury website at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/documents/public_private_partnerships/ppp_pfi_stats.cfm

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Funding
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to make bodies which distribute arts(a) capital and (b) revenue funding more democratically accountable to the regional community in which they operate. [167288]
  698W
  Estelle Morris
  Arts Council England is the national development agency for the arts in England, distributing public money from the Exchequer and the National Lottery. The arts funding system in England has already reorganised along the lines of the Government's regional plans. On April 1 2002 the Arts Council and the 10 independent regional arts boards joined together to create a single organisation for the arts in England. Six to eight members of the 15–20 membership of the Regional Arts Councils are local authority nominees and the Chairs of the nine Regional Arts Councils are members of the National Council and form the majority of its membership of 15. This restructuring has given the regions real empowerment in decision-making and the delivery of the arts.

  Departmental Policies (Newcastle)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Newcastle, East and Wallsend constituency, the effects on Newcastle, East and Wallsend of her Department's policies and actions since 1997. [166878]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport seeks to improve the quality of life for everyone through improved access to the best in cultural and sporting activities. The Department also champions the tourism, creative and leisure industries. The Department's policies and actions have had a significant impact on the constituency of Newcastle, East and Wallsend since 1997. For example, Arts Council England funds a diverse range of arts organisations and projects in the constituency, such as Tyneside Disability Arts, Monster Productions and the Foolsyard Theatre. The constituency has received the following grants from Arts Council England since 19971

  £

  Financial year

  Number of grants

  Total amount

  1997–98

  18

  38,849

  1998–99

  3

  4,710

  1999–2000

  17

  63,124

  2000–01

  21

  71,029

  2001–02

  13

  31,282

  2002–03

  11

  50,267

  2003–04

  2

  110,000

  Total

  85

  369,261

  Since 1997, English Heritage has offered the following grants to the Newcastle East and Wallsend constituency1

  £

  Date

  Grant

  Details

  31 March 2004

  160,000

  Contribution of 19,000 towards Stage 1 project development costs for St. Michael's church, Byker, with agreement to a further £141,000 towards repairs following successful completion of Stage1.

  Total

  160,000

  The Newcastle, East and Wallsend constituency has received the following awards from the National Lottery (granted by the following distributing bodies: Arts

  699W
  Council England, Community Fund, Heritage Lottery Fund, Millennium Commission, New Opportunities Fund, Sport England and the Film Council) since 19972

  £

  Financial year

  Total amount

  1997–98

  279,481

  1998–99

  4,248,686

  1999–2000

  6,348,190

  2000–01

  3,448,016

  2001–02

  1,553,619

  2002–03

  1,781,574

  2003–04

  1,655,338

  Total

  19,314,904

  Since 1997, the constituency of Newcastle, East and Wallsend has received the following amount of European Regional Development Funds3 for cultural/sport/tourism projects:

  Financial year

  Total amount

  1997–98

  —

  1998–99

  1,987,498

  1999–2000

  42,100

  2000–01

  1,070,000

  2001–02

  —

  2002–03

  550,000

  2003–04

  —

  Total

  3,649,598

  The Department has allocated £27 million Private Finance Initiative (PFI) credits to Newcastle City Council in order to procure a new city library and three refurbished community libraries. One of these community libraries, High Heaton Library, is based in the constituency of Newcastle, East and Wallsend. The community libraries will be made fully accessible and, as well as being upgraded in terms of layout, decoration and furniture, fittings and equipment, will also enjoy re-engineered display and information facilities.

  Sport England has granted exchequer awards of £103,000 to fund Sports Development Workers promoting Active Schools Infrastructure and Equity in Sport across the City of Newcastle since 1997. The constituency of Newcastle, East and Wallsend has benefited from this funding. However, it is not possible to determine how much of this funding has gone directly to the constituency.

  Since 1997, the constituency of New-castle, East and Wallsend has benefited from various grants made by the North East Museums Libraries and Archives Council (NEMLAC) within its area. However, it is not possible to determine how much of this funding has gone directly to the constituency. Examples of this funding include:
  £10,000 to Newcastle, Gateshead, Sunderland, North and South Tyneside libraries and Tyne and Wear Archives for a joint campaign to promote heritage, local and family history services and lifelong learning opportunities in a poster campaign on the Tyne and Wear Metro;
  Under the auspices of the British Library's Reaching the Regions initiative, British Library staff worked with teachers from the North East to produce Lindisfarne Gospels school packs and
  700W
  resource boxes for distribution throughout the schools and libraries of the North East. Three of these resource boxes are located in Wallsend Library. Reaching the Regions has invested £100,000 in the North East and NEMLAC is a key partner in this venture.

  Between 1996–97 and 2002–03, the British Tourism Authority—and from 2003–04, VisitBritain—have been responsible for marketing Britain overseas as an attractive tourist destination. Grant-in-aid is not allocated in respect of individual areas of Britain, but Britain is promoted as a whole in a way that benefits Newcastle, East and Wallsend as it does the rest of the country.

  The residents of Newcastle, East and Wallsend also have ready access to a wealth of cultural institutions in Newcastle and Gateshead, including the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art, the Sage Gateshead (due to open in winter 2004) and the Discovery Museum.
  1Excluding Lottery grants.
  2The data has been derived from the Department's Awards Database and is based on information supplied by the distributing bodies.
  3One of the EU Structural Funds administered by the Government Offices.

  Museums, Libraries and Public Archives
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money the Government has allocated for libraries in Liverpool, Walton in each year since 1997. [166976]

  Estelle Morris
  Core funding for public libraries is paid to the 149 Library Authorities in England as part of the Local Government Finance Settlement administered by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It is not ring-fenced.

  The figures show the amounts allocated to Liverpool city council, or to library consortiums of which Liverpool city were partners, from the DCMS-Wolfson Foundation Reader Development Fund. These awards cannot be broken down to district level.
  1997–98: £99,887 to Liverpool city council for library refurbishment and additional facilities including adaptation for people with disabilities.
  1998–99: £98,008 for better links between Liverpool's libraries and, ultimately, schools.
  2000–01: £215,992 to the North West Libraries Book Promotion Partnership, which included all the local authorities in the NW, towards assisting socially excluded 16 to 25-yearolds with reading skills.
  2001–02: £247,435 to the North West Libraries Book Promotion Partnership towards encouraging socially excluded and other young people in reading activities.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money the Government has given to(a) museums, (b) libraries and (c) public archives in each of the last 10 years. [166725]

  Estelle Morris
  The funding given by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to museums, libraries and archives is set out in the table.
  701W

  DCMS expenditure

  £ million

  Year

  Museums

  Libraries

  Public archives

  1994–95

  225.0

  85.3

  1

  1995–96

  227.6

  85.5

  1

  1996–97

  220.9

  89.7

  1

  1997–98

  214.2

  94.0

  1.1

  1998–99

  212.4

  89.2

  1

  1999–2000

  236.5

  88.7

  1.1

  2000–01

  235.5

  91.7

  1.5

  2001–02

  251.8

  95.8

  1.4

  2002–03

  274.0

  92.1

  1.5

  2003–04

  294.5

  97.1

  10.2

  1Reflects transfer of Historic Manuscripts Commission to the National Archives.

  In addition, DCMS provides Grant in Aid to the museums, libraries and archives council, which was £13.3 million in 2003–04.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action her Department is taking to support(a) museums, (b) libraries and (c) public archives; and if she will make a statement. [166726]

  Estelle Morris
  DCMS provides both core funding for a number of key institutions, including the national museums and galleries and the British Library, and strategic support for the three sectors via the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) and its regional delivery network.

  Museums

  We are increasing our support for the DCMS-sponsored museums and galleries. Starting from the 2002 baseline, we have delivered a real-terms increase in resource grant-in-aid funding, for the larger institutions, of 1.5 per cent. in 2004–05 and 2.5 per cent. in 2005–06, and 7 per cent. in each of these two years for the smaller ones. We have also provided additional funding to help our sponsored museums carry out programmes of modernisation and reform.

  We have allocated £60 million during the 2003–06 period to a major new programme to revitalise our great regional museums, Renaissance in the Regions. This investment is already helping the participating museums provide better services to many more users, in particular enhanced educational services for children and improved links with community groups. Part of the Renaissance programme is the Designation Challenge Fund, which supports the care and interpretation of collections of national or international importance held in non-national museums.

  The Department has also doubled its contribution to the DCMS/Wolfson Museums and Galleries Improvement Fund, to provide a total fund of £4 million in this financial year, and extended the fund's coverage to museums in the regions with designated collections and museums participating in Renaissance in the Regions.

  We plan to publish a museums vision statement this summer, which will look at ways in which the Government can work more effectively in partnership with museums. We will consult the sector on how best to take this vision forward.
  702W
  Libraries

  In February 2003, DCMS published "Framework for the Future" the first-ever national strategy for public libraries. It identified three areas where libraries have great potential to go beyond their traditional roles: the promotion of reading and informal learning; access to digital skills and services including e-government; and measures to tackle social exclusion, build community identity and develop citizenship. "Framework" is intended to encourage public library services fit for the needs of 21st century users. This strategy is being delivered through MLA and its partners.

  Public Archives

  In 2002 DCMS commissioned MLA to set up an Archives Task Force which would carry out an in-depth analysis of the sector and propose a strategy for making archives better understood, better looked after and better used. The report of the Archives Task Force, "Listening to the Past, Speaking to the Future", was published by MLA in March 2004. The report makes a number of proposals, including a major new initiative to help more people access archives more easily, a greater role for archives in education, and a programme to modernise public sector archives and develop skills and expertise. DCMS will work with MLA and other partners to take forward the Task Force's proposals.

  DCMS is also active in taking steps to preserve and protect archives at risk and works to secure collections of archival importance through the Acceptance in Lieu scheme.

  Sport Funding (Liverpool, Walton)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and sport how much public funding has been spent on sport in Liverpool, Walton in each year since 1997. [166977]

  Mr. Caborn
  The amount of exchequer and lottery funding spent on sport in Liverpool, Walton in each year since 1997 is set out in this table:

  £

  Year

  Exchequer1

  Lottery

  1997–98

  10,625

  1998–99

  31,625

  1,797,913

  1999–2000

  2,527

  2000–01

  276,990

  2001–02

  10,000

  4,125

  2002–03

  486,499

  2003–04

  28,826

  2004–052

  4,600

  Figures provided for exchequer funding are not broken down by constituency (e.g. grants given to Liverpool city council).

  2Figures for 2004–05 correct as of 21 April.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Higher Education (Specialist Courses)
  Sir Nicholas Wintorton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the provision of specialist courses in universities and colleges. [167589]
  703W
  Alan Johnson
  The provision of courses of higher education, specialist or otherwise, is a matter for individual institutions to decide.

  Higher education today is a much larger and more diverse business than in the past. Institutions now compete in a global marketplace where the needs and demands of customers and stakeholders are growing in both range and complexity.

  Institutions now have to be ever more flexible in their response to meeting these diverse needs and demands and this is reflected in the content and style of courses offered. A good example of this is the increasing number of specialist foundation degrees being developed with the help of employers and which are often delivered in FE colleges.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make it his policy to ensure the maintenance of textile teaching and research at the University of Manchester; and if he will make a statement. [167592]

  Alan Johnson
  As independent organisations, higher education institutions themselves determine what programmes and courses they offer. Similarly, they have the academic freedom to choose in which subjects they wish to focus their research.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many local learning and skills councils there are in(a) the North West Region, (b) the North East Region and (c) Yorkshire and the Humber Region; and how many board members there are on each council. [167339]

  Alan Johnson
  Each local Learning and Skills Council must have a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 16 members, including the Chair and Executive Director, who understand the needs of their communities. The information requested is provided in the following table:

  Region/Local LSC

  Membership (at 20 April 2004)

  North West

  Cheshire and Warrington

  14

  Cumbria

  16

  Greater Manchester

  13

  Greater Merseyside

  16

  Lancashire

  14

  North East

  County Durham

  14

  Northumberland

  14

  Tees Valley

  12

  Tyne and Wear

  14

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  Humberside

  13

  North Yorkshire

  16

  South Yorkshire

  14

  West Yorkshire

  14

  School Buildings (Liverpool, Walton)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been invested in school buildings in Liverpool, Walton in each year from 1993 to 2003. [166959]
  704W
  Mr. Miliband
  The majority of capital funding is now allocated to local authorities and schools by needs-related formulae. Authorities invest according to priorities agreed in their asset management plans. The following table shows total capital allocations to Liverpool local education authority (LEA) since 1996–97, the earliest year for which reliable information is readily available.

  Capital allocations to Liverpool LEA

  £000

  Year

  Allocation

  1996–97

  5,791

  1997–98

  15,306

  1998–99

  19,230

  1999–00

  13,714

  2000–01

  1111,566

  2001–02

  21,997

  2002–03

  15,365

  2003–04

  22,706

  1Includes £86,800 PFI funding

  Note:

  The above allocations include the voluntary aided sector.

  Sixth-form Colleges
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many free-standing sixth form colleges have opened since 1997. [167583]

  Alan Johnson
  Two Sixth Form Colleges have been incorporated since 1997, Brooke House Sixth Form College in Hackney and Longley Park Sixth Form College in Sheffield. Brooke House Sixth Form College was incorporated in October 2001 and took its first students in September 2002. Longley Park Sixth Form College was incorporated in November 2002 and expects to take its first students in September 2004.

HEALTH

  Smoking
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the safety benefits of cigarettes that go out faster than normal cigarettes when not puffed. [166838]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has not made an estimation of the safety benefits of cigarettes that go out faster than normal cigarettes when not puffed.

  United Kingdom legislation on cigarette production and presentation follows European Directive 2001/37/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products. The European Commission is due to submit a report on this Directive no later than 31 December 2004. The question of fire safe cigarettes is one issue under discussion in relation to this report, and we await its publication.

  Officials are aware of the development of regulations on the ignition propensity of cigarettes in New York and Canada.

  MRSA
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 12 March 2004,Official Report, columns 1822–23W, on MRSA, what the assurance scores on infection control are for NHS trusts in England. [167533]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The infection control self-assessment scores are collected annually and will not be available until June 2004. National average scores for the past three years for national health service trusts and primary care trusts are shown in the table.

  Score (percentage)

  2001

  63.2

  2002

  63.6

  2003

  64.3

  Obesity
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the potential for angiogenesis inhibitors to control obesity. [166847]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Research into angiogenesis inhibitors to reduce the growth of fat in humans is at an early stage. Therefore it would be premature to make any decisions on their potential to control obesity.

  Third-party Products
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding endorsement and distribution of third-party products by NHS trusts; and if he will make a statement. [166344]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, has received recent representations regarding the distribution of packs containing products for expectant and new mothers. It is a decision for individual national health service trusts whether to allow the distribution of such packs.

CABINET OFFICE

  Financial Ombudsman Service
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) whether the Better Regulation Task Force accepts submissions from members of the public who have made use of the services of the Financial Ombudsman Service on whether its powers should be curbed; [166903]

  (2) whether the Better Regulation Task Force is conducting investigations into the powers of the Financial Ombudsman Service; and if he will make a statement; [166904]

  (3) what concerns regarding the powers of the Financial Ombudsman Service have been brought to the attention of the Better Regulation Task Force; and how these concerns were raised with the Better Regulation Task Force. [166905]
  706W
  Mr. Alexander
  The Better Regulation Task Force is considering the Ombudsman Service's rulings as part of a wider study into "regulatory creep". It has defined "regulatory creep" as "regulation or compliance with regulation that goes beyond the original source of authority or intention". Further details of this study are set out on the task force's website, http://www.brtf.gov.uk/taskforce/pressreleases/creepreg.htm. As with all its studies, the task force invites submissions from members of the public. During the course of each study the task force seeks the views of a wide range of stakeholders. It will publish its findings in the summer.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what guidance is issued to Government Ministers regarding the use of public transport for travel in connection with their ministerial duties. [168066]

  Mr. Alexander
  Guidance for Ministers on official travel is set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Library.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Asbestos
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the projections for asbestos-related illness and death over the next two decades(a) in the UK and (b) in Wales. [166748]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are three diseases commonly associated with asbestos exposure; mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis.

  Statistical modelling has been used to produce an estimate of the future peak in the number of deaths due to mesothelioma in Great Britain. The annual total number of mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain is expected to peak at around 1,950 to 2,450 deaths some time between 2011 and 2015.

  It is estimated that there are one or two cases of lung cancers caused by exposure to asbestos for every case of mesothelioma, and this ratio is expected to decrease over time. Mortality from asbestosis is between 100 and 200 cases per year. However no estimates have been made of the likely deaths in future years due to asbestosis.

  No separate mesothelioma prediction has been carried out for Wales. In the period 1999–2001 there were 188 deaths from mesothelioma in Wales. Great Britain as a whole had 5,090 mesothelioma deaths in the same period. This represents a lower rate of mesothelioma in Wales (annual rate of 19 per million) than for the rest of Great Britain (28 per million).

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many recipients of disability living allowance have not been paid money due to them in(a) January, (b) February, (c) March and (d) April;

  707W
  what the total sum is of such payments owed to claimants of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [167248]

  Maria Eagle
  We are not aware of any backlog of cases where entitlement has been determined and payments to customers are outstanding.

  However the Department was aware of a technical problem with Direct Payments that affected some DLA customers on 6 and 7 April, which resulted in payments being delayed to the 8 April. This problem was related to the adjustments made to accommodate the need to advance payments over the Easter Bank Holiday. We are currently scanning the database to establish exactly the number of payments that were delayed. It is estimated that approximately 74,000 payments were affected.

  Ethnic Minority Employment
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many ethnic minorities are employed in Jobcentres in each region in the UK, broken down by grade. [156124]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the following table. The figures are based on the number of staff who have responded to ethnic surveys. Participation in such surveys is on a voluntary basis.

  Jobcentre Plus ethnic minority staff by grade (as at 26 March 2004)

  Region/Grade

  Staff

  East Midlands

  Administrative Assistant

  52

  Administrative Officer

  295

  Executive Officer

  112

  Higher Executive Officer

  10

  Senior Executive Officer

  1—

  Total

  471

  Eastern

  Administrative Assistant

  31

  Administrative Officer

  235

  Executive Officer

  117

  Higher Executive Officer

  9

  Senior Executive Officer

  1—

  Total

  393

  Head Office

  Administrative Assistant

  14

  Administrative Officer

  91

  Executive Officer

  79

  Higher Executive Office

  34

  SCS Pay Band 1 2002

  1—

  Senior Executive Officer

  12

  Support Grade Band 1

  1—

  Support Grade Band 2

  12

  Typist

  1—

  Grade 7

  5

  Total

  251

  London

  Administrative Assistant

  348

  Senior Accountant Fully Qualified

  1—

  Administrative Officer

  2,369

  Executive Officer

  1,308

  Higher Executive Office

  97

  Senior Executive Officer

  16

  Graphics Technical Officer

  1—

  Total

  4,140

  708W

  Jobcentre Plus ethnic minority staff by grade (as at 26 March 2004)

  Region/Grade

  Staff

  North East

  Administrative Assistant

  5

  Administrative Officer

  50

  Executive Officer

  27

  Higher Executive Office

  1—

  Total

  86

  North West

  Administrative Assistant

  62

  Administrative Officer

  336

  Executive Officer

  108

  Higher Executive Office

  9

  Senior Executive Officer

  1—

  Total

  517

  Scotland

  Administrative Assistant

  11

  Administrative Officer

  86

  Executive Officer

  45

  Higher Executive Office

  1—

  Personal secretary

  1—

  Higher Psychologist

  1—

  Total

  148

  Wales

  Administrative Assistant

  7

  Administrative Officer

  37

  Executive Officer

  26

  Higher Executive Officer

  9

  Senior Executive Officer

  1—

  Total

  80

  South East

  Administrative Assistant

  48

  Administrative Officer

  277

  Executive Officer

  93

  Higher Executive Officer

  60

  Senior Executive Officer

  6

  Grade 7

  1—

  Total

  485

  South West

  Administrative Assistant

  20

  Administrative Officer

  83

  Executive Officer

  33

  Higher Executive Officer

  1—

  Total

  150

  West Midlands

  Administrative Assistant

  105

  Administrative Officer

  635

  Executive Officer

  219

  Higher Executive Officer

  7

  Senior Executive Officer

  1—

  UNIFGD6

  1—

  Total

  969

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Administrative Assistant

  70

  Administrative Officer

  321

  Executive Officer

  99

  Higher Executive Officer

  8

  Senior Executive Officer

  1—

  Grade 7

  1—

  Total

  500

  1Denotes that the figure is less than 5.

  Source:

  Financial and Management Information System (FAMIS) Payroll and Rebus Payroll.

  Pension Forecasts
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out his plans for combined pension forecasts; in what sequence different groups will be issued with forecasts and over what timescale; how many forecasts he expects to issue for each group; and if he will make a statement. [166248]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The combined pension forecast service gives people a projection of retirement income that brings state pension together with their current private pension. The service is delivered through employers and pension providers.

  By the end of March, a total of 1.12 million Combined Pension Forecasts had been issued. To date over 700 employers and pension providers have expressed an interest in participating in the service. By the end of 2005–06 we aim to have reached 6.3 million people.

  We are not targeting particular groups with the combined pension forecast service. Rather we are encouraging all employers and pension providers to participate, currently on a voluntary basis. Additionally we are seeking reserve powers in the Pensions Bill so that, should the need arise, the provision of combined pension forecasts can be made a statutory requirement of pension schemes.

  Rent Service
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what date has been set for The Rent Service to begin publishing information about local reference rents. [166816]

  Mr. Pond
  No date has been set for The Rent Service to begin publishing details of Local Reference Rents. The Local Housing Allowance for Pathfinder Local Authorities is published on a monthly basis by the participating local authorities, and is available on their websites.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bali
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will revise his Department's advice against travel to Bali. [166993]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Travel advice for Indonesia is kept under close scrutiny and is based on objective assessments of the risks to British nationals. It reflects the current level of risk.

  Civil Servants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each civil service grade within his(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies, the total number of staff employed, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) ethnic group and (iii) age group; and how many are registered disabled in each case. [166389]
  710W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at 1 October 2003 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) staff numbers were:

  Grade

  Percentage female

  Percentage declared minority ethnic

  Percentage declared disabled

  Total

  SMS 4

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  12

  SMS 3

  6.25

  0.00

  0.00

  16

  SMS 2

  8.08

  0.73

  1.47

  136

  SMS 1

  16.56

  0.97

  1.95

  308

  SMS total

  13.35

  0.85

  1.69

  472

  D7

  20.73

  1.55

  0.52

  193

  D6

  27.05

  1.29

  0.72

  695

  C5

  22.34

  1.95

  2.13

  564

  C4

  35.98

  2.88

  1.68

  1,248

  B3

  49.08

  6.48

  2.21

  1,312

  A2

  61.51

  12.24

  2.91

  1,169

  Al

  46.29

  14.24

  3.26

  337

  Total

  39.82

  5.66

  2.02

  5,990

  Count of PFNO

  Grade

  Age group

  A1

  A2

  B3

  C4

  C5

  D6

  D7

  16–20

  43

  43

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21–25

  114

  190

  86

  53

  —

  —

  1

  26–30

  42

  180

  187

  152

  16

  65

  4

  31–35

  23

  185

  404

  279

  44

  124

  17

  36–40

  19

  180

  226

  280

  102

  145

  32

  41–45

  19

  132

  142

  156

  102

  96

  40

  46–50

  21

  86

  87

  108

  109

  96

  29

  51–55

  26

  87

  87

  105

  113

  91

  29

  56–60

  21

  66

  74

  100

  76

  73

  40

  61–65

  9

  20

  16

  15

  2

  5

  1

  Grand total

  337

  1,169

  1,312

  1,248

  564

  695

  193

  Grade

  Age group

  SMSI

  SMS2

  SMS3

  SMS4

  Grand total

  16–20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  89

  21–25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  444

  26–30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  646

  31–35

  8

  1

  —

  —

  1,085

  36–40

  50

  2

  —

  —

  1,036

  41–45

  81

  13

  —

  —

  780

  46–50

  76

  30

  3

  1

  646

  51–55

  53

  43

  7

  7

  648

  56–60

  40

  45

  6

  4

  545

  61–65

  —

  2

  —

  —

  70

  Grand total

  308

  136

  16

  12

  5,990

  The FCO's only agency. Wilton Park reported the following figures at 1 April, 2004.

  Grade

  Number

  A1

  13

  A2

  23

  B3

  9

  C4

  14

  C5

  2

  D6

  7

  D7

  1

  SMS

  2

  Total employed

  71

  Total male

  23

  Total female

  48

  711W

  Grade

  Number

  Ethnic origin

  White

  68

  Chinese

  1

  Anglo Indian

  1

  Anglo Caribbean

  1

  Disabled

  0

  Age by grade

  Age

  A1

  A2

  B3

  C4

  C5

  D6

  D7

  SMS

  Total

  16–20

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  21–25

  2

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  26–30

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  31–35

  —

  4

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  36–40

  —

  1

  —

  5

  —

  2

  —

  —

  8

  41–45

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5

  46–50

  1

  3

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  9

  51–55

  1

  6

  3

  3

  1

  1

  —

  2

  17

  56–60

  1

  2

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  7

  61–65

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Total

  13

  23

  9

  14

  2

  7

  1

  2

  71

  EU-Africa Meeting
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the EU-Africa meeting on 1 April in Dublin; what issues were raised; what was agreed and whether follow-up meetings are scheduled. [167186]

  Mr. Straw
  The EU-Africa meeting on 1 April was part of the EU-Africa dialogue process. The discussion was focussed on peace and security, governance, regional integration, trade and key development issues. The two sides agreed a joint declaration on effective multilateralism and endorsed a joint report on the scale, nature and impact of Africa's debt burden. A communiqué was issued after the meeting, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. The Irish Presidency of the European Union will report on this meeting at the next General Affairs and External Relations Council on 26 April. The next meeting of the EU-Africa troika at ministerial level is expected to be organised by the Netherlands in the second half of this year.

  Official Residences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which members of the(a) Government and (b) civil service are permitted to use accommodation at ambassadors' and high commissioners' official residencies when visiting overseas on (i) official and (ii) private business; and what rules and protocols govern use by (A) (a) and (b) and (B) their families. [167242]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 22 April 2004]: For ministerial visits, a Head of Mission is normally expected to offer accommodation to a Minister and his or her Private Secretary. But local and individual circumstances will inevitably vary.

  Officials and visitors on private business may be accommodated at the residence at the discretion of the Head of Mission.

  Turkey
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with EU counterparts regarding the potential accession to the EU by Turkey. [163144]

  Mr. MacShane
  Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I frequently raise the issue of Turkey's potential accession with EU counterparts, in bilateral and EU fora. We repeatedly affirm the UK's strong support for Turkey's EU aspirations.

  The last major EU discussion of Turkish accession was at the Brussels European Council in December when the Council welcomed the considerable efforts of Turkey's political reforms and identified five areas where further sustained efforts are needed.

PRIME MINISTER

  EU Constitution
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has(a) made to and (b) received from the European Commission on a referendum on the EU Constitution. [167655]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, none.

  Speeches
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since June 2001 when he last made a speech containing a significant section on(a) the environment and (b) terrorism-related matters. [167788]

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly give speeches on a wide range of domestic and international issues that cover environmental and terrorism issues. Copies of my speeches are available on the No 10 website.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  CCTV (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much public funding has been spent on CCTV security cameras in Manchester, Gorton since 1997. [167469]

  Ms Blears
  Since 1997, the Home Office has provided £3,515,685 to Manchester city council (which includes the Manchester, Gorton constituency) for CCTV schemes.

  Allocation of that funding locally, is a matter for Manchester city council and the Greater Manchester police. The information is not held centrally.

  Departmental Policies (Newcastle)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Newcastle East and Wallsend constituency, the effects on Newcastle East and Wallsend of his Department's policies and actions since 1997. [166877]
  713W
  Ms Blears
  Most of the policies initiated by the Home Office since 1997 have had an impact on the Newcastle East and Wallsend constituency as on other parts of the country. However, it is not possible to gauge the impact of every policy and action the Home Office has initiated since 1997 on a constituency basis and statistical information relating to the constituency is not available for all Home Office policy areas. This answer sets out the information that is available for the constituency itself, or the relevant local authority and police areas for Newcastle East and Wallsend, it is not always possible to provide details back to 1997. The following are examples of initiatives or policies that have had an impact on the constituency, or an area of which the constituency is a part, together with the relevant statistics.

  Community Safety

  Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend forms part of the Northumbria police force area. On 31 March 1997 the Northumbria police force had 3,677 police officers this figure had risen to 4,048 by 31 December 2003, an increase of 371. In addition the Northumbria police force area has been allocated £330,398 to deliver 45 Community Support Officers in 2003–04.

  £78,413 Basic Command Unit (BCU) funding was available to Newcastle East command in 2003–04 and used to fund police operations, publicity material and technical equipment targeting burglary to homes, vehicle crime and violent crime. Events were held on personal safety, asylum seekers and community crime awareness, and youth diversionary work was also undertaken.

  In 1993, the total number of recorded crimes in the Northumbria police force area was 192,773. In 2002–03, the total number of recorded crimes was 165,496. This represents a reduction of 27,277 (a percentage decrease of 14 per cent.).

  Recent change in levels of crime at BCU level are difficult to interpret because of the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in April 2002 which increased the consistency of crime recording across the country but also inflated the number of crimes recorded by police. Northumbria police estimated that the NCRS had an impact of approximately 25 per cent. on total recorded crime from April 2002.

  Home Office policy and actions since 1997 that contributed to these figures include setting up the Community Safety Partnerships, which are responsible for improving community safety, including quality of life issues such as anti-social behaviour, graffiti and the fear of crime.

  The Home Office provided £352,073 Building Safer Communities funding in 2003–04 rising to £360,875 in 2004–05 to Newcastle Community Safety Partnership and £204,876 to North Tyneside Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP). Although the majority of this funding is used to benefit the area as a whole, some of the funding was targeted at specific areas, including the East End, for example Byker Street Wardens received £50,000 to create eight warden posts, one supervisor and a manager. Over 1,000 patrols have been completed and 3,629 incidents have been reported. Running costs of £5,000 have been provided for a CCTV
  714W
  van operating in Newcastle East. Funding of £10,000 has resulted in increased monitoring of the Nexus CCTV system which serves Byker, Heaton and Wallsend.

  In addition, £35,000 Small Retailers in Deprived Areas funding was used to improve the security and safety of 18 retail premises in the 10 per cent. most deprived wards in Newcastle during 2003–04, and similar funding of £20,000 was made available to North Tyneside.

  Community Development

  The Home Office has funded the Byker Advice and Information project to assist community development. This project covers the wards of Byker, Dene, Heaton, Monkchester, Sandyford, Walker and Walkergate and is entering its third (and final) year of funding. £25,009 was awarded in year 1,£26,486 in year 2 and £30,998 will be awarded this year. The project aims to assimilate a sustainable recruitment, training and development policy for local volunteers, which should increase their skill base, improve their career prospects and benefit the local community.

  Drugs Strategy

  Drugs information relates to the areas of the Newcastle and North Tyneside Drugs Action Teams (DAT) which between them serve the constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne and Wallsend. The DATs are responsible for local delivery of the National Drug Strategy to a combined population of over 450,000 and until 1999 they operated as a single partnership. They continue to work together closely, with many users North Tyneside being treated at services based in Newcastle, e.g. Plummer Court.

  Central Government funding for drug strategy delivery has increased steadily in recent years. In 2004–05 Newcastle's and North Tyneside's combined budgets for adult treatment will increase by over 7 per cent. to over £3.2 million and expenditure on young people will exceed £40,000. This investment and other Home Office funded programmes, e.g. Communities Against Drugs has resulted in:
  A 64 per cent. increase in drug users having structured treatment in Newcastle between 2002–03 and 2003–04 (1,180 users). In 1999–2000 562 Newcastle based clients presented to drug services.
  Approximately 460 drug users resident in North Tyneside were in treatment as at November 2003. In 1999–2000 175 North Tyneside based clients presented to drug services.
  Average waiting times in Newcastle and North Tyneside reduced sharply to two weeks between 2002–03 and 2003–04 (compared to 2.3 weeks across the region). In the same period the waiting time for specialist prescribing in North Tyneside reduced from over three months to two weeks. In 1999–2000, the average waiting time in Newcastle and North Tyneside was about five weeks including 20 weeks for community prescribing in Newcastle.
  A planned 15 per cent. increase to over 2,500 in available drug treatment places in Newcastle and North Tyneside in 2004–05.
  Almost 1,400 drug possession offences were committed in Newcastle and North Tyneside in 2002–03. Of these, almost 820 related to Class A drugs.

  715W
  A number of high profile police operations in 2003–04 including Operation Trinity which resulted in 34 arrests in East Newcastle and Wallsend and Operation Bobbin in which 1.4 million of drugs was seized in Walker.

  Both DATs will also receive considerable funding from April 2004 to March 2006 to deliver the Criminal Justice Interventions Programme (CJIP, a range of schemes aimed at moving drug misusing offenders into treatment and away from drug use and crime). Newcastle will receive additional CJIP funding, having been selected a site for "intensive" delivery. Implementation of this programme will place considerable pressure on criminal justice and treatment agencies in the City but the GO Drugs Team is encouraged by the DAT's planning for delivery. The forthcoming intensive CJIP activity in Newcastle is expected to impact upon crime in neighbouring wards in North Tyneside.
  716W
  Asylum Seekers

  Since 3 April 2000 the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has been responsible for administering the support provided to asylum seekers. Asylum seekers requiring accommodation will normally be housed in dispersal areas across the UK; Newcastle upon Tyne is a dispersal area. The total number of asylum seekers being supported by NASS in Newcastle East and Wallsend as at the end of December 2003 was 595, of these 585 were supported in NASS accommodation and 10 were in receipt of subsistence only support from NASS. These figures include dependants and are rounded to the nearest five. Corresponding data for earlier years is not available. Similar data for Newcastle upon Tyne local authority for earlier periods has been published in successive editions of the quarterly and annual asylum statistics published at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  British Waterways
  The Minister for Rural affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
  I am pleased to advise that DEFRA and the Scottish Executive have begun a joint policy review of British Waterways. It will be a strategic review and its terms of reference are to:assess how well British Waterways is operating within the framework of the policy documents "Waterways for Tomorrow and Scotland's Canals: An Asset for the Future"; and to
  advise what changes are needed to enable British Waterways to improve its ability to deliver Government policies and customer satisfaction.
  In particular, the Review will consider:
  British Waterways' performance over the past five years;
  whether the current governance, financial and legislative arrangements are conducive for getting the right performance from British Waterways;
  whether the future direction of British Waterways as set out in its Our Plan for the Future 2003–07 is right, and whether it is consistent with "Waterways for Tomorrow and Scotland's Canals: An Asset for the Future"; and
  whether DEFRA and the Scottish Executive's working relationships with BW could be improved to deliver better strategic Departmental objectives as sponsor.

  On 19 April 2004, in conjunction with the Scottish Executive, I launched a public consultation exercise that will form a key part of the review. The consultation document invites views on the performance of British Waterways over the last five years and the way in which it should carry out its business in the future. In particular it asks for comments on the extent to which British Waterways has met its objectives as set out in its Framework Document "Waterways for Tomorrow", and "Scotland's Canals: An Asset for the Future" and the extent to which the Government's objectives for British Waterways as set out in these documents meet current needs. The consultation period will last for 12 weeks and close on 14 July.

  A Steering Group, including representatives from DEFRA, The Scottish Executive, British Waterways, Treasury, ODPM and the Shareholder Executive, will oversee the review. Their terms of reference are:
  "Having regard to British Waterways' Terms of Reference, to:
  Commission Papers to examine particular aspects in detail.
  Carry out public consultations.
  Seek direction and approval from Ministers at key stages and oversee publication of the Review."
  30WS
  It will publish its recommendations in late autumn.

  Copies of the consultation document can be viewed on DEFRA's website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/

DEFENCE

  United Kingdom Hydrographic Office
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the UK Hydrographic office for the financial year 2004–05. The targets are designed to drive further improvements to the Agency's performance and are as follows:

  Key Target 1. Safety
  While aiming for 100 per cent., to achieve a safety index exceeding 95 per cent. of all radio navigational warnings issued to timescale.

  Key Target 2. Defence
  To achieve an index rating of more than 95 for the defence programme as set out in the tasking authorisation forms.

  Key Target 3. Customer Satisfaction
  Customer and end user satisfaction to exceed a scale rating of 87 by the end of the financial year 2004–05.

  Key Target 4. Wider Markets
  To earn revenue of £2.4 million from markets other than SOLAS navigational products and services.

  Key Target 5. Finance
  To break even taking one year with another, and to achieve a return on capital employed of 9 per cent. averaged over the period 2004–05—2008–09.

  Key Target 6. Finance
  Mark-up to be reduced to 200 per cent. by the end of 2004–05.

  Air Combat Service Support Units
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Ministry of Defence is continually examining ways of improving military capability and value for money for the taxpayer, including by keeping the size and location of our bases under review.

  On 14 August 2003, 1 announced a review of the future basing requirement for the RAF's Air Combat Service Support Units (ACSSUs), elements of the Air Surveillance and Control System (ASACS) and some other minor units and the potential impact on the future requirement for RAF Boulmer, RAF Neatishead, RAF Sealand and RAF Stafford, should relocation of units currently based there be recommended.

  The primary objective of this particular review was to meet the Department's basing needs in the light of the move towards expeditionary operations. A number of options were identified on which my officials have consulted widely. A number of hon. Members have made representations. The Review has now concluded.

  I am now able to inform the House that I am inclined, subject to formal consultation with the trade unions, to accept the option which creates an ACSSU communications hub and a base for ASACS units at RAF Scampton and an ACSSU logistics hub at RAF Wittering. Implementation of this option as a whole would be over an extended period, beginning later this year and not complete until about 2012.
  31WS
  This option offers the greatest operational flexibility to our Armed Forces by collocating support units on main operating bases. It is also the most cost-effective solution. It would mean that communications personnel would relocate to Scampton from RAF Sealand (from 2005) and RAF Brize Norton (from 2005), together with AS ACS units currently based at RAF Neatishead (from 2004–05) and RAF Boulmer (from 2009), bringing the total number of people at the station up to around 2,400 by 2012. In the case of RAF Wittering, logistics personnel would relocate from RAF Stafford (from 2005). This would increase the number of personnel at the Station to around 2,130 personnel by 2006.

  The Ministry of Defence has written to the trade unions to ask for their formal response to this option by 7 June 2004.

  I will make my decision when I have received trade unions documents and will inform the House at that time.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Commercial Property Leases
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)
  The Government are today announcing a forthcoming consultation about whether to legislate to regulate terms in commercial property leases and if so what form that regulation should take.

  April 2002, the commercial property industry introduced a new voluntary Code of Practice for commercial property leases. This sought to address Government concern about the lack of choice and flexibility in commercial leasing; in particular, the lack of alternatives to upward only rent reviews in longer leases and the poor information available to small business tenants. The Government announced that they would review the impact of the Code, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned the University of Reading to undertake research. The Office asked the University to prepare an interim report on the first year of the Code, by the end of 2003, and a final
  32WS
  report on the whole of the first two years of the Code, by the end of this year. The Government announced they would consider whether it would be sufficient to continue relying on a voluntary Code of Practice or whether to move to regulate lease terms, in the light of the research, feedback from stakeholders and an analysis of complaints received.

  Informal feedback during the first year of the Code was that despite major efforts to disseminate it widely, it was having little effect on leasing practices. In view of this, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the 2003 Budget report that if the interim report suggested that little progress I ad been made, we would consult during 2004 on legislative options. This would enable the Government to introduce legislation at an early stage if the final report then confirmed that progress had been disappointing and the Government concluded that it should proceed with legislation.

  Earlier this year the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister received Reading University's interim report, which we are public king on our website today. This paints a disappointing picture of the impact of the Code in its first year. It has found that although there has been no reversal of previous trends towards shorter leases and that more leases contain operable "break" clauses, rent review provisions are almost universally upwards only. It is particularly disappointing that there are few signs yet of landlords offering alternative leasing packages at different prices, although the report finds that a degree of negotiation does take place. The Government are also concerned about the evidence that small business occupiers have too little information to be able to negotiate 1 he best deals.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will therefore shortly issue a consultation paper in conjunction with the Welsh Assembly Government about the regulation of commercial lease terms in England and Wales. This will seek views on the whole principle of legislation in this field as well as the various options for regulating lease terms. The Government will not make a decision about whether or not to legislate until we have studied the final report from Reading University, due at the end of this year, taking account of the outcome of the consultation exercise.

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

Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25 March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee] [2nd Report from the Merits Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on 1 May 2004, 10 new countries accede to the European Union. From 1 May, nationals of the new member states will be able to move freely and to take up employment in the United Kingdom. EU enlargement is extremely welcome to this Government, and our country and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister have been at the forefront of calls for early accession of the 10 new member states.
The United Kingdom has always been proud of its tradition of tolerance, and we believe that we will benefit both culturally and economically from new EU citizens. It makes sense for citizens of the new member states to be able to work, contribute to our economy and pay taxes. They will expand the range of skills and supply of workers in the UK economy. It is true that some other member states will not open their labour markets. It is because their markets are less open and less flexible than ours that they perform less well. If one were to ask any of our able economists, they would confirm that it is the loss of the other countries that they choose that path. It is entirely natural that others should wish to come to this country to contribute to and share in our success, and this is to be welcomed.
Enlargement brings wider benefits for the United Kingdom. It will enable fuller co-operation to tackle the threat of terrorism, organised crime and drug trafficking in a co-ordinated and effective way, and it will help to realise Europe's full economic potential. Independent studies estimate that enlargement could increase the United Kingdom's GDP by £1.75 billion in the medium term and create hundreds of thousands of jobs across the European Union. Our workers will enjoy freedom of movement across the world's largest trading bloc, and our companies will enjoy unfettered access to a market of more than 75 million new customers.
That is why all the mainstream political parties saw fit to support the Accession Treaty, which was presented to Parliament last year, and signed on 16 April 2003 in Athens. The Accession Treaty provides that after accession, nationals from all of the 10 new member states, and their families, will be able to travel freely throughout the European Union for any purpose.
482
Article 39 of the treaty left open the possibility for existing member states to apply transitional measures to regulate access to their labour markets by nationals of eight of the accession states; that is the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia. Malta and Cyprus are the exceptions. The European Union (Accessions) Act 2003, which had cross-party support, enables the Accession Treaty to be implemented in the UK. The draft regulations before your Lordships today set out in detail how we propose to do this. They are part of a package, along with other regulations being introduced by my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Paymaster General and the Deputy Prime Minister, which will limit the availability of benefits to nationals of the relevant accession countries.
Essentially, the draft regulations before the House today, which I am satisfied are compliant with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, do two things. First, they put into effect, in Part 2, the provisions in European Community legislation giving citizens of the accession states the same free movement rights as citizens of existing member states. This means that they can come to the United Kingdom and, subject to the modifications made in relation to accession state workers requiring registration, they can reside in the UK if they are working, studying, are self-employed, retired and self-sufficient.
Secondly, in Part 3, they set out the worker registration scheme, which was announced on 23 February. The scheme is the means by which the United Kingdom will apply the transitional measures allowed under the derogation provided for by Article 39 of the Accession Treaty and Section 2(2) of the European Union (Accessions) Act 2003 to regulate access to its labour market by citizens of the eight accession states concerned. Workers from these countries, as opposed to people in other economic categories, will generally only have a right to reside in the United Kingdom if they are authorised to work for their employer under the worker registration scheme.
This is achieved in Regulation 4, which gives effect to the derogation to regulate access to the United Kingdom's labour market by accession state nationals. It provides that these nationals will have no right to reside in the UK as work-seekers, unless they are self-sufficient. This—together with the other regulations which are being laid separately by my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Paymaster General and the Deputy Prime Minister—achieves our policy aim, which was announced to the House in February, of ensuring that those who come here from the accession countries but do not work will not be able to exploit our benefits system.
In line with this, the International Organisation for Migration is launching a Home Office-funded information campaign in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland. This will communicate a simple message to people in those countries that if they come to the United Kingdom to work, they will generally have to register and they cannot claim benefits if they are not working.

483
The Accession Treaty allows us to put in place the transitional arrangements for a period of up to five years, with a review after two years. In the case of serious disturbance to our labour market, we may apply to extend that for up to another two years, although we do not expect that we will have to do so. The experience of Spain and Portugal acceding to the European Union suggests that accession will benefit the economies of the accession countries and that, for example, disparities in wage levels will reduce over time. The United Kingdom has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU—almost half that of France and Germany—and there are currently more than 550,000 vacancies across the UK labour market. However, we will monitor the impact of accession on the UK labour market carefully through the worker registration scheme and the Labour Force Survey. That will ensure that, if there are any adverse impacts, we can take appropriate measures in response.
I will say a few words about how the arrangements will work in practice. It is not a scheme to stop immigration. The migrants will have free movement here as in other member states. The scheme allows us to monitor the impact of accession on the labour market, as, I hope, I have made clear. Since we announced the scheme, we have consulted and have benefited from discussion with and contributions from employers, including the CBI and the Recruitment & Employment Confederation, as well as the TUC, the NFU, and the Health and Safety Executive, among others.
The key provision in the scheme is Regulation 7(2), which provides that nationals of the eight relevant accession states who are not exempt will be required to apply to register under the worker registration scheme as soon as they start a job and within one month at the latest. Under Regulation 8, the application will need to be supported by a one-off payment of £50. That is to cover the costs of administering the scheme.
Once payment has cleared, Home Office case workers will process the application. They will do that by confirming that the applicant is a national of one of the eight accession countries who requires registration under Regulation 2. The regulations provide for a number of exemptions, to which I will turn in due course. Case workers will check that the applicant's national ID card or passport is genuine and that the person has provided evidence of employment.
Regulation 8 requires that the applicant is then issued with a secure registration card, containing a reference number and a photograph, and a registration certificate authorising them to work for a particular employer. Regulation 8(10) provides that a copy of the registration certificate will be sent to the employer. Regulation 7(5) provides that the registration certificate will be valid while the person is working for that employer. It will expire when the registered person ceases working for that employer. If they change employers, they will need to apply for a new registration certificate to authorise them to work for the new employer.
484
In line with the accession treaty, workers who have worked legally in the United Kingdom for an uninterrupted period of 12 months or more will be freely admitted to the labour market and will not therefore be subject to the registration scheme. We have drafted the regulations so that, if any intervening periods in which the person was not legally working do not exceed 30 days, they can be discounted. That responds to representations that we received asking us to make sure that workers were not at risk from unfair dismissal after 11 months' employment. It also ensures that a person cannot abuse their worker status by working for short periods but then claiming full worker status after 12 months. After 12 months' uninterrupted employment, workers from the accession states will be entitled to the same rights as workers from any of the countries in the European economic area. For ease of reference, those provisions are set out in Regulation 2(8).
The regulations do not contain a requirement for workers or employers to inform us if a worker leaves employment but does not take on new work. That is because we have been conscious throughout of the need to avoid placing a burden upon employers unless absolutely necessary. In this case, we do not think it necessary. As I have explained, under Regulation 7(5), the registration certificate is valid only while the person is working; it does not itself confer any additional benefits on an individual and will need to be corroborated with other evidence in respect of any application for benefits.
So, what does the scheme mean for employers? As I have explained, our aim was to ensure that the scheme was as unbureaucratic and simple for employers as possible. The onus will be on the individual to register, as it is in their interest to do so. Under Regulation 9, employers will simply need to check that that has been done. The employer will do that by checking within one month of employing someone that the person is a national of one of the eight accession states and that he or she is required to register. Under Regulation 9(2), the employer then simply has to take a copy of the application form or other document proving exemption. That will provide them with a statutory defence and will authorise the employer to employ the person until receipt of the registration certificate.
When an application has been considered, we are required under Regulation 8 to send the employer a copy of the registration certificate, or, in the unlikely event that the application is refused, a copy of the refusal notice. Under Regulation 9(1), an employer who employs an unregistered accession state worker in breach of the regulations will be guilty of an offence, but, as I hope I have made clear, registration is a straightforward transaction, and there is no reason to think that large numbers of workers or employers will not comply. Our objective in running this scheme will be to encourage compliance and not to burden or penalise either employers or workers.
I indicated earlier that I would explain in more detail how the scheme will apply for different categories of applicant, in particular students, part-time workers and those employed by agencies or labour providers on a short-term or temporary basis. Students will be required to register if they are working. They will then

485
be entitled to the same treatment as other EU citizens who work under the EC workers' directive. It ensures that students can accrue workers' rights if they work for 12 months without interruption.
Part-time workers will also be required to register. They are just as important to the responsiveness and flexibility of our labour market as full-time employees. We do not believe that it is in the United Kingdom's interests to rule out financiers, bankers and medical consultants from accession states who may want to work a limited number of hours a week. We have been conscious of the fact that if we were to prevent anyone from the accession states working for fewer than a specified number of hours a week, we would risk creating another class of illegal worker, not to mention added complexity for employers.
We are aware that by doing this we enable those who are registered to work part time under the scheme, and are on low incomes and do very small amounts of work, to apply for both in-work support and job seeker's allowance. To ensure that that does not become a means for people to access the labour market without contributing fully, we have put in place a number of safeguards in the way in which we operate the scheme.
First, we will look carefully at applications where a person is working fewer than 10 hours a week, and for little economic remuneration. Where the activity does not appear to be effective and genuine, we will refuse registration. Secondly, job seeker's allowance will be granted only on the condition that the worker continues to look for full-time work and takes it if found. Thirdly, we will keep that arrangement under close review. If there is any evidence of abuse we will consider bringing back a new provision for Parliament's consideration.
Under Regulation 5(2), those who work in short-term or temporary assignments for agencies or other labour providers will be required to register under the scheme during the period in which they are working for an authorised employer in the UK. For the purposes of the worker registration scheme, under Regulation 1(2)(g), the employer will be the agency or labour provider that pays the workers' wages. In practice, workers should apply to register as soon as they start working for an employer. They will be authorised to work until they cease working for that employer.
I should now like to turn briefly to the exemptions contained in Regulation 2. The regulations provide for a number of categories of people who will not have to register under the scheme in order to have access to the UK labour market from 1 May. That is because the Accession Treaty limits the way in which we can apply restrictions to regulate our labour market. One restriction is that member states may not introduce measures that are more restrictive for members of the accession states than the position when the Accession Treaty was signed in April 2003.
For that reason, under Regulation 2(2), those who had leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom before accession and could work legally will not be required to register after 1 May. Similarly, under Regulations 2(3) and 2(4), those who have already been working legally in
486
this country for 12 months before 1 May—for example, under a work permit—and those who are working here legally and do not change jobs will not be required to register.
Regulation 2(5) provides that accession state nationals who are dual citizens of the United Kingdom, Switzerland or any other country that is also a member of the European economic area other than the eight accession states will not be required to register for the period in which they hold dual nationality.
Regulation 2(6) provides that family members of Swiss or EEA nationals, including those from the accession states who are self-sufficient, retired or are in the UK to work or study, will not have to register. Again, that is because we cannot, under Community law and the Accession Treaty, derogate from those people's rights to work. We are obliged to ensure that the rights of family members of accession state nationals are not disadvantaged by the transitional measures that we are introducing. For example, the American wife of a Polish doctor who is here pursuant to a work permit can already work in the United Kingdom without restriction under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000. If she were to arrive after 1 May, her position would be the same.
Similarly, under the terms of the Accession Treaty, there is a right of free movement to engage in self-employment. That means that no member state can impose restrictions on self-employed persons while they are working solely in a self-employed capacity. Here, I have to acknowledge that there is an omission in Regulation 2(6)(b), which should also provide for the family members of self-employed persons from accession state countries to be exempt from the scheme. We will correct that by means of an amending instrument under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to come into force on 1 June. By making the correction quickly, we will ensure that no one will be disadvantaged in practice.
Regulation 2(6) provides that workers who are posted here to provide services in the United Kingdom on behalf of an employer who is not established in the United Kingdom will not be required to register. We took that decision because EU companies are free to provide services throughout the EU, including the UK, and because the ECJ ruled in the Vander Elst judgment of 1993–94 that cross-border service provision should be facilitated and not hindered. Normally, posted workers are in the UK for short periods of time and continue to receive salaries in their home country.
In summary, the worker registration scheme has been designed to reflect and not to hinder the flexibility and creativity of our labour market. I must stress that we do not seek to prevent people from the accession countries from working, provided that they comply with the registration scheme. But it is important to monitor that activity and to ensure that if they are not working they do not have access to our social security system.

487
The alternative to those measures is to restrict access to the United Kingdom labour market in the way in which other countries have. We do not believe that that is in the workers or the United Kingdom's best interests. It could drive individuals underground by creating an illegal underclass, and it would not help to fill the half a million job vacancies that the United Kingdom currently carries. It is far better, we believe, to give free movement a chance with regulation and careful monitoring and to take action if and when any adverse impacts are detected.
I apologise for the length of my speech, but I have tried to deal in some detail with all those matters that I know noble Lords have had anxiety about. I hope that I have therefore obviated the need for any questions. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25 March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee] [2nd Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
11.30 a.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction and explanation. She had no need to apologise for the length of her speech. However, because there are so many problems with this package of regulations, there will have to be significant questions. The Minister has already acknowledged that the regulations are faulty and need amendment. Any criticisms that I have will be in a far longer speech than I would ever normally make on regulations. I bear in mind that this is not the Minister's own departmental responsibility. From the experience that this House has of the noble Baroness's work, I suspect that the matter would have been handled far better if it were.
The further enlargement of the EU takes place in eight days' time. It has been on the agenda for years. Britain's strategy for the free movement of labour that impacts on British jobs and our public services should have been clear, consistent and planned in advance. The Government simply failed to address those concerns until the 11th hour. Some of the result is before us today.
When the Minister made a Statement on these matters in February, I gave a general welcome to the proposal to ensure that those persons who qualify to come to the UK to work after 1 May should be under a duty to register their employment. We were surprised that the Government sought to follow another route rather than the tried and tested one of work permits. As the Government have found, that route has had its difficulties, but at least it is a route that is known to both those who come here and the employers who have to operate it. However, the Government chose another scheme.
I looked at the IND website today, where confusion abounds. If I were trying to find out what on earth will be going on next week, either as an employer or as a prospective employee, my heart would sink. On 23 February, we also welcomed the essential part of
488
the package outlined by the Minister; that is, those who are required to register for work should not be able immediately to claim social security, child benefit and work-related benefits. Their access to social housing should be restricted. In her opening remarks, the Minister was right to refer to those other orders.
I said at that stage that, despite my general welcome for the principle, I would of course need to consider all of the orders carefully. Indeed, I note that the second report of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee of the House makes the point in paragraph 4 that,
"Members of the House indicated that the House would wish to consider carefully the orders giving effect to the announcement to ensure that the full implications of the Government's policy were recognised".
Today we have only one set of regulations before us— the Home Office regulations on worker registration— on which the Minister has to make a presentation; her colleagues will present others. But the Government have to be aware that this has to be seen in the round, as a package. So a legitimate question for the House to ask the Minister today is: when will other orders be laid? I understand they are to be introduced under the negative resolution procedure but we have not seen them officially.
The regulations prevent workers from accession countries obtaining benefits next week. They are an essential part of the policy package. Indeed, the House is being asked to sign a blank cheque; we are being asked to sign up to the whole package having seen only part. The missing orders must be an important part of the package because the Prime Minister made so much of them in the interview that he gave to the BBC before the Statement. After all, he said that they give the grounds for throwing people out of the country if they do not comply with the rules. That is a very severe action to take against any person, particularly if he or she is destitute. It was a serious allegation made by the Prime Minister about the implications of the orders. We have not yet seen the proof of that.
I asked questions about the legal basis for the possible expulsion of people; I did not receive a reply. My noble friend Lord Waddington pursued that issue; he did not receive a reply about the legal basis. I am still waiting, of course, for the Government to explain what will be the expulsion rules.
I wonder whether the Department for Work and Pensions has kept the Home Office and the Minister informed on all these matters. I unashamedly nagged the Government Whip's Office on this issue—more than once a day, all week—and made a thorough, more than usual pain of myself. I wish to place on record my profound thanks to one of the officials in that office who has worked incredibly hard this week, on behalf of the whole House, in contacting the DWP and other departments. As a result, we were able to obtain draft copies of the important orders, which were placed on my desk late last night. I came in rather early this morning in order to have two or three hours in which to consider them.

489
Although we have to be extremely grateful—I am sure the Minister is—that we are so well served by the officials of the House, the difficulty is that the whole House has not been able to see the orders. Further, organisations outwith the House have not necessarily been able to see and consider them. Although I have made some telephone calls and visited various websites, the results have been rather limited. Will the Minister give the House an assurance today that the accompanying orders, the rest of the package, will be laid in time for the benefit rules to be legitimately in place by 1 May? I believe that it is essential the House should have that assurance.
I note that the Social Security Advisory Committee has been consulted on the Social Security (Habitual Residence) Amendment Regulations. According to its website, its consultation ended on 20 April. When I looked at that exemplary website—as I have not been a member of that committee for seven years I can say that without being partial to it—I noticed that the memorandum from the DWP to the Social Security Advisory Committee ran to 156 pages. I confess that I did not read them all—"Tut, tut", says the Minister— but, as one tends to have a quick look at the end of such documents, I looked at the last eight or so pages which summarised the accessibility to benefits for various categories of people, primarily from the A8 countries. I have to say that it reads like a mess; it will be so confusing. I find it very difficult indeed to follow.
Although this is a DWP matter, I have to ask today whether the Government are sure that the regulations which will be introduced as a result of these orders will have a good legal basis. My faint memory from seven years ago is that if the Government want to introduce an ineligibility from benefits on 1 May, they should have had the regulations in place about 21 days in advance. If they did not, they would be unable to apply that ineligibility. I am concerned about that.
I am also concerned about when we will see the report from the Social Security Advisory Committee. I make no allegation against the committee—I am sure that it has turned round the report in the fastest time possible—but can the Minister tell the House when the SSAC reported to the Secretary of State and whether the Government know when they will be able to publish its advice more broadly so that it may be taken into account when we consider the orders, if and when they are laid?
I noted on the SSAC website that the secretariat page states that,
"the legislation to implement the UK's workers' registration scheme that will be an integral part of these proposals has not been made as we commence our public consultation exercise, and only limited information about how the scheme will operate has been made available. Accordingly, the Explanatory Memorandum does not provide the complete picture of the proposed changes to the conditions of entitlement to the income-related benefits, and an account of how the new arrangements will operate in practice, that we would normally expect to receive from the Department"—
that department being the DWP. So a consultation exercise has been carried out by the SSAC on draft orders that we and the public have not yet seen, and the SSAC has stated, in effect, that the consultation has to
490
be flawed because it does not know how the regulations today will take effect. It really does sound a mess.
I turn now to the details of the order. It is important that we should have clarity about the procedure for those who come to work in this country. We welcome people who come here with skills and contribute to our economy. I have made that clear before; I make it clear again. They may come here after I May from the new accession countries. The Minister tried very hard to give the House as much information as possible and I am grateful to her. She explained very clearly some of the more impenetrable parts of the regulations and the Explanatory Memorandum and I should like to place my gratitude on the record.
I always think of these issues in terms of, "What if it is me coming here and it is happening to me?". First, can the Minister say whether or not the team that is to put the system into effect has been recruited? Are the staff of the new unit in place so that they can process the applications for registration? Have the forms for registration already been printed and are they available? Are the guidance notes for both employers and applicants readily available? Have personnel been properly trained to issue the registration forms and take the right decisions? What kind of workload do the Government estimate will be handled by the new unit?
There has been a dispute over the numbers involved over the past few weeks. It is not so much a matter of the numbers from the point of view of whether or not we are aghast at how many people will come here—different people have different views, but my concern is whether the Government's unit can handle whatever the numbers may be. The Minister will know that originally the Government estimated that an additional 5,000 to 13,000 migrants a year could come to Britain from the accession countries. Is that still their view? Are they aware that estimates from embassies suggest that the figure is more likely to be 50,000or more? But all we really need to know is whether or not the systems are in place to cope with whatever level of application is made.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that a fee of £50 will be charged for all first time applications to register with the scheme and that this will cover the administrative costs of running the scheme. Whose administrative costs—the Government's or the employers'?
Paragraph 8 refers to the procedure for applying for a registration card and registration certificate. If I, as a migrant, come here after 1 May, will the application forms be held by my employer? Where do they get them from? How long will it take them to get access to the forms if they do not stock them on site? What records will need to be kept by my employer? Will it simply be the registration card and certificate, or will he have to keep a record of the proof that I have provided to the Secretary of State that I, the new worker, have a right to be here? How much evidence does the employer have to keep?
The Minister referred to paragraph 9(3)(b), which gives a defence to an employer against an accusation of improperly employing a worker under this system if

491
the employer has taken and retained a copy of the registration certificate. How is the employer to prove paragraph 9(3)(a)? What documentary evidence will suffice, or will all evidence be sufficient?
The noble Baroness referred to the system as it affects students who come here and work. I agree with her entirely—it may well be that students will work here and contribute to the economy. Could she give us a little more information about what happens after the first year, when they have been granted a registration certificate? How will they he treated then? What if I come here and my application for registration is refused? The noble Baroness referred to a refusal notice. Does that give reasons why my application has been refused? Will there be any form of review or appeal against that refusal?
Let us assume that I have a job offer from an employer and I arrive here on 1 May to take up my post on 4 May, smartly after the bank holiday. How will I know about all this new procedure? I am coming here fresh with my skills, eager to do excellent work, perhaps in the National Health Service. What information have the Government made available overseas to those from the new accession countries to tell them of the rules, particularly the rules about ineligibility for benefits? Until the Statement on 23 February, accession countries would have expected that no restrictions would be imposed upon them.
My view overall has simply been that it is important for all concerned—migrant workers who can perform such a valuable service in this country and employers who need to be able to employ them legally—that this system is up and running in an efficient and effective manner by 1 May, in just eight days' time. The Minister's response to our questions will give us an indication of whether we can have confidence that the Government have sufficiently thought through the registration and benefits package. My reaction on seeing the shambles of the preparation for the benefits package, in particular, make me wonder whether that is the case. I do not envy either the employers or prospective employees who will have to fight their way through this new system which, at the moment, seems full of unresolved problems.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I remind the House that some 15 minutes ago the Minister ended her 20-minute introduction by saying that because she had been so full in her explanation, she hoped that that would do away with any reason for questions. In that masterful dissection provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, never has a ministerial wish been so cruelly disappointed so quickly. I advise the Minister not to forget that the Conservatives are broadly supportive of the measure that she has brought before the House, so the Lord help her when the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, opposes a Motion before the House.
I associate myself with the thanks of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, regarding the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee report. It is useful; these are the first tentative steps by the House to grapple with the avalanche of statutory instruments
492
that result from modern government. It bodes well that they draw the House's attention to this as a matter of public policy, and indeed it is.
I also welcome the Minister's reminder that enlargement has had all-party support. Some of the last-minute doubts about the implications of enlargement are a bit rum. The truth is that enlargement should bring benefits to this country, as the Minister indicated, in terms of not just our own prosperity and security but the exciting prospects, as we have seen in Portugal, Spain and Greece, of seeing new members increase their own prosperity. As we found in those examples—surprise, surprise—people do not simply up sticks on a whim but would much prefer to nation-build in their own countries and make them prosperous, and when they do, they provide us with markets.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, indicated, the problem with these regulations and the other measures that will follow is that they are in response to what the Home Secretary said is a real challenge to make sure that we do not act as a beacon in relation to benefits, housing and social services. Our worry is about the motivation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, quite rightly said, all the evidence is that these are knee-jerk, back-of-the-envelope, ill thought out and ill prepared proposals. They are a recipe for chaos, such as we have seen in the past. It does the Government no credit that they should approach matters in this way. We see it in so much of the legislation, such as the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc). Bill—about the sixth Bill from the Government in seven years. I am afraid that the Home Office frequently gives the impression of pulling every lever desperately in the hope that somehow a solution will emerge.
There is also a real danger, which the regulations reflect. On "News 24" last night on the BBC, there was a discussion on the power of the tabloid press. The assembled journalists came to the conclusion that, of all Ministers, the Home Secretary was most prone to respond to tabloid campaigns by the Sun or the Daily Mail. When I heard that, I thought that he had a real rival in No. 10, but that is for another debate.
The problem is not only the very detailed criticism that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, outlined but the indication that it is all part of a Home Office approach that either desperately pulls any lever available or responds, in a panic, to a Daily Mail editorial or a Sun headline. We deserve better of our policy-makers than this. I say that with some humility; as I have said before, I have heard the implications that it is all incompetence and wickedness on the part of the Government. Then there is a change of government and while the arguments change, the problems remain.
Immigration has been, for 40 years and more, a Rubik's cube for successive governments, appearing to deal with one problem and finding another. It is also worth reminding ourselves that in dealing with problems of immigration and our various attempts, in the main, we have remained, under successive governments, a tolerant society that has accepted, profited and benefited from the immigrant communities that joined us. It is always worth

493
reminding ourselves that Enoch Powell was wrong about rivers of blood. But we also realise that modern immigration throws up new problems. The impact of organised crime has to be taken into account, as has the fact that the English language is seen not only in terms of our own society but as a gateway to the modern world. There are particular problems of communities such as the Roma in eastern Europe.
It is not a matter of criticising the Government who are trying to grapple with very real problems, but we are worried that this is yet another panic attack in the Home Office. It is trying to deal short term with a perceived problem which has been suggested, to a great extent, by tabloid hysteria, and it is coming up with solutions that are complex and bureaucratic and, one suspects—if the past record is anything to go by—it has few of the personnel and little of the machinery in place to put them into practice.
I echo other noble Lords who have said that we will not divide the House on this matter. However, I hope that the Minister does not thank me for my support, because I have received from our own excellent research department a list of about 20 unanswered questions that mirror many of those that were put so incisively by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is extremely persuasive at the Dispatch Box, but she has a bum brief today.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords—
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, perhaps I may seek further clarification from the Minister on Regulation 4(3) which is to be found in part 2. I do so because the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee identified the need carefully to consider the orders giving effect to the announcement to ensure that the full implications of the Government's policy were recognised.
The Explanatory Note on Regulation 4 states that,
"nationals; from the relevant accession States who come to the United Kingdom to seek work during the transitional period will not have a right to reside in the United Kingdom by virtue of that work seeker status. This is, however, without prejudice to their right to reside in the United Kingdom whilst looking for work if they are self-sufficient".
It would be helpful to know what evidence would satisfy the Home Office that individuals are self-sufficient.
I refer noble Lords to previous immigration legislation in this country. At one time, an immigrant was required to have £500,000 in his bank account as evidence of being a person of independent means. Regulation 4 is likely to be unhelpful for those coming to seek work in this country. It would be helpful if the Home Office were to put on record the qualifying criteria for self-sufficiency.
I turn to my second point. The Explanatory Note on Regulation 4 says of those seeking work:
"Whilst they require registration neither they nor their family members will be entitled to a residence permit or document".
494
Will they be entitled to registration when work is found? When that work is found, would they be entitled to bring their families to this country? Would they be entitled to benefits if they became unemployed?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister said that she hoped that her long speech would answer all noble Lords' questions. My noble friend has already disabused her of that notion. I am afraid that I have a further question, which I thought that the noble Baroness would have been likely to answer; namely, the implications of the Sutton report as regards what she has just told your Lordships.
As I understand it, the debacle in Sheffield—that is not too strong a word for what happened there—concerned people who will be affected by the new regime, except for those who come from Bulgaria and Romania. The Sheffield office of the IND was looking at the handling of European Community Association Agreement applications, which comprised accession countries, plus Bulgaria and Romania, but not Malta or Cyprus. As the noble Baroness mentioned, the new order does not cover Malta and Cyprus. Will all the cases that would have been dealt with under that regime be covered by the statutory instrument before us now? The Minister's answer will be germane to the final question of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. She asked if the Government would be able to handle the numbers who will enter under this scheme and whether the systems to cope with them would be in place. Manifestly, the systems were not in place to cope with the ECAA applications. Will the people in Sheffield who failed so dismally to cope with the increase in number of ECAA applications be the same ones who deal with the applications made under this scheme? Will the Minister indicate whether we will have a separate opportunity to discuss the Sutton report? That seems to be of fundamental importance in deciding whether the Immigration and Nationality directorate is capable of coping with any new burdens that are placed on it, let alone the ones that are specified in these regulations. The Minister may snigger, but this is not a laughing matter.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not sniggering. The noble Lord is not right. We have tried extremely hard to deal seriously with this matter. I was merely shaking my head in disbelief that the noble Lord, who knows so much about this issue, could possibly think that that would be our position.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I do think that. The Sutton report raised serious issues that have not yet been addressed. The Government have been in possession of it since 31 March. I know that there will be a Question on the Order Paper next week about the Sutton report, but we have not had a debate about it. We have no idea whether all the recommendations of Kenneth Sutton have been implemented. If they have, what impact will they have on the new scheme that is now being introduced? In her intervention, the Minister did not immediately say whether the work involved in administering the scheme would be undertaken by the

495
same people in Sheffield who failed so dismally with the ECAA scheme. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that we will have an opportunity to go thoroughly into the issue and that we will not have to be content with a Starred Question next week.
Noon
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I begin by apologising for rising at the end of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I had unfortunately forgotten that my reply should follow all contributions and not just the first three. I apologise for that.
In accordance with his stricture, I shall not thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I shall however thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for hers and for her kind remarks about me. I reassure her that the new system is not a shambles. A lot of hard work has gone into making sure that it is as clear, succinct and as practical as possible. I know that the noble Baroness has a high regard for practicality, as indeed do I. It is important to know that everything is in place for this system to work.
I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I answer some of her questions in the wrong order because I wish to remind her of my comments on Regulation 9. I know that she is concerned about the way in which employers will be able to gain access to information. Employers will be able to play their part by checking within one month of employing someone whether a person is a national of one of the eight accession states and that he or she has registered under Regulation 9(2). The employer has then simply to take a copy of the application form or other document proving exemption. That would provide them with their statutory defence and authorise them to employ the person until receipt of the registration certificate. When the application has been considered, the Government are required under Regulation 8 to send the employer a copy of the registration certificate or, in the unlikely event that application is refused, a copy of the refusal notice. Under Regulation 9(1), the only time when employers would be in difficulties would be if they employed an unregistered accession state worker in breach of the rules. We have tried to make the legislation as simple as possible so that it is not too burdensome on employers.
I return to the noble Baroness's questions, which I shall take one by one, before turning to the questions asked by the noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Dholakia and Lord Avebury.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked what systems were in place to ensure that we can cope with the applications on 1 May. I assure the noble Baroness and the House that we have taken measures to ensure that we can cope; we have implemented a planning capability of up to 250 applications per day. If there is an early surge of applications in the first weeks, we have contingency plans in place to draft in more trained staff without impacting on other areas of the business.
496
In relation to records, I have said that employers should take a copy and retain it. The obligation is on the worker to register, not on the employer, and we believe that balance to be right. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, suggested that the regulations had been cobbled together; I assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that they were not. The accession treaty specifically provided for these regulations to be produced in order to set out whether and on what terms we could access our labour market. We believe that we have done that in good time.
I am assured by my noble friends and colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions that the standard consultation requirements have been fully complied with in respect of the DWP regulations. It is our understanding that the advice of the Social Services Advisory Committee will be published without undue delay. That is what we have been assured. The draft accession regulations were laid before Parliament on 25 March, as noble Lords will I hope know.
The Department for Work and Pensions made draft Social Security (Habitual Residence) Amendment Regulations 2004 available on 18 March; the Social Security Advisory Committee has consulted on those draft regulations and will produce a report. We have always made clear what we intend the regulations to do and believe that the package will come into force, as planned, on 1 May. It was decided, however, that it was inappropriate to publish details of the scheme until it was approved by Parliament. The scheme will not be operational until 1 May—as soon as workers start a new job, on or after the 1 May, but not before. To avoid confusion, we have decided to make the application form available a week before the scheme goes live.
The noble Baroness asked, quite properly, about preparation—how people would get information about the new rules and what other countries had been told. In relation to A8 nationals, a publicity leaflet has been translated into the languages of the eight states and made available on the IND website. It is available at ports of entry to the UK, in public inquiry offices, Jobcentre Plus offices and citizens advice bureaux. The A8 embassies in the UK and the UK embassies in the accession states were also given the information. To the CBI, the TUC, the British Council and the UKCOSA, the distribution will begin on 27 April, as soon as the regulations have been approved by Parliament.
There will be posters at all ports of entry and public inquiry offices, which will advise nationals to check whether they are required to register for work. The application form and guidance on how to complete the form has been designed and drafted; that information will be available on websites and from our distribution centres on 27 April, subject, once again, to parliamentary approval. I make that point because the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will know that in the past we have been criticised for doing things before having parliamentary approval. We believe that we have behaved with propriety in that regard.
The IOM publicity campaign in four accession countries, TV, radio and face-to-face messages, was launched on 23 April. On 1 April, we held a briefing

497
session with the 10 accession country ambassadors, and the Foreign Office has sent a letter to all ambassadors as a follow-up to that meeting. As to employers, there is guidance on how to prevent illegal working—short guidance sent out on 16 April to all PAYE-registered employers in the UK, and on the IND website from 16 March. More detailed and comprehensive guidance for employers was available on the website from 21 April on preventing illegal working. Employers will be able to request hard copies of the longer guidance in early May from the employers' helpline, I shall give the number for that helpline, in case anyone wants it; it is 0845 0106677.
As for asylum seekers, we have written to all accession nationals supported by NASS or by a local authority under the interim provisions, informing them that support will cease on 30 April and advising them of their options. All letters terminating support for that group were sent out on 16 April.
The noble Baroness asked about numbers. We have been clear that making predictions about numbers is difficult; however, we do know that we have more than 500,000 job vacancies, for which we welcome people who want to come and work hard and contribute. We are taking that action to ensure that people cannot come and not work and try to exploit our benefits. I hope from what I have just said, the noble Baroness will see that we believe that the provisions will enable us to meet the numbers, whether they are as high as she suggested or, indeed, are significantly lower. The noble Baroness also asked about removal, but I shall deal with that slightly later, and respond to the questions that she asked about the other practical steps, as that would be very much in the flow.
Noble Lords asked about training. A dedicated project team has been set up to deliver the necessary accommodation, IT systems, staff recruitment and training required to ensure that the scheme is up and running on 1 May. A dedicated casework team of 42 staff has been recruited. Training and accommodation for the team and the IT systems are in place. Training of new staff began on 19 April. The forms have been printed and will be made available on 27 April, as I have said, as will the guidance to employers. That issue will be very much part of the training. Section 8 checks will prevent illegal working. We have designed a new bespoke IT system, which successfully completed user acceptance testing last week.
I have dealt already with the forms, and I hope that that satisfies noble Lords. The noble Baroness asked what will happen with students after 12 months working. Students who are working will be required to register as workers; we believe that to be the most transparent way in which to do things. They will have full access to the labour market when they register. That does not breach the standstill clause in the EC directive on students, as students are currently able to access the labour market for 20 hours or less in term time and full time during breaks. Students who are working, who have registered under the worker registration scheme, will therefore be in an advantageous position. That will be a considerable improvement on their current status.
498
Prior to accession, students from accession states were subject to immigration control and had to obtain leave to remain in the UK to study. That is a much more burdensome process than the registration scheme that we have devised. They will also be required to be self-sufficient. From 1 May, they will be able to access the labour market and accrue workers' rights as well as student rights. Under the European directive, students are required to be self-sufficient, but they will be eligible for the same in-work support as other registered workers. That means that they can get child benefit, tax credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit, if they work. When students have been registered for 12 months and have accrued their workers' rights, if they wish to work they will be required to register and will be entitled to full EEA workers' rights. I hope that noble Lords will think that that is a major advantage to them.
I have already dealt with the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that I have a very difficult brief and might not be able to answer these questions.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I know it is a difficult brief but I have never doubted the noble Baroness's ability to answer on it.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord McNally. I hope that your Lordships will accept from what I have said that these are not panic measures. They have been well thought through and carefully carried out.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is rightly concerned about the test for self-sufficiency. A judgment will need to be made on the facts of the matter and each case will be different. In general, if a person does not seek social security benefits or other forms of benefit as a result of destitution then he is very unlikely to fall foul of these provisions. We are not seeking to set some extraordinarily high threshold. If a person is looking after himself, is not a drain on public funds and is meeting his everyday needs then we think that it would be reasonable to say that he is self-sufficient. Obviously if a person seeks to claim benefits that may be an indication that that is not the case. In any event, we shall look at this on a case-by-case basis. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.
We are not saying that we want to exclude one type of worker or that only the most financially advantaged should come here. We believe that a broad spectrum of people can make a valuable contribution and should be encouraged to come here and take up work if there is work available for them to do. I hope that I have made it clear that if they do take up work they will be entitled to work-related benefits. We think that is fit, proper and decent.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me whether it will be the same team in Sheffield. I assure him that the same team will not be responsible for the ECAA applications. I hope that reassures him. My smile was simply an expression of warmth at the ability of this House to misconstrue this Government. The noble Lord said this is a very serious matter. We do take it seriously and have tried to get it right.

499
The noble Baroness asked whether people will be told why they are refused. If an applicant is refused on the grounds that he is not a worker then he can continue to do what he is doing, for example, voluntary work, without the need for registration. He would not have access to tax credits or child benefit. If an applicant is refused on the grounds that it is suspected that he is not really from an Accession-8 country and may not be legally entitled to work in the United Kingdom and if the employer continues to employ him, despite receiving notification of refusal from the Home Office, that employer may be guilty of employing an illegal worker. If the employer knows that the person is not entitled to work in the UK then any defence established by checking his documents will be forfeited.
The noble Baroness asked whether there will be an appeal. The short answer to that is, "No". We hope that the vast majority of applications will be successful. But if the applicant is not an A8 national worker requiring registration, including if there is suspicion that the passport ID is not genuine, then WP(UK) will refuse the application, refund the fee and send a notice of refusal to the applicant and the employer. If the applicant does not appear to be a worker the application will be refused and the applicant will not be permitted to enter the labour force. If there is a lack of evidence of employment or a mismatch between the person's identity and the employment document application then WP(UK) will contact the applicant to obtain further information. Missing information will not be the ground for absolute removal.
I hope that the removal of current EEA nationals is the last issue. I have dealt with all the others from the noble Baroness. Noble Lords will know that that is possible under the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2000. Under the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2000 as applied by the Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004 where an A8 individual is not working in accordance with the worker registration scheme or is not otherwise exercising treaty rights, that is that he is not self-sufficient, self-employed or something like that, if he creates an unreasonable burden on public funds then he may be liable for removal. It has been a matter of public policy that this should take place on grounds of public security and public health. The powers of detention and removal under the Immigration Act 1971 still apply. That would be the route that would be taken to remove someone. If he had not clearly demonstrated that he was self-supporting or self-sufficient we could use the 1971 rules to do it.
I think that the last issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was about the Sutton report. I do not detract from the importance of these issues. Whether there will be a debate on them will be a matter for the usual channels. I would not like to minimise the gravity of the problems effecting eastern European applicants that have arisen in Sheffield. My right honourable friends have already given a full account of the measures that we are prepared to take and will be taking in relation to that matter.
500
I hope that noble Lords will see from the explanation that I have just given that an enormous amount of work was put into these regulations by my right honourable friend the previous Minister of State responsible for asylum and immigration issues, Beverley Hughes. I pay tribute to her work on this. She worked incredibly hard and the fact that we have these regulations in good order is to a large extent because of her work.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I intervene with great hesitation and humility. The Minister has taken us to task on several occasions and has said that these regulations are in good order and that there has been no cobbling together. But does she remember that when she introduced the regulations she explained to the House that they are not accurate and will have to be amended? Is that still the case?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I made it clear that they have to be amended in one regard. I shall be perfectly frank about how this matter arose. It was as a result of the lawyers going back through the details. When we examined them, it was found that the dependants of those who were self-employed had been omitted. It was a mere oversight. That is the correction that we want to make. I think that the lawyers in the department should be given credit for the acuity with which they looked at these regulations. They identified the problem early, they notified us of it and it will be cured. The noble Baroness and others have said that this is a shambles or a mess. I hope that I have been able to assure the House that those adjectives are not accurate in relation to the scheme that we have put in place. The credit for those who have worked hard on these regulations is well founded. I hope that, even if the noble Baroness cannot agree with me on that, she will agree that she now has more information about how this scheme will work. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lay Magistrates (Eligibility) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
12.19 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 11 March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order is to be made by powers conferred by the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. The order was laid before the House on 11 March and debated in another place on 31 March. The order prescribes the eligibility requirements for appointment as a lay magistrate, a new judicial office which we are establishing in Northern Ireland. Our overriding objective is to ensure that lay magistrates are not appointed when they have a real or a perceived conflict of interest. Other factors to be taken into account when determining eligibility include distance from the court locality and specific personal qualities.

501
This new office is an important initiative, stemming from the Belfast agreement. The agreement endorsed the creation of a justice system that would,
"be responsive, encourage community involvement and promote public confidence".
The agreement also provided for a review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. The review group considered as part of its remit,
"measures to improve the responsiveness and accountability of, and any lay participation in the criminal justice system".
Views emerging from consultation by the review group were supportive of a strong lay magistracy. The introduction of this measure, which will establish an important link between the courts and the local areas they serve, will lead to further enhancement of public confidence in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. Lay magistrates will perform certain criminal justice functions currently performed by justices of the peace and all functions currently performed by lay persons sitting alongside resident magistrates dealing with criminal proceedings in youth courts and care proceedings in family proceedings courts.
The order is supplemented by a statement of policy, which has been placed in the House Library. Our policy sets out our thinking for the inclusion of the list of offices and occupations on the face of the order and provides guidance in relation to other offices and occupations. The list does not seek to be exhaustive. Furthermore, it received widespread support from those who responded to the public consultation in Northern Ireland on the draft order and policy.
While the order and the policy provide guidance, when making appointments to the lay magistracy the Lord Chancellor retains an overall discretion. This will ensure that the Lord Chancellor retains the ultimate decision-making authority on the merits.
The new post will be introduced in April 2005. Following appointment, there will be a focused training programme for the new lay magistrates.
In conclusion, the establishment of this new office of lay magistrate is a meaningful measure flowing from the Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland. The lay magistracy will be comprised of local people adjudicating in their local court areas, which will further enhance the confidence of the public in the justice system. The Government consider that the right balance has been struck between minimising constraints on eligibility on the one hand and, on the other, building in sufficient checks and balances in the appointments process to protect the integrity of the office. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his opening observations on the draft order. I should like to raise three matters with the noble Lord.
502
The first concerns the selection criteria for lay magistrates. I note the following sentence in paragraph 9 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the draft order, which states:
"Appointments will be made strictly on the basis of merit and an essential consideration will be to appoint a Lay Magistracy that is broadly reflective of the community it serves, particularly by community background and gender".
In my submission there is a potential conflict here between the criterion of merit and the criterion of reflectiveness. I should like to ask the Minister how it is intended to resolve that.
I have had the opportunity of glancing at the debate that took place in another place on 31 March. I note that the Minister, Mr Leslie, put the matter this way:
"I do not feel that there is any inconsistency between appointment on merit and seeking a more diverse range of appointments, not least because much can be done to improve the diversity of applicants. If the pool of applicants is narrow, consisting, as is traditional, of white, middle aged men with a particular background, the chances are that the final appointments will be of white, middle aged men. They may be appointed on merit, but be from a narrow spectrum and not necessarily be reflective of wider society. However"—
and here I come to the crucial part of Mr Leslie's speech—
"if we encourage a wider pool of people to apply, including women, and people from ethnic minorities and of different ages, the chances of having a broader, more diverse judiciary, also appointed on merit, are increased".—[Official Report, Commons Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 31/3/04; col. 23.]
If that is to be the Government's approach to the selection process, I would have no quarrel with it. It seems to me wholly consistent with the exclusive criterion of merit, nevertheless, to have a programme which, over a period of time, encourages a more diverse pool to apply for the post in question.
My attention has been drawn to Clause 3 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill in this specific context. Clause 3 is inserting a further section into the 2002 Act, in place of subsections (8) and (9) of Section 5 of that Act. Proposed subsection (8) provides:
"The selection of a person to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to a listed judicial office (whether initially or after reconsideration) must be made solely on the basis of merit".
Proposed subsection (9) provides:
"Subject to that, the Commission must at all times engage in a programme of action which complies with subsection (10)".
Proposed subsection (10) states:
"A programme of action complies with this subsection if—
(a) it is designed to secure, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, that appointments to listed judicial offices are such that those holding such offices are reflective of the community in Northern Ireland.
(b) it requires the Commission, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, to secure that a range of persons reflective of the community in Northern Ireland is available for consideration by the Commission whenever it is required to select a person to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to a listed judicial office; and
(c) it is for the time being approved by the Commission for the purposes of this section".

503
If the approach set out in the Bill is, indeed, to be the approach taken to lay magistrate selection under this order, would the Minister be kind enough to confirm that for me in his closing remarks?
My second concern is about the order itself, and in particular about the proscribed categories. I note that eligibility for selection will be limited to those who live within 15 miles of the county court division to which the appointment relates. I am also aware that some county courts are close enough to the Northern Ireland border so that the 15-mile radius will stretch into southern Ireland.
I have, of course, no objection whatever to lay magistrates being selected from south of the border if they fall within the 15-mile radius; that has, as I understand it, been the case for justices of the peace for several hundred years. I am, however, rather concerned at the implications of this fact for the list of proscribed activities. I note, for example, in paragraph 2(b) of the order that not only are Members of another place, the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly and your Lordships' House excluded, but Members of either House of the Irish Parliament. The Irish exclusion seems to me to be perfectly reasonable given that all Members of Parliament from the United Kingdom are excluded.
The other list, however, at sub-paragraph (e) refers to:

(i) a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland,

(ii) a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve,

(iii) a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board,

(iv) an employee of the Northern Ireland Policing Board.

(v) the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland,

(vi) an employee of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland,

(vii) the Director of the Assets Recovery Agency,

(viii) a member of staff of the Assets Recovery Agency,

(ix) the Director or deputy Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland,

(x) a member of staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland,

(xi) a member of Her Majesty's Regular Armed Forces,

(xii) a member of staff of the Northern Ireland Prison Service,

(xiii) a member of staff of the Youth Justice Agency,

(xiv) a member of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland,

(xv) a member of staff of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland,

(xvi) a practising barrister or solicitor.

(xvii) a member of the panel of guardians ad litem appointed under the Guardians Ad Litem (Panel) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996".

I note that all these proscriptions relate to Northern Ireland alone. None of them applies to equal categories of persons south of the border. That is inconsistent with the approach to elected Members.
504
I am curious to know what policy approach determined the drafting in the order. It seems to me that, unless there is a reason for adopting that approach which is reasonable, the approach is defective. The same discrimination also applies to the proscriptions of spouses or partners of those categories to which I have just referred in your Lordships' House.
My third and final—the Minister will be relieved to hear—question concerns the last proscription in the list which falls under paragraph (2)(j). This states that,
"if he [the potential candidate] has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment".
I am curious to know what the Minister makes of the expression,
"punishable by a term of imprisonment".
This issue was also raised in another place. I must say that I found the Minister's response to the question on that occasion somewhat opaque.
It was put to the Minister directly: does the expression,
"punishable by a term of imprisonment",
mean any offence that has a range of punishments, one of which is imprisonment? In other words, does it mean that any offence that has a range of punishments, one of which is imprisonment, is the relevant offence under that clause; or does the clause bite only if someone is actually imprisoned or given a suspended sentence?
Mr Leslie responded in another place:
Unless their offence had a conviction that involved imprisonment ☠ they would be eligible".—[Official Report, Commons Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. 31/3/04; col. 7.],
meaning that they would be appointable. If that is so, it seems to he, in my submission, an eminently sensible approach. I can think, for example, of a number of offences in relation to the definition of "waste" that are usually dealt with in a magistrates' court and which carry either a tine or a period of imprisonment for three months. Almost invariably, whether an individual pleads guilty to the offence or, indeed, is found guilty after a trial, the magistrates will impose a fine. They will not impose a period of imprisonment. It would, in my submission, be bizarre if someone who had been arraigned before the magistrates' court for a waste offence and was fined nevertheless to be caught by this provision. However, there was sufficient uncertainty in my mind as a consequence of the debate following Mr Leslie's remarks to ask for the reassurance of the noble Lord.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I shall take up considerably less of your Lordships' time than the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. On the whole the order seems sensible enough; its provisions are basically just common sense. The list of the exemptions seems reasonable enough to me, although I believe that one small change could be made. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an example of the thinking behind the order so that we can know the Government's thought processes on the matter. That is probably as important as the list. I refer to the exemptions for partners. It appears that the exemption does not apply for a spouse or partner of someone who has worked for the Probation Board. Why

505
is the position different as regards a partner or spouse of someone who has worked for the Youth Justice Agency? The dividing line seems to be drawn rather oddly. If the Minister can answer that question, it would allay one small doubt. However, as I say, on the whole this is a sensible order. We see no objection to it. We think that the change-over from lay magistrates to JPs is sensible. Indeed, we are very happy.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, there will be a slight sense of a foretaste of what we shall enjoy next Thursday when I believe that we shall have the privilege of returning to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred to some of the debates that we had when that Bill was last in this House.
I turn to one of the very good debates that we had on that Bill which concerned how you seek to achieve two things at once. I refer to a judiciary that is reflective of the community that it serves. There was no dissent in this House to that as an objective of policy, which I was warmed to feel when we had that debate. But how does one achieve that without there being any conflict about, or compromise on, merit? I am extremely pleased to affirm our policy stance on this order and to repeat what I said in the House at that stage of the Bill—and will come back to in terms of the future legislation—that is, that it is exactly as I think the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would wish it to be, by which I mean that it is perfectly proper. It is our policy that action should be taken to try to encourage people from a diversity of genders, societies and backgrounds to think about applying for judicial office—in this case, the lay magistracy—with the aim of trying to gain a diverse pool of people. However, when the process of selection comes, the decision is made solely on merit. We discussed that distinction, and I recollect the support of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in those discussions. Exactly the same approach is taken in the order, whether a future Bill is passed or not, which of course I hope that it will be.
I turn next to proscribed categories and other police forces, which I very much respect is a sensitive issue. The order is crafted in reference to geographical distance from the county court areas, because that is what the primary legislation empowered it to do; it could not use another basis than that. One benefit of taking a little more time on the order has been that we set out a policy statement for this House and another place of what clearly lies behind our thinking, and how we intend to operate the discretion that the Act and the order give the Lord Chancellor.
We made it clear in that policy statement, in correspondence subsequent to it and in another place, that, although the order itself does not list every other police force that could be proscribed, for example, we think it incompatible with confidence in an independent judiciary if a member of any police force were appointed to the lay magistracy. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, shares the view that, in a sense, that is virtually self-evident. One cannot achieve confidence in the independence of a judiciary in terms of the public at large if the person on the Bench is seen to be a policeman.
506
That is not to say that policemen are corrupt; it is an issue about perception of independence. That is our position. The Gardai, for example, are not specified in the order, but they will not be appointed to the lay magistracy in Northern Ireland.
We could have made the point in the order, but we would have been foolish to have tried to list every comparable office that might have been proscribed. The list would have been at least 700 long. With the best of efforts, the chances of getting it perfectly right would have been fairly slim, I suspect. Therefore, we sought to set out the obvious ones and to signal our policy position, as I have tried to emphasise.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the assurances that he has given the House about the inappropriateness of appointments to the lay magistracy of any member of a police force, whether north or south of the Border. The first reason why I drew his attention to the list was that we had not at that point had the benefit of his statement about the generality of the prohibition.
Secondly, the list seems very specific to Northern Ireland. The noble Lord said that it would be a very long list if we included everyone and that the order would have been impossibly long. However, one is inevitably struck by the fact that the only categories stipulated in the order are categories from Northern Ireland. That was what initially made me make the point as I did. However, the Minister's response has been extremely valuable, and I am most grateful.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, there was a very slight phrase in my opening speech that referred to the list not being exclusive. On that I hang my explanation at this point, but there is a clear policy position.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I quite accept that the list is not exclusive, but the selection for the list that the Minister chose to put in the order is, in my submission, rather one-sided.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall not repeat what I said. The thrust is essentially to be absolutely clear about the Northern Ireland posts, and that the same principles would apply to any analogous posts from any other country. That is an important point, and I am genuinely glad that the noble Lord has allowed us to tease out the issue. Again, it is an issue of public confidence.
I do not think that I shall please the noble Lord on the next point. While there may or may not have been ambiguity in another place, the order is clear in law that the offence could be imprisonable. Unless the powers of exemption were applied, a person would be debarred from being appointed as a lay magistrate if he had been convicted of an offence that could carry a term of imprisonment, whether the individual had been imprisoned in practice or not. That balance is right. The noble Lord will be adroit at identifying, as he did, examples on which one might ask whether we

507
were really serious. Nevertheless, as a working distinction, the offences that carry terms of imprisonment are self-evidently the more serious ones.
That is a strong and good position because, in principle, someone who has been convicted of an imprisonable offence has a presumption against him that he has the qualities that would give the public confidence in his standing. However, I draw to the House's attention the power of exemption that the Lord Chancellor has. He alone has it; a selection panel does not. If a lay panel making a recommendation for appointment believed that someone was suitable but was debarred as a consequence of the inhibition that we are debating, it is open to that panel to put in writing to the Lord Chancellor why it believes that an exception should be made. It cannot make the exception itself. The Lord Chancellor then has the power to make an exception if he thinks it appropriate.
The sort of example of which I am thinking is of someone who might have been convicted, perhaps when 18, of disorderly behaviour. Thirty years later, he was no longer a disorderly person, but was nearly 50 and wanted to be a lay magistrate. In such a situation, one can envisage a lay panel thinking that the person met all other merit tests, nothing having happened apart from that offence 30 years ago. In such a situation, some panels might put forward a case for the discretion that resides with the Lord Chancellor to be exercised.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington,asked a question that, I think, focused on the Youth Justice Board.
Lord Addington: My Lords, it was on why those working in the probation service and their spouses were not excluded while those who worked for the Youth Justice Agency were. Where was the line drawn? What was the thinking behind it?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Youth Justice Agency is akin to the Prison Service and deals with young people in custody. The order reflects that, but there is no similar conflict in respect of members of probation boards. Sometimes I feel that one gives less good answers from the Dispatch Box than one would wish, through problems of eyesight. Perhaps I can amplify the point subsequently. I am apologetic for not being able to give a clear answer.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I believe that I have gathered that the distinction concerns someone working within the Prison Service, as opposed to with someone who has come out. I see a cut-off.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is not good Parliamentary process, but if the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will bear with me I would be pleased to have a discussion with him immediately afterwards to enter into a little more detail on that point. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliament (Disqualification) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2004
12.50 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 March be approved [12th Report front the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the European Parliament (Disqualification)(United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2004 be approved. I shall also speak to the European Parliament (Number of MEPs)(United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2004.
I am grateful that it has been agreed that these orders can be taken together. They both relate to the European parliamentary elections to be held in the United Kingdom on 10 June this year, and are an important part of the Government's preparations for these elections.
There is one main purpose of this first order. It disqualifies certain classes of individuals connected with Gibraltar from being MEPs. This follows on from the order which established the combined electoral region of the South West and Gibraltar to enable the people of Gibraltar to vote in European Parliamentary elections and which extended the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to Gibraltar. Noble Lords may recall that that order was debated in this House in January.
By way of background, a ruling in 1999 by the European Court of Human Rights, as a result of a legal challenge to the UK from a Gibraltar resident, declared that the European Parliament formed a part of Gibraltar's legislature. The European Parliament (Representation) Act—which received Royal Assent in May 2003—fulfilled the obligation to meet the terms of that judgment. The Act provides for the Gibraltar electorate to be enfranchised for elections to the European Parliament.
The current position in both the UK and Gibraltar is that, under Section 10 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, as it stands, certain classes of people are disqualified from being an MEP, for example people under 21. Other classes of people in the UK that are disqualified from being an MEP include, for example, people declared bankrupt in the UK. Provision needs to be made to apply such disqualification to Gibraltarians in a similar position. This order does that, mirroring those classes of people in the UK.
In addition, under Section 28 of the Gibraltar Constitution certain people are prohibited from being members of the House of Assembly. The order includes those classes of people listed in the constitution, which although similar to those disqualified in the United Kingdom, are not caught by the United Kingdom provisions.
In detail, paragraph 2(a) of the order provides for a person to be disqualified from the office of MEP if he has been adjudged or otherwise declared bankrupt under any law in force in Gibraltar and remains undischarged. Those in the class described here are also currently disqualified from being members of the Gibraltar House of Assembly. Bankrupts under United Kingdom law are not entitled to be MEPs (by virtue of being disqualified from being an MP).

509
Paragraph (b) of Article 2 disqualifies from the office of MEP a person who holds or acts in certain public offices—such as judges or members of the police—by virtue of which they would be disqualified under Gibraltar law from being members of the Gibraltar House of Assembly. Again, this is similar to the existing UK position, where such people are disqualified from membership of the House of Commons. However, the provision enables those such as teachers or junior administrative staff who are not disqualified under United Kingdom law to be MEPs.
Furthermore, the provisions found in paragraph (c) of Article 2 disqualify the Clerk to the House of Assembly of Gibraltar. Under the terms of the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 the clerk to the House of Assembly of Gibraltar is both the electoral registration officer and the local returning officer for the Gibraltar part of the combined region, and similar persons are disqualified in the United Kingdom. In addition any deputy or clerk appointed by the Clerk to the House of Assembly in Gibraltar in his capacity as local returning officer or the European electoral registration officer for Gibraltar is also disqualified.
Those who have committed offences connected to the elections to the House of Assembly in Gibraltar are disqualified from being members of the House of Assembly under the Gibraltar Constitution. Provisions in paragraph (d) mean that this class of people are also disqualified from being an MEP. The provisions under paragraph (e) disqualify those who have been found guilty of one or more offences— whether in Gibraltar or elsewhere—sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned indefinitely or for more than one year and are detained in Gibraltar or unlawfully at large. This provision is related to the one for the disqualification for the House of Assembly and in addition equates to a similar provision in the Representation of the People Act 1981.
To summarise, Article I provides for the citation, commencement and interpretation of the order. Article 2 specifies those persons who are disqualified from the office of MEP. The Electoral Commission has considered this order and has given its overall support.
This order is an important part of the required secondary legislation following the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003, and as such contributes to the United Kingdom fulfilling its obligations arising from a European Court of Human Rights decision which said that the people of Gibraltar are entitled to vote in the European parliamentary elections. It does this by defining those people in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar who are disqualified from the office of MEP.
I shall now turn to the second order, the European Parliament (Number of MEPs) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2004. This provides for the number of United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament to be reduced from 87 to 78 as a result of the accession of 10 new states to the European Union. The order also sets out how the new number of MEPs
510
are to be divided between the electoral regions in the UK. The new number of MEPs, as set out in the order, will apply to the European parliamentary elections to be held on Thursday, 10 June 2004.
Noble Lords may find it useful if I go into some of the background as to why this order is necessary. The Treaty of Nice, which entered into force on 1 February 2003, provides for an enlarged European Union of 27 states, and makes adjustments to EU institutions to prepare the Union for enlargement. It was agreed after negotiations in which the UK played a full part that the European Parliament would be expanded to accommodate the new member states and that the European Parliament would have a maximum number of 732 MEPs.
The Government fully support the enlargement of the European Union. However, I am sure noble Lords will agree that it makes sense to put a limit on the total number of MEPs elected by EU states so that the European Parliament does not become too large. A necessary consequence of that is that the number of MEPs elected by existing member states, including the United Kingdom will be reduced in order to accommodate the new member states.
Under the Treaty of Accession signed in Athens on 16 April 2003, 10 of the 12 candidate states provided for in the Nice treaty are to join the European Union on 1 May 2004. The accession treaty specified that the UK would have 78 MEPs in the European Parliament within the enlarged Union of 25 states. Parliament has given its approval to the Athens treaty. The draft order before us implements the UK's revised allocation of 78 MEPs provided for in the treaty. As I have explained, the UK currently has 87 MEPs. Under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, for the purposes of elections to the European Parliament the UK is divided into 12 electoral regions. England is divided into nine electoral regions and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each form a single electoral region. The 2002 Act specifies how many MEPs each region has.
The European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 sets out a procedure for making adjustments to the number of UK MEPs. Where an adjustment is required—for example, as a result of provisions in an EU treaty—the Lord Chancellor will ask the independent Electoral Commission to make a recommendation to him as to how the new number of UK MEPs should be distributed between the electoral regions. The 2003 Act specifies that, in making a recommendation, the Electoral Commission must ensure that each electoral region is allocated at least three MEPs, and the ratio of electors to MEPs is as nearly as possible the same in each electoral region.
In October last year, the Lord Chancellor asked the Electoral Commission to make such a recommendation in respect of the reduced number of seats that the UK will have as a result of the expansion of the EU to 25 states. The Electoral Commission made its recommendation at the end of October and it was laid before Parliament in November 2003. The method used by the commission—the Sainte-Lague method—was fully explained in its report and I need not go into detail here. But the method was supported by a number of expert sources; for example, the Royal Statistical Society and the Office for National Statistics.

511
The recommendation was that in three electoral regions— the East Midlands, the South West and Northern Ireland— the number of seats remains unchanged, while the other nine regions have all lost a single seat. The Government accept the Electoral Commission's recommendation and the draft order follows the recommendation, as the 2003 Act requires.
Article 1 of the order contains citation, commencement and interpretation provisions. The order will come into force on 1 May 2004, when the 10 accession states will join the EU, in good time for the European parliamentary elections on 10 June 2004. Article 2 amends Section 1 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002. The order inserts into the 2002 Act the new total number of MEPs to be elected for the United Kingdom. The substituted subsection (3) provides for the distribution of MEPs between the electoral regions, as set out in the commission's recommendation.
The draft order applies to the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. As noble Lords will know, Gibraltar is taking part in the June European parliamentary elections and has been combined with the South West electoral region to form a new electoral region for the European parliamentary elections. We have consulted the Electoral Commission on the draft order, as required by the 2003 Act.
The Government believe that the commission has made a fair and reasonable recommendation as to how the new number of UK MEPs should be distributed across the electoral regions, and it is in accordance with the requirements of the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003.
Both the orders before us are necessary for the effective running of the European parliamentary elections to be held in June, and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
1 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining these two orders in such detail. They are not controversial and we shall not oppose them.
The first one brings Gibraltar into line with the procedures in the United Kingdom, while also being sympathetic to the existing rules for the Gibraltar Assembly on the disqualification of those able to stand as MEPs for Gibraltar. The second is in line with discussions that have taken place with the accession countries.
I should like to ask the Minister some brief questions. First, what consultations have been held with the people of Gibraltar and the House of Assembly about these statutory instruments? Secondly, what implication will the recent European Court of Human Rights ruling on the case of John Hirst have for Gibraltar, suggesting, as
512
it does, that prisoners have the right to vote under the human rights legislation? And, finally, in the light of the Prime Minister's announcement of a referendum on the European constitution, will Gibraltar, as part of the South West constituency, be allowed to hold a referendum?
Lord Addington: My Lords, like the Conservative Benches, we can be very brief. We have no real objection to either order. As has already been stated, the disqualifications seem absolutely reasonable and in line not only with Gibraltarian practice but also with practice in this country. In addition, if the European Union is to expand, the European Parliament will have to be kept to a manageable size. Our loss of a few politicians' positions in the short term will ultimately be the gain of the whole of Europe. We have no objection to the orders.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Astor and Lord Addington, for their approval of the orders. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked three questions, which I shall attempt to answer. The first concerned consultation with the people of Gibraltar and with the House of Assembly. The Government of Gibraltar have been consulted on the disqualification of MEPs order, as they have with all the legislation relating to the enfranchisement of Gibraltar for the purposes of the European parliamentary elections. No specific consultation took place with Gibraltar in relation to the number of MEPs order as there was no requirement to do so. But the Electoral Commission consulted widely before making its recommendations, and we know that Gibraltarians were free to contribute to that consultation.
I should add that the order simply implements the recommendations of the Electoral Commission. Noble Lords will be aware that, in the region with which Gibraltar is being combined for the purposes of the European elections—the South West region—the number of MEPs is unchanged.
The second question asked by the noble Lord concerned the case of John Hirst. The Government are carefully considering the details of the judgment and its implications before deciding what steps to take. However, given the noble Lord's interest in this matter, I shall write to him once a decision has been made to inform him of what is happening.
His third question related to the fashionable word "referendum" and whether the British Government will hold a referendum on the issue of Gibraltar. The referendum provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act do not extend to Gibraltar. However, we must remember that the announcement to hold a referendum on the EU constitution was made only two days ago—onTuesday. If and when a constitutional treaty is agreed between member states, the technicalities will be laid before the House in the relevant Bill. I believe that that answers the points raised by the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliament (Number of MEPs) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2004
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it will be recognized that there is a healthy interest in the next debate. Perhaps I may suggest that, with the exception of the speech of my noble friend Lord Faulkner, Back-Benchers endeavour to keep their speeches to 10 minutes or less in order that we conclude our proceedings today in reasonable time.

Tobacco Smoking (Public Places and Workplaces) Bill [H.L.]
1.9 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I start by expressing my appreciation to noble Lords who have indicated their intention to take part in today's debate and by declaring an unpaid interest as a trustee of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation.
The Bill is intended to protect employees and members of the public in England and Wales from the effects of second-hand smoke. Almost exactly 400 years ago, his late Majesty King James I of England and VI of Scotland issued a decree banning tobacco from his kingdom. He did so in these terms:
"Loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs and in the stinking fume thereof nearest resembling the horrific Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless".
This Bill does not quite do that because it is not an attempt to ban smoking. I believe in the liberal principle that we are all free to do as we choose, even if the behaviour we choose to indulge in causes us harm. But we should not forget that that principle comes at a very high price. In the case of smoking, 114,000 people die in the UK every year from smoking-related illnesses. That is a terrible toll of misery and destruction. If any smokers are encouraged to quit as a result of the Bill—there is good reason to believe that some will—I would of course be delighted.
Nevertheless, the liberal principle has clear limits. We are free to harm ourselves, but not to harm others, or as John Stuart Mill put it in his Essay on Liberty:
"Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people".
514
I shall briefly go through the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 makes it unlawful to smoke in enclosed public places other than in a designated smoking area or in a place that is exempted under Part 2 of the schedule to the Bill. Enclosed workplaces are defined as public places for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 2 requires occupiers of public places to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with Clause 1.
Clause 3 allows for smoking areas to be designated in enclosed public places.
Clause 4 gives employees protection from being required by their contracts of employment to work in a smoking area.
Clause 5 provides powers to make regulations. Such regulations may specify the requirements of smoking areas in public places, prohibit the designation of smoking areas in places specified in the regulations, require prescribed forms of consultation with employees on smoking and non-smoking areas and regulate signage, ventilation and air purification systems in public places. The clause gives the power to the Secretary of State in England and to the National Assembly in Wales to make regulations. Therefore, it encompasses the provisions of the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which we shall debate later this afternoon.
Clause 6 makes it an offence to fail to comply with the requirements of the legislation.
Clause 7 gives the court the power to make orders to require occupants of public places to take specific steps to meet their duties under Clause 2.
Clause 8 gives local authorities the duty to enforce the legislation and to allow regulations to be made giving local authorities requisite powers to make such enforcement effective.
Clause 9 states that occupiers of public places cannot be prevented by any of the provisions of the Bill from prohibiting smoking throughout that place.
Clause 10 states that the Bill will bind the Crown and that Crown servants will be treated as employees for the purpose of legislation.
Clause 11 defines "public places" and other key terms in the Bill.
Clause 12 deals with the short title and commencement of the legislation and restricts its application to England and Wales only.
Part 1 of the schedule defines "public places" and Part 2 defines certain premises that are exempt from Clause 1 of the Bill.
The case for the Bill rests on the fact that smoking damages the health of third parties. That is a fact, whatever the tobacco industry and its allies may pretend. The scientific evidence on that point was confirmed by the Government's Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, in July 2003 as well as by the heads of all of Britain's 13 Royal Colleges of medicine and by the Scottish CMO, Dr Mac Armstrong, in April 2004.
The fact that cigarette smoke is bad for your health should be a surprise to no one. A non-smoker exposed to other people's cigarettes breathes sidestream smoke from the burning tip of the cigarette and mainstream smoke that

515
has been inhaled and exhaled by the smoker. Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, some of which have marked irritant properties and some 60 of which are known or suspected carcinogens—cancer causing substances.
Short-term exposure to second-hand smoke has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Thirty minutes' exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow. A recent Department of Health survey for England shows that people who are exposed to other people's tobacco smoke for six or more hours a week are 50 per cent more likely than those who are not so exposed to develop asthma symptoms and breathlessness, coughing and wheezing. The National Asthma Campaign states that one in five people with asthma are prevented from using parts of their workplace where people smoke because of cigarette and other tobacco fumes. My noble friend Lord Simon is one such person. I find it extraordinary, as I am sure do many other noble Lords, that we have not yet made the Palace of Westminster a smoke-free place of work.
The British Medical Association has stated that passive smoking causes at least 1,000 premature deaths in the UK every year. The true figure is probably higher. By comparison, the total number of fatal accidents at work from all causes in the UK in 2002–03 was reported by the Health and Safety Executive as 226.
I apologise for spending so much time stating what many noble Lords may well consider the obvious, but I am afraid that not all the participants in this debate are prepared to accept the scientific realities. Take British American Tobacco, for example, which, in its latest annual report, stated:
"there is no convincing evidence that environmental tobacco smoke exposure genuinely increases the risk of non-smokers developing lung cancer or heart disease".
The tobacco industry spent 50 years covering up the evidence that smoking kills smokers and almost as long covering up the fact that nicotine is addictive. Now it is attempting to deny the truth that it harms non-smokers as well.
Many workplaces still permit smoking and they are generally in sectors with the highest levels of exposure and, therefore, the greatest health and safety risk. Many of them are operated by small firms and employ relatively low-paid staff. A survey published by ASH in April 1999 revealed that approximately 3 million people in the UK are still regularly exposed to second-hand smoke at work.
Workplace smoking is particularly common in the hospitality trades including restaurants, pubs and casinos. A recent compensation case involving casino worker, Mr Mickey Dunn, revealed that his employer handed out free cigarettes to customers to keep them at the gaming tables for as long as possible. In that context I commend my colleagues in all parties and in both Houses who served with me on the joint scrutiny committee on the draft gambling Bill for agreeing to include a recommendation in our report on limiting smoking in casinos in order to protect the health of employees.
The evidence is conclusive. Smoking is a serious workplace health and safety hazard. Usually, and rightly, such hazards are the subject of tight legal regulation. Yet
516
current law in the UK provides wholly inadequate protection against the risks of second-hand smoke. Although second-hand smoke is a workplace carcinogen, it is not listed under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.
My noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen may say something about the efforts that the TUC has made for action to be taken under the EU carcinogens directive. I look forward to hearing what she has to say. Some people have suggested that new legislation is not required because responsible employers will act on their own initiative. The hospitality industry has argued that a voluntary approach to smoking restrictions is preferable to legislation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Warner yesterday indicated from the Dispatch Box that the Government still had some faith in the so-called "Public Places Charter".
The charter group was set up by the industry to promote that voluntary action. The attempt has largely failed. Although the major chain, Pizza Hut, which is part of Whitbread, announced in August last year that it would go smoke-free, most other restaurant chains continue to permit smoking, including other parts of the Whitbread Group. The number of pubs banning smoking is less than 1 per cent of the total and may total fewer than 50 across the whole country.
The voluntary Public Places Charter is not an acceptable way forward as all the pub has to do to comply with it is to put a notice on the door which states, "Smoking throughout". There are many pubs within one mile of the Palace of Westminster which claim to comply with the charter by putting up such a notice.
Recently, the more far-sighted members of the hospitality trade have begun to talk about the need for clear national legislation, particularly in view of the Government's suggestion in their Big Conversation document that local authorities should be given new powers to act in their areas. I commend particularly the efforts that a number of local authorities are taking to introduce their own bans; for example, Liverpool is one of the foremost in doing so. This should not require a local initiative; it requires a nationwide initiative to address the problem.
That indeed is what Tim Martin, the founder of the pub chain Wetherspoons, said when backing nationwide legislation. He has introduced non-smoking in the pubs in the Wetherspoons chain. He is against local implementation because of the effect of competition. I believe though that he will be the first of many who will call for similar national legislation.
As noble Lords will know, a number of other countries and local jurisdictions have already acted to ban smoking in workplaces and enclosed public places. They include Ireland, Norway, California, Massachusetts, much of Australia and the city of New York. There is no reliable evidence that smoking bans damage business; indeed, the reverse is the case. The BMJ journal, Tobacco Control, looked at 97 studies worldwide. All independent studies have found no negative impact on takings. Studies which did show a negative impact had tobacco industry backing and most used subjective measures.

517
Noble Lords will no doubt have seen dire predictions of disaster from the well-organised tobacco and hospitality lobbies in New York. Yet, the New York city finance commissioner, Martha Stark, recently revealed that the business tax take from the city's hospitality venues had increased by 12 per cent in the first nine months since the city's smoking ban took effect.
The smoking ban in Ireland has been introduced to general public support and is already well on the way to proving a great success. A very interesting letter appeared in the Irish Times of 19 April from Mr Pascal Rowenstock, who said:
"I don't wish to sound like the pub bore … but from what I have seen the smoking ban has been not only accepted by everyone (apart from the publicans and [a few] grouches) but actually embraced.
Smokers know that setting fire to a weed wrapped in saltpetre-laced paper and inhaling the smoke thereof is not in the best interest of health. I myself (a part-time 'pint' smoker) and many others I know do not mind making the small sacrifice of going outside rather than forcing others to share our vice. Not only do you find yourself cutting down … but you get to talk to people you might otherwise never have talked to, with the added bonus of having a perfect alibi to take leave of their company if it proves to have been a mistake".
I am sure noble Lords who are concerned about public health will join me in congratulating the Irish Health Minister Michael Martin and his colleagues on their political courage.
Smoking restrictions generally do not require intensive or costly enforcement. That has been the experience in Ireland and New York and of course on the London Underground and other UK public transport systems. The reason is that such restrictions are generally observed by popular consensus. They combine the power and advantages of the unfavourable sentiments and active interference noted by John Stuart Mill.
There is widespread support in the UK for similar action. The Office for National Statistics' report on Smoking related behaviour and attitudes 2002 found that,
"over four-fifths of those interviewed agreed that there should be restrictions on smoking at work (88‥), in restaurants (88‥) and in other public places such as banks and post offices (87‥). A smaller percentage of respondents (54‥) thought that smoking should be restricted in pubs".
The case for legislation to end smoking in the workplace was also given strong support by Derek Wanless in his recent report to the UK Government on public health. He suggested that an end to all smoking in the workplace could reduce smoking prevalence in the adult population by as much as 4 per cent from the current level of around 26 per cent. That would save many thousands of lives a year and is the single cheapest, simplest and most effective way of making a further major cut in the number of deaths and illnesses caused by smoking.
My Bill does not go as far as the Irish or New York legislation: it does not require all workplaces to be fully smoke-free, although I certainly hope that many would wish to choose that option. The Bill is virtually identical to one introduced in 1994 in another place by Tessa Dowell—now Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—when she was a Back-Bench Member.
518
The similarities between the two Bills are not entirely a coincidence. My hope is that her government colleagues will acknowledge the failure of the voluntary approach and give the Bill a fair wind in this House, and then take it over in the other place as they did with the Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. My Bill can be described as a British compromise. It gives statutory force to the worthy aims of the charter group and ensures that they will be met in practice. It provides protection for employees and members of the public from the damaging effects of second-hand smoke. It allows smokers the freedom to continue their habit, although I hope and believe that it will also help to persuade many of them that it is time to quit. The Bill is short and simple and, I believe, it would make a major contribution to solving one of the greatest public health challenges we now face. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Faulkner of Worcester.)
1.27 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I suppose I should start by declaring that I am a member of the All-Party Tobacco and Pipe Smokers' Club. I am delighted to see a fellow member, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in his place, but I am sad that my fellow members on the government side of the House are not present today.
The Bill is unnecessary. It will surprise me if, when summing up, the Minister does not agree with me. After all, we have his own words in answer to a Written Question on 10 March 2004. He said:
"The Government have no plans to ban smoking in public places. We have consistently said that smoke-free public places are the ideal…We do not think a universal ban on smoking in all public places is justified while we can make fast and substantial progress in partnership with industry".—[Official Report, 10/3/04; col. WA 177.]
I shall indeed be surprised if the Minister's reply today is different. After all, tobacco products may legally be retailed to any person over the age of 16. The state has long been quite prepared to tax them highly, reaping for the Exchequer as much as almost £10 billion a year. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, should remind himself that to smoke is not an illegal act.
I should like to comment briefly on one or two matters that arise from the Bill itself. In Clause 5, regulation 1(h) decrees:
"regulating the design, nature and provision of ashtrays and fixed facilities for the disposal of tobacco products at the entrances to or within public places".
Really, that is too absurd. Either that provision should be re-written or eliminated. The term "public space" is defined as meaning a space to which the public or section of the public has access, on payment, or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission.
Smoking is already prohibited in most public buildings, and on public transport. It is confined to designated areas in places that belong to everyone and no one, in particular enclosed shopping centres, airports and theatres. That leaves the hospitality sector. Those are largely private places, in which

519
owners and operators have the freedom to determine smoking policy. It is in their best interests to have regard for the demands and preferences of their customers and for their duties with regard to the health, safety and welfare of their employees. The greater provision of non-smoking areas in such places is progressively being achieved.
However, it says on page 2, paragraph 5(e) of the Bill that regulations may be made,
"Setting maximum permitted exposure levels or durations of exposure to tobacco smoke".
The Bill does not say how long those exposure levels should last. I am thinking of the barman in the smoking area of a pub. What about those people working long hours in nightclubs and casinos? Perhaps they do not count as public places, and the sponsors of this Bill will say "hard cheese" to those persons. Your Lordships may be surprised that I have not mentioned passive smoking. Frankly, I find the voluminous arguments, both for and against, inconclusive. I could easily have taken up your Lordships' time by absolutely refuting the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, but I shall listen. I hope politely, while others discourse on this tricky matter.
I was interested to read the exemptions listed in the Bill but not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. They recognise that regardless of physical health, smoking can be important to some people, and that without the crutch of tobacco they could suffer depression and other mental difficulties. Furthermore, I wonder whether any exercise has been undertaken comparing the effects of passive smoking on the health of members of the non-smoking public with the effects of noxious fumes from motor cars, and so on, on the health of that same public.
Much has been made recently of the Government's worries about obesity. Not surprisingly, I share those worries, since I put on two stone when I gave up smoking. As the French say, I find myself asking myself, "Am I, now fat and smokeless, more of a worry to my GP than when I was lighter, happier, and smoking?". In general, are the illnesses caused by obesity providing more work for doctors and a sicker population than the possible results of smoking? I wonder if the people of Ireland would go as quietly as they have done over a tobacco ban if their government decided, in the interests of their people's health, to put a total ban on butter and French fries. I am old-fashioned enough still to believe in freedom of choice. I hope that this Bill will not pass.
1.33 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner for bringing this Bill forward and for the eloquent manner in which he introduced it to us today. Once again, it allows the smoking issue to be fully debated. It would be great to think that this important Bill before us today was acceptable to the Government. If it became law, I am sure that it would prove to be popular, as all surveys and opinion polls show that the majority of people would like to have
520
smoke-free public and work places. What a great contribution to the health of the nation that would prove to be.
As my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, tobacco kills around 114,000 people in the UK every year. That is more than 300 people a day. About half of all regular cigarette smokers will eventually be killed by their habit, which represents 20 per cent of all deaths. That is a horrific statistic, but one which the Government should and could play a role in reducing, not only by making even greater efforts to get people not to start smoking in the first place, but to help smokers to stop smoking. This Bill will make big inroads in reducing that figure.
A smoking ban in public places would not, of course, be the complete answer to the smoking problem in this country, but it would be a positive measure, and one that would assist in helping people either to stop smoking, or encourage them not to start. It would also be beneficial to people who are forced to be passive smokers because they are in areas where smoking is allowed—which, in this country, is practically everywhere. The Bill is a measured one, which specifies what constitutes a public place and would allow designated smoking areas in public places, a consultation with employees as to the establishment of designated smoking areas, and the adoption of non-smoking areas in workplaces.
Part 2 of the schedule spells out what the exempt places should be. This is a thoughtful Bill, in that it acknowledges that there must be access for those who wish to smoke but can do so without causing problems for everyone else. Of course, some people would object to the inconvenience of not being able to smoke where and when they wanted to. However, the benefits would far outweigh the inconvenience to smokers. Furthermore, in pubs and clubs where young people congregate, having a smoke-free environment would mean that peer pressure on young people to be like their friends and to appear sophisticated or cool would diminish. This, it is hoped, would prevent many young people from smoking, especially girls and young women. It is well known that girls who smoke will have problems later on, in that they will have difficulty in conceiving, and when they do so, the new-born baby will have a lower birth weight, especially if the mother continues to smoke during her pregnancy.
According to ASH—although my noble friend Lord Faulkner gave a different figure—there are only 26 smoke-free pubs in England and Wales, and of those 26 only two are in London. I am sorry to say that only one is in Wales. The voluntary code for the hospitality industry does not seem to be working in pubs, yet the 26 non-smoking pubs seem to be thriving in their non-smoking environment.
If smoking is eventually banned in public places in Wales and England, children would benefit greatly. They are particularly disadvantaged if their parents take them to places where smoking is allowed. Children are unable to remove themselves in the way that adults would be able to, and so become victims of passive smoking. The case for a ban on smoking has

521
been made. All the medical evidence is clear. Smoking causes many illnesses that would be avoided if people did not smoke. Nicotine is such an addictive drug that once hooked—usually at a young age, as very few people start smoking as an adult they need help to give up. The Government have introduced some very good measures to help and support people in their efforts to give up smoking. However, as more and more countries implement a smoking ban in public places, and as more and more people would like to see a ban, surely the time has come for the Government to stop insisting that a voluntary ban is the best approach.
In a recent report published in the Medical Journal of Australia, the authors said that the United Kingdom Government must make more effort to persuade the third of British adults who still smoke to give up. One of the authors, Professor Konrad Jamrozik of Imperial College London said:
"It is extremely hard to fathom why a nation that has led the world in documenting the harm done by smoking has been so slow to act on the evidence".
I detect a chink of light in the Government's approach, in that the Prime Minister called for a Big Conversation on the issue last autumn and even suggested a role for local authorities. I was pleased to learn from the Minister yesterday that the Government had launched a public health consultation, which includes questions on smoking. However, like my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, I believe that, if the matter is left to local authorities, the situation could be very patchy indifferent parts of the country. I well remember the position in Wales when we had referendums on opening the pubs on Sunday. It is not that long ago since the last county in Wales lifted the ban on drinking in pubs on Sunday. All that happened was that drinkers living in dry areas hopped across the council border to the wet area, so that they could have a drink on Sunday. That would happen with a smoking ban, if it were carried out by local authorities.
I can give an example of how the smoking ban in Ireland has affected Wales. Over the Easter break, many people from Ireland travelled to Holyhead in order to have a smoke with their pint. Although tourists are always welcome in Wales, we do not want Wales to become a smokers' paradise or a magnet for smoker tourism. The best way to avoid that is to have a ban on smoking throughout Wales and England, as the Bill would allow. All the evidence shows that in the UK and in many other countries the support for a ban on smoking in public places is now so strong that, in the not too distant future, it will become the norm. I trust that the Government will respond positively—I hope for that today—and not be left behind in taking measures that will be a great help in making sure that we become a much healthier country.
1.42 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, noble Lords will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for the clarity of his exposition. He made it plain that what he was after was the active and passive
522
smoking of cigarettes. He said so. He referred to medical evidence in that context. I listened with rapt attention to the speech made by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who said, as I believe, that the Bill was unnecessary. At all events, much that my noble friend said will enable me to shorten my speech.
I found the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, fascinating. It seemed to be directed to what, in telegraph text, I would call "ASH. Total ban.". It was not related to the principle of the Bill, which implements the policy of the Government. For once, I find myself in the astonishing position of firmly supporting the policy of the Government, as I did on 16 April.
I am also a member of the Pipe and Cigar Smokers' Club. I smoke a pipe. I smoke flake tobacco, which is damp and made with a touch of either whiskey or rum, and a very occasional cigar. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and I have a lot in common. I agree that there are problems of passive smoking: I choke on cigarette tobacco, and I choke on what they call cigarillos, those cheap, awful things. I am fully in sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who has asthma. His position is acknowledged with the utmost sympathy and is well understood. However, that does not support a total ban.
I do not propose to enter into a debate on medical statistics. I do not have the expertise to analyse the evidence and am not competent to do so. In any event, as I do not support an outright ban and nor does the Bill, there would be no object in doing so. An outright ban was introduced in the Republic of Ireland, but the position there bears no true comparison with what is going on here. There was no voluntary scheme in operation and nor was there in any of the places—NewYork and other places—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. If we are to make comparisons, they must be of like with like. That element is missing here.
My purpose is to support the voluntary regime, as introduced and supervised by the Government, and to oppose legislation, until and unless the voluntary regime fails and falters. In those circumstances, I would follow the noble Lord, but I would never substitute imposition for a voluntary regime, unless it were wholly requisite to do so. That is where I stand, and that, in essence, is the only issue between the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and myself. There is no issue on what should be done about enclosed places, on the standards that should be applied, on the ventilation necessary and so on. For example, the smokers' punishment room in the House would need a lot of ventilation to comply with any reasonable requirements. There is no gap between us on what is required: the gap between the noble Lord and me is on whether this is the time to introduce legislation, without giving the voluntary regime a fair chance.
This is our third time around this on a Friday. Today is a very nice day. One of the things that I have mentioned before and must mention again is that it seems extraordinary to have to criminalise conduct

523
unless a request to desist from smoking has been made and declined. That is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I think that I have dealt sufficiently with the standards of requirement for these areas. I have dealt with the common ground, which is apparent from the Official Report for 16 January. But the Wales Bill that is to follow conflicts with this Bill on a matter of definition. No doubt, it will be subsumed by this Bill. As they are both Private Member's Bills, they must pass this House according to convention, but neither can have fruitful expectations of Royal Assent, being contrary to government policy.
To save time, I should like to conclude by again referring to what my noble friend Lady Trumpington said about the Written Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, on 10 March, that brings us up to date. It would be an imposition to repeat it; anyone who is interested can find it in my noble friend's speech in the Official Report.
1.51 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as when we debated a fairly similar Bill 13 or 14 weeks ago, I declare a strictly non-financial interest as president of the Society for Individual Freedom and a named supporter of FOREST. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, will not expect me to support his Bill. I do not intend to surprise him, except perhaps to say that one or two of the 12 clauses are not wholly unreasonable. I shall return to those later.
This Bill is more illiberal than the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in some respects, and less illiberal in others. Unlike my noble friend's skeleton Bill—as she described it—which would allow the Welsh Assembly considerable latitude about if, when and where, in a geographical sense, a ban should be imposed, the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is more illiberal in that it would allow no such discretion.
However, this Bill allows for certain limited designated smoking areas in public places, although the concession is not quite as generous as it appears. For example, if a group of people wanted to hire a village hall, church hall or the upstairs room of a pub for a meeting, reception or lecture with no paid employees present—food and drink, if any, would be provided by the organisers or volunteers—why on earth should those people who attend of their own free will not be allowed to smoke or, if non-smokers, mingle with smokers? Clause 3 apparently would prevent that. There is also ambiguity in respect of the other possible exemptions.
When we previously debated this issue in January, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, extolled Finland as a country that had banned smoking in enclosed public spaces. Is the noble Lord aware that in Finland there are smoking compartments on trains, albeit fairly
524
small and not terribly comfortable compartments that are hermetically sealed off by powerful spring-loaded sliding doors from the rest of the train?
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord in mid-flow, but I did not mention Finland.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but someone on his side, so to speak, did extol Finland. However, it is worth making that point anyway. Having raised the point, I should be grateful to know whether the noble Lord's exemptions would allow smoking compartments of the type that I have described in trains in this country.
At least the Bill does not seek to ban smoking in outdoor public spaces such as sports stadiums, although on 16 January the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, made it clear that he would personally favour such a restriction. We must be thankful for small mercies.
At the outset, I said that I find parts of the Bill not unreasonable. As a libertarian, I can hardly oppose Clause 9, especially as it merely restates the status quo. I accept that there may be something to be said for Clause 4 in principle, if not necessarily in detail. But I suggest that the rest of the Bill is unacceptable in a free society.
Banning an activity can only be justified if it can be established conclusively and beyond all reasonable doubt that it causes serious harm to others. Despite the statistics advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, no such conclusive proof exists. As I said in the previous debate, the decidedly left-of-centre Greater London Authority, headed by a prominent member of new Labour, conceded as much in April 2002, as did many eminent scientists and scientific bodies. I will not repeat today what I said then. Albeit more obliquely, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, also conceded that in a Written Answer in March 1998 when she was Minister of State at the Department of Health.
I return to the empirical evidence that I cited in January. Nearly everyone born in the 1920s, 1930s or 1940s will have inhaled God knows how many cubic yards of second-hand tobacco smoke during their formative years—such was the ubiquity of the stuff 16 hours a day. Yet our generations are proving to be among the healthiest ever statistically with ever-increasing life expectancy, much to the despair of annuity providers. I remind your Lordships that the Greeks are among the heaviest smokers in Europe, yet they have one of the lowest rates of lung cancer. I should like that explained.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, gave some very interesting statistics. She said that 140,000 people die a year from smoking. About 20 years ago, the Department of Health and Social Security, as it then was—
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but the figure that I gave was 114,000, not 140,000.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that from the noble Baroness because the figures have crept up and up over the years. In a parliamentary Written Answer, the figure started at 50,000 people dying a year; then it doubled overnight to 100,000; then, on realising that that was a suspiciously round figure, it was adjusted to a suspiciously precise figure like 111,763; and then it increased to 120,000. Now I am delighted to hear that it has been reduced to 114,000: I feared that we might reach the quarter of a million mark within five years' time. I am glad that the trend is now downwards. That is excellent news. I apologise to the noble Baroness for not having heard her correctly.
Whatever may have been the case 40 or 50 years ago, if the argument is advanced today that diluted smoke is dangerous—noble Lords cannot pretend that exhaled smoke from people's lungs is not diluted we have to look to recently introduced additives, not only additives to tobacco products, but additives generally. A fascinating study published earlier this week by the University of Sunderland reveals that up to 76 dangerous chemicals are found in our bloodstream, arising from pesticides, plastics, flame retardants, coolants, food wrappings, and so forth. Could it be that those react with and accentuate the effects of chemicals in tobacco? If so, surely, that is a problem worth tackling.
I do not deny that concentrations of tobacco smoke are an irritant. Last weekend, I spent three days in Bilbao. From a smoker's perspective, it was like being in London 50 years ago—public transport apart. For the entire time, one was enveloped in a cloud of tobacco smoke everywhere. Even I found it a bit overpowering. Certainly, smoke is irritating. But so are the particularly pungent new scents that certain women choose to wear, even at the Palace of Westminster. Such strong scents are an irritant that make me cough uncontrollably and make my eyes stream, and I am not exaggerating. It is right that users of both tobacco and powerful scent should be urged to show maximum consideration for others, but not that they should be legally prevented from using them except in private.
2 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester on introducing the Bill, about which I know he feels extremely passionately. I shall address my remarks in particular to the position of those who work in public places and have to suffer the effects of smoking by those who use them.
Although my noble friend did not mention Finland, I propose to do so because it was in that country that I first realised that something could be done in this area by those who make the laws, as we do. I visited Finland more than 20 years ago. I accompanied four women representatives of the TUC Women's Advisory Committee on a sororial visit to Finland. Two of the women were non-smokers and two were virtually chain smokers. The Finnish equivalent of the TUC were our hosts and provided a minibus for us in which to travel around Finland. It was a strictly non-smoking minibus.
526
However, for the sake of the smokers, we had what we called "smoking stops". I have some wonderful photographs of the two women in question desperately puffing away under snow-laden fir trees.
The Finnish Government even then had passed measures on anti-smoking in public places and most of the large stores in Finland refused to allow smoking in them, so when we went shopping I stayed outside the shops with my smoking colleagues. As I was in charge of the delegation, I did not want to lose any of them and I did not want any of them to be discomforted. We did not, of course, speak Finnish. However, the gestures of the goodly number of Finns who approached my colleagues made very clear what they thought of smoking in the street and, indeed, in all public places. This experience has stayed with me. I believe firmly that if the Finns could do it then, we can do it now.
Before entering your Lordships' House I was a member for six years of the Health and Safety Commission, representing the TUC on that body. One of my last acts before I entered the House was to lead for the TUC on a draft code of practice on smoking. At that time, the hospitality industry, via the CBI, had accepted the draft code. It was welcomed by health charities and campaigning groups. It gave good advice to employers on how they could help their workers to alleviate the effects of smoking. This was in 2000. The code has never seen the light of day. I would like to know why and I hope that perhaps my noble friend can assist me.
As a former trade union official I have witnessed at first hand the effects of smoking in public places onworkers—shortness of breath, acute attacks of asthma, the onset of lung cancer and coronary heart disease. We have to remember that public places such as bars and restaurants are also work places.
A recent Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology report stated that there are significant links between public smoking and both lung cancer and coronary heart disease, increasing the risk of each by about 25 per cent. As has already been said, the hospitality industry has relied on the so-called Public Places Charter, which the Department of Health supported at its launch in 1999. I believe that this has been singularly unsuccessful. The formal smoking policies and external signs about the dangers of smoking and the effects of inadequate ventilation have not worked. It reminds me of when equality opportunity policies were first written down but were not worth the paper they were written on. Real action is needed, and monitoring of that action.
Let me give an example. Just before Easter I went into a Weatherspoon pub with a friend. As my noble friend has indicated, Weatherspoon prides itself on protecting its bar staff by banning smoking at the bar. I have no doubt that the company's heart is in the right place—andto that extent I congratulate it—but this particular bar was open plan. We fought our way through thick smoke to order our drinks and found that there were indeed "no smoking" signs over the bar. When I mentioned these to

527
the bar staff, they pointed out that unless there is a separate non-smoking bar the policy does not work; an open-plan bar is always smoky.
The BMA believes that smoking in public places remains an "unacceptable risk to health" and that ventilation is no substitute for non-smoking policies as it does not provide effective action against pollution. Studies have shown that ventilation systems are usually not well maintained and are not designed for safety. As I understand it, there is no strategy for moving the Public Places Charter forward and no targets for future compliance with it.
Stronger measures are being called for by many important individuals and organisations because, asASH—Action on Smoking and Health—points out, a number of its research projects have found that exposure to second-hand smoking damages the health of third parties. ASH has campaigned for years against smoking and I pay tribute to its dedication and effective influence on these issues.
I understand that stronger measures are also being supported by the heads of all of Britain's 13 Royal Colleges of Medicine. In particular, I should like to mention and congratulate the Royal College of Physicians, the excellent booklet of which, Tobacco Smoke Pollution: The Hard Facts, is a hard-hitting and well produced exposé on the effects of smoking and ideas on how to combat them.
As my noble friend said earlier, the TUC has also campaigned against smoking in public places for many years. In the early 1980s, when I was the secretary of the TUC Women's Committee, resolutions were carried at both the women's conference and the TUC Congress on the dangers of smoking for working people. The campaign continues, including at a European level.
In March this year, the TUC General Secretary, Brendan Barber, wrote to the EU Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs asking for action under the EU carcinogens directive, including limits on exposure to tobacco smoke at work, and for tobacco smoke to be listed as an occupational carcinogen. The TUC states that the evidence clearly shows that failure to treat tobacco smoke in a similar way to other dangerous chemicals leads to the deaths or incapacity of many thousands of workers across the EU from lung cancer, emphysema, bronchitis and asthma.
At a national level, employment tribunals are increasingly recognising the dangers of smoking for employees. At a recent ET, a community centre worker won £17,000 compensation for being sacked unfairly when smoking by work mates made her ill. The ET ruled that the woman, who suffered from asthma, had been discriminated against because of her asthma disability.
Previously when I have spoken in the Chamber on smoking issues, I have always drawn your Lordships' attention to the effect that laws on smoking have on employees who work in the tobacco industry, and I do so again today. As a former trade union official of Amicus, whose members include highly skilled tobacco workers,
528
I am well aware of this. I stress to the Government the importance of alternative work for those working in the tobacco industry, especially when factories are closed or working numbers are reduced. Many tobacco workers would opt for adequate alternative employment if this was available in the areas where tobacco factories exist.
Cancer Research UK, which fully supports the Bill, points out that progress is being made on restricting smoking in public places, and we can only welcome that. It states that public support continues to grow, with more surveys confirming that the majority of people want to see a ban on smoking in enclosed public places.
We have come some way in recent years on recognising the dangers of smoking in public places and acting to alleviate them. The Bill is another step along the way. It is a Bill for common sense and another step towards improving the health of our nation. Above all, for me, it is another step towards making the lives of thousands of working people a great deal more pleasant and a great deal more healthy.
I urge the Government to support this important Bill and so put the UK in line with the most forward-thinking nations on this issue.
2.10 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I am a member of the House of Commons and House of Lords Pipe and Cigar Smokers' Club—a very congenial club, if I may say so. I say that, although I have not smoked for many years now. But although I am an ex-smoker, I have not become paranoid about smokers, as so many former smokers unfortunately have become.
I cannot welcome the Bill and I think it is quite absurd to have two similar Bills to ban smoking in certain public areas before us today. I should have thought that the House had more to do than to discuss two similar Bills on the same day.
The Bill not only restricts the right of smokers, it restricts the right of non-smokers to mix with smoker sin certain circumstances where they wish to do so. It is an illiberal Bill that affects not only smokers but non-smokers. I think there will be quite a lot of resentment about that.
The Bill is discouraging for all those who have made voluntary efforts to meet the needs of smokers and non-smokers alike—with much success, in many cases. But I am afraid that that is not good enough for the anti-smoking zealots who see this measure as a further milestone towards an absolute ban on smoking tobacco. Mind you, I have heard people who admit to smoking cannabis who want to ban smoking tobacco. I cannot understand that attitude, but it does exist.
The support for this type of ban is based on healthscares—nothing more. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said on Second Reading of the Smoking in Public Places (Wales) (Bill) on 16 January:
"The Department of Health tells us that smoking kills 120,000 a year in Britain".—[Official Report, 16/1/04; col. 784.]
The department does nothing of the sort.

529
Let me quote from a Written Answer given to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. It was some while ago but is still relevant. On 24 July 1997, I asked the Government three Questions: what are the so-called smoking related diseases from which they estimate 120,000 people die each year; how many men and how many women who died of a so- called smoking-related disease were above the average of life expectation; and what percentage of total annual deaths is represented by the number of deaths from so-called smoking-related diseases? The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said straightaway:
"It is estimated"—
not absolute—
"that 120,000 people died as a result of smoking in the United Kingdom in 1995".—[Official Report, 24/7/97; col. WA 171.]
She went on to list a huge raft of diseases from which people are supposed to die. Having read them, I came to the conclusion that people are not allowed to die from anything other than a smoking disease. What is more, I also discovered that many if not all of those diseases were around before the middle of the 16th century when smoking was introduced to this country.
Therefore, there is another side to the argument, even though people think that there is not. I also noticed in the figures provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that the number of people who died from smoking in the lowest age group, from 35 to 45, was estimated to be just 9,000. When I looked at the figures for people over 65—the age of retirement for men— smoking deaths represented 79 per cent of the total. If we then look at people who die above the average age of life expectancy, that figure was 44 per cent. Most of the 120,000 people who died from smoking did so after retirement age, but we never hear about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned the Greeks, who smoke at least twice as much as people in this country. That is also true of the Japanese. However, the average life expectancy in both those countries is higher than in this country. How do the zealots account for that?
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, quoted a statistic from the Royal College of Physicians, that 1,000 people a year die from second-hand tobacco smoke. Again, that is an estimate. No clinical relationship at all can be proved. Once again, we are relying on estimates. Where does that figure come from? Is it just plucked out of thin air? The noble Lord said previously that 17,000 children under five were admitted to hospital with respiratory illnesses related to tobacco smoke. Where is the clinical evidence? Is that just an estimate too? How many children were admitted with the same illness who were not in a smoking environment? Before we make any decisions, we need that information.
What happens if the Bill is passed and people go from smoke-free pubs, restaurants and workplaces into the street? They are met with vehicle emissions, which are estimated to kill 30,000 people a year. They kill not 1,000, but 30,000 people a year. Walking the streets is 30 times as dangerous as sitting in a smoke-filled bar or restaurant. Are my figures wrong? Of course they are not. They are absolutely right. In addition to those deaths, 3,500 people are killed and
530
45,000 people seriously injured each year by other people's driving. Do we want to stop people driving now because of that massacre on the roads?
What about doctors? Two of them are here today. They are going to speak in a minute. I shall listen to what they say. We should remember that 5,000 people die in hospitals every year through medical error or negligence, or from diseases unrelated to the one for which they went in to be treated in the first place. People are five times more likely to die by being in a hospital than by being in a smoke-filled room. If all of that were not enough, two articles in yesterday's press will help put risk from environmental tobacco smoke into better perspective. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has referred to one of them already. It stated that 76 poisons are hidden in the body. But there was also a leading article in the Daily Telegraph, which said:
"The news that a thousand people a week are dying"—
1,000 people a week, mind you—
"from the effects of obesity—more than are killed by smoking".
My calculation is that suddenly the deaths from smoking have been halved by a learned professor, because 1,000 deaths per week means 52,000 deaths per year. If obesity kills more than smoking, the results for smoking are half of what is claimed.
There is too much speculative data. The rabid anti-smoking lobby may well be obstructing deeper investigation and research into the causes of so-called smoking-related diseases by demonising smokers and intimidating scientists and researchers who dare to question the currently politically correct view. For those reasons, I believe that the Bill is misconceived. Although it will get its Second Reading today, I hope that it makes no further progress in this House or elsewhere.
2.21 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it gives me a sense of déjà vu to follow my noble friend Lord Stoddart. I shall continue to call him my noble friend because, apart from this issue, and, perhaps, the issue of Europe, we agree on many things.
The Bill carefully drawn up by my noble friend Lord Faulkner is welcome because it tackles a serious and long-standing hazard that prevents many people in the country from achieving and enjoying good health, as well as causing life-threatening disease and death in others. Before I go on, I should say to my noble friend Lord Stoddart that there is an answer to every single one of the points that he made, which I could make on my feet. However, if I did so, I would have no time for the rest of my speech.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner has done us all a great service by introducing this Bill. My only regret, which I share with him, is that it is not being launched by my noble friend Lord Warner from the Front Bench. However, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, it is not too late for the Government to take the Bill forward in this Session or the next, if they were so

531
minded. That would follow the example of the tobacco advertising Bill, which was so ably taken through this House by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Davies.
Noble Lords: Jones!
Lord Rea: My Lords, I mean the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I am sorry—that just reveals my age.
The Bill that we are discussing is a logical conclusion to the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the subsequent Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. It has been estimated that that Act will save 3,000 lives per annum. The BMA estimate, mentioned by several noble Lords, is that passive smoking kills 1,000 people a year, as well as impairing the quality of life of many thousands more. That is a conservative estimate.
As many noble Lords pointed out, the scientific evidence for the harm done by passive smoking is now massive. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Warner and the Department of Health are well aware of that fact and accept it. The Chief Medical Officer has confirmed that in no uncertain terms. Even the inner sanctum of the tobacco industry must by now accept the strength of the evidence, partly as a result of its own research, or the research that it has commissioned. However, the industry continues to deny its validity, most recently in a speech a few days ago by Martin Broughton, the outgoing chairman of BAT. The industry has commissioned scientists to discredit the scientific evidence and has opposed the WHO support for the International Agency for Research on Cancer and has encouraged smokers' rights organisations to lobby against legislation. We have heard some of that today, although, as far as I can recollect, none of the noble Lords who have spoken today have denied the scientific validity of the evidence against passive smoking.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I mean no one has denied it with accuracy! It is understandable that the tobacco industry is against this type of legislation because it would accelerate the fall in tobacco consumption. One estimate is that lost sales would amount to £310 million. Sadly, to compensate for this the industry is concentrating on building up its export market in the developing world rather than on diversifying to less harmful products. However, that is going on as well, since the tobacco industry is aware that the developing world itself is beginning to wake up to the dangers of smoking and the need for tobacco control measures.
The BMA's publication Towards smoke-free public places, which was published in November 2002, summarises the way in which passive smoking harms health. I shall mention some of the points the report makes for the record:
"More than 50 epidemiological studies … [indicate] a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.
532
Passive smoking is proven to cause heart disease. Involuntary smoking increases the risk of an acute coronary event by 25–35 per cent".
To divert for a moment from the BMA's report to amore recent finding, noble Lords may have recently read of the experience of the small town of Helena, Montana, USA, which is isolated from other towns. What happened there is described in a very interesting paper published in today's British Medical Journal. I shall read some extracts from that report. To summarise, two years ago Helena passed a law outlawing smoking in public places. In the following six months there was a reduction from the previous rate of heart attack of 40 persons per six-month period to 24. When the law was overturned by opponents and smoking in public places resumed, the heart attack rate returned to 40 in six months.
It sounds a little bit too good to be true that a reversible effect could occur so soon. But it is worth pointing out that some of the products of tobacco smoke can increase the chance of blood clotting which might well cause a thrombosis to form which could block an already narrowed coronary artery. The study by Professor Glantz and colleagues reported in the BMJ today appears on first reading to have been extremely carefully conducted. I would expect this because Professor Glantz is a professor of cardiology at the prestigious University of California, San Francisco. However, he says that:
"Like any initial report, further research is desirable to confirm the finding".
When an author himself says that in his paper, it greatly increases my respect for his findings. The report explains why these findings could have occurred. It says:
"Several mechanisms … all of which could increase the likelihood of an acute coronary event, have been measured within minutes to hours of exposure to secondhand smoke".
These include:
"increased platelet activation, inhibition of vascular endothelium, impairment of coronary artery dilatation capacity, decreases in antioxidant substances especially ascorbic acid, aortic stiffening, and impaired heart rate variability … Even occasional exposure to secondhand smoke has been associated with an increased risk for acute coronary syndromes".
The BMA report also stated:
"For people with asthma, exposure to second-hand smoke is not only associated with more severe symptoms, but also with lower quality of life, reduced lung function, and increased use of health services for asthma, including hospital admissions. In addition, it is cited by up to 80 per cent of asthmatics as a trigger for further attacks".
My noble friend has already mentioned the case of our noble friend Lord Simon, who is an asthmatic. He stated in a previous debate that he could not enter the Library in your Lordships' House until smoking was stopped there two or three years ago because he suffered an asthma attack whenever he tried to do so.
Derek Wanless has been the most recent of many who have pointed out that rectifying inequalities in health is necessary to improve the health status of the whole population. Both active and passive smoking

533
greatly contribute to these inequalities. It has been shown that blue collar or service workers have the highest level of exposure to passive smoking.
As my noble friend pointed out, bar workers are particularly exposed; their exposure is six times higher than that of office workers. However, apart from the tobacco industry, the catering and hospitality industries, and licensed premises in particular, are the most opposed to legislation such as this Bill. Those of us who occasionally go to the pub usually stay for only an hour or so and, of course, we have the freedom not to go at all. Those who work there may be exposed to high levels of both sidestream and mainstream smoke for the whole of their working day. Incidentally, most secondhand smoke is sidestream or non-inhaled smoke, which is more dangerous than mainstream smoke.
According to an Irish friend who was in Dublin earlier this week, the new legislation there is working well and is popular especially with bar staff. It is popular also with many smokers who find that their consumption is reduced—a major benefit of legislation which has been confirmed by several independent studies of the effects of legislation, especially in the United States. The Irish legislation, however, despite being more rigorous than proposed in this Bill, contains some sensible exemptions including prisons, where it was thought that riots would occur if smoking was banned entirely.
My noble friend Lord Warner will doubtless describe a number of voluntary measures that already exist" such as EU directives, voluntary guidelines, regulations and charters giving some protection from the hazards of secondhand smoke. There has certainly been a great improvement in many offices and public buildings in recent years, and your Lordships' House is an example. However, 3 million workers are still regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. Guidance is helpful, but in many cases it can be ignored without breaking the law.
There is much more to say, but much has already been said—much too much perhaps for Friday. I conclude by saying that I thoroughly support the Bill. I hope that it will galvanise the Government into legislative action. This will be a major step towards better health for the whole population, especially its most vulnerable citizens.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that the Greater London Authority, headed as it is by an extremely prominent member of his own party, Mr Ken Livingstone, spent six months on an exhaustive investigation of the so-called risk from passive smoking, taking masses of evidence? Finally, it decided against any further restrictions on smoking, declaring that it was not easy to prove a link between smoking and lung cancer.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I take it that I am expected to answer that. I think that the vast body of opinion would say that there is an enormous amount of
534
evidence linking smoking to cancer of the lung. We could go into a long discussion about that but I do not think it is appropriate at this moment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I should have said passive smoking and lung cancer. Perhaps I omitted that word. I agree, of course, that active smoking——
Lord Rea: My Lords, I quoted from the BMA report that there are 50 epidemiological and laboratory studies which do prove that link.
2.35 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, like other noble Lords I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, on this well crafted Bill which extends the principle of protection against environmental smoke in public places to cover England and Wales. My concern is that the debate in Wales is much further advanced within the population itself and the Welsh Assembly has already agreed by a resolution in plenary and unanimously in the Health and Social Services Committee that it wishes to have the powers to ban smoking in public places in Wales, and has already formally requested such powers to be given to it by primary legislation.
The dangers to health of passive smoking and the social inconvenience to non-smokers of environmental smoke have been repeatedly stated in this House. The health issues are incontrovertible and warrant restating, but I will not detain the House by relisting them all today. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, gave the medical evidence in his excellent speech. Professionally he has done me proud and I am proud to be associated with him.
The World Health Organisation has documents on tobacco industry strategies to block smoke-free measures and regulations. The report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents, published in July 2000, catalogued the tobacco company strategies to undermine tobacco control activities at the World Health Organisation. The Select Committee on Science and Technology recently visited the World Health Organisation and may have already laid a copy of the report in the Library to be accessed by noble Lords. If that is not the case, I am happy to arrange for such a report to be laid in the Library for reference. There are undoubtedly powerful financial vested interests that seek to ensure that second-hand smoke is not controlled.
Ireland has shown that the right to breathe clean air is important and should be protected by legislation. Let us be clear. Voluntary codes have gone some way to improve the environment but I understand that even the large hospitality venue owner, Weatherspoon, would welcome a compulsory ban. The autonomous wishes and actions of one person cannot ethically override the autonomy of another to be free from harm.
I acknowledge that this Government have done a lot to ensure that the vulnerable in society are considered and have encouraged smoking cessation at great national expense. Legalisation to prohibit smoking in public places is a preventive measure for health and

535
may decrease the numbers who progress to severe chest problems in the long term. Prevention is always better than attempting cure. In this situation the diseases associated with tobacco are inherently non-curable and so the harm cannot be reversed. That is an aspect that needs to be considered when we are thinking about imposing on non-smokers the lack of an ability to breathe clean, smoke-free air.
For Wales, I hope that any legislation would allow the Assembly to lead and ensure consistency across Wales. There are some great health problems in Wales associated with tobacco.
My anxiety is that the very areas of greatest need might be subject to a postcode lottery through the tobacco industry's potential to influence some local authorities. The Assembly consultation exercise in Wales on smoking in public places will provide information from the population itself. I believe that the Assembly would like to have unfettered powers to act on these now, and not have to wait for England.
I am concerned about the arguments that have been raised this afternoon at Second Reading in opposition to this very important Bill. I should like to lay down formally that I will support this Bill if it progresses. The issue is much greater than which Bill gets through first. This country has to act, and has to follow Ireland's example.
2.40 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, after listening to the tenor of several speeches in the debate, I would like to ask the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, whether the Bill is part of a drive to ban smoking altogether.
I have to declare an interest. As a non-smoker married to a committed smoker, I spent many years, with help and support from four children, trying to get her to stop. I tried both carrots and sticks, but without any success. I have come to realise that all that I would probably do is cause her to die of stress instead. That is the main point. She leads a very busy life, often over-stressed by the plethora of government regulations that assault her small businesses and that she has to understand and absorb. We will need a large supply of Valium to combat the stress, and I hope that something will be made freely available to people who will be at risk if smoking is seriously curtailed.
The second problem was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. Many ex-smokers put on weight. With the Government so concerned about the increase in mortality from obesity, it hardly seems the time to condemn even more people to an early grave. Obesity kills and stress kills, as the Health and Safety Executive keeps stressing. I would like to see an analysis of whether there is a net increase or decrease in,
"potential years of life lost",
as the recent report, Securing Good Health for the Whole Population, describes death before 75. Another point is that, apparently, nicotine can help to delay the onset of Alzheimer's, which is again a growing problem as we tend to live longer.
536
I turn now to cost. Smokers pay a huge amount in tax, and if they die younger, as we are told, the Government must save as much as would have been spent on geriatric care as they then have to spend on cancer or other problems. If that is not true, although those people have quit smoking, they are presumably expected to die early but of less expensive diseases.
Every culture has condoned the use of some drug or other to make its daily toil on this planet more bearable, and efforts by the great and good to ban their use have always failed. Some people simply do not have staying healthy as a priority. Prohibition in the USA lasted only a comparatively short time, and all that it did was give the criminal fraternity an opportunity to make huge fortunes and then join the political elite.
2.42 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I disagreed with most of that speech, but have a great deal of sympathy for those who find themselves addicted to a dangerous, expensive, smelly and unpleasant drug. I am not obsessive about tobacco; I do not have as great a sensitivity to passive smoking or smoke in the atmosphere as many people whom I know. It is a little more than 20 years since I have legally been allowed to go into a pub and, in that time, the density of smoke has got less, as have the unpleasant effects such as the smell on one's clothes. Generally, going into a pub has become a pleasanter experience. It may be true that voluntary codes and extractor fans are improving, but most of the improvement is down to fewer people having in their hands that white stick giving off noxious fumes. That is what we are talking about it. As a non-smoker, I find their smoke unpleasant.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on his attack on the sitting duck of statistics. It was a masterful example of how one can "get in there" and hack around. I do not agree with anything that he said, but 10 out of 10 for form. A similar thing could be said about the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who has been said to be one of the great forces in this House. I disagree with what she said as well, but recognise that, if I go head to head with her, I shall lose. Nevertheless I say to her, "Well done".
What we are really talking about is introducing a greater ban on the use of a drug that damages one's respiratory system, heart and any part of the body with which it comes into contact. It may be a drug that we have come to know well over the past 400-plus years; but it is still a drug. It is still something that damages one's clothes, one's environment and everything else. It might be virtually impossible to ban smoking overnight. But, going back even the 20 or more years that I have been on the edge of this argument, no one would have believed then that one could have reduced smoking to its current level.
One was told then, "Oh, everyone smokes. You've got to smoke because everyone else does". That was whacked around the back of my head when I was a teenager. I was one of the sporty elite who decided that they would waste their money on other substances. But

537
noble Lords must bear in mind that we have moved along way, and are still moving away, from that idea. The only protest we have heard is that other things might be bad for us as well. There is the idea that one might put on weight after stopping smoking and become obese. Yes, but we are trying to attack that as well. Living kills. Ultimately we must find the best way that we can travel from A to B. If we decide to sit around, statically, and smoke and eat chips, we will probably die slightly more quickly than if we just sat around eating chips.
We have to put the issue in context. We are talking about putting a brake on the use of this legal drug, this legal poison. We are trying to push it slightly further away. It will be a battle that is won by inches, not by one great charge. Indeed, if we did the latter there would be cigarette smuggling; illegal smuggling dens starting where cigarettes are handed out. We must achieve our aims by education. We must travel on. But whenever we have intervened in terms of education and voluntary codes—primarily by upping the cost— we have made far greater strides. If the Government say that simply relying on a voluntary code will work, they are wrong—to the extent that we will not make the same rate of progress. We must try to push back.
The Bill is part of one of those inches that we are taking forward, or, at least, part of the reconnaissance. I hope that the Bill promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which we shall debate later, will receive better support as it is slightly further along the road. But we have to recognise that we are in the process of a debate that is pushing back the use of something that is unpleasant and damaging to those who do not want it and even more damaging to those who use it. By making tobacco more difficult to use in public we will be taking an important step towards ensuring a general reduction in use.
I offer one last thought regarding all those illegal drugs that are consumed by means of smoking. If fewer people smoke, fewer people will try them.
2.48 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for introducing the Bill. Much of what I planned to say has already been said, so I shall not repeat it. However, I would like to emphasise that non smokers are acutely aware of the effect of being in the vicinity of a smoker; they soon notice that their clothes and hair reek of the smell of tobacco. Perhaps the only other living thing that does something comparable to polluting others with their effluvia is Mephitis mephitis. It spreads its unpleasant smell over people who attack it, but only after warning of its intention. It does that by drumming and performing hand stands—or front paw stands. Unlike man, it never pollutes its fellows. Mephitis mephitis is also known as the striped skunk. The pollutant that it spreads contains a powerful anti-cancer drug, which is rather ironic when one compares that with tobacco smoke, which causes cancer.
There has already been much argument about whether passive smoking causes cancer. I want to leave that to one side and deal with some important facts which no one can
538
dispute. Those have been emphasised already, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Passive smoking can, and does, cause asthmatic attacks. That is fact number one. Fact number two is that people can, and do, die in asthmatic attacks. It seems to me that that is quite enough evidence on passive smoking without getting into a large debate about the statistics.
I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who I think denied that there was a danger in passive smoking. I believe that the asthmatic argument is overwhelming, and I hope that he will accept that.
Lord Monson: My Lords, obviously I accept that some asthmatics are affected, but I know many asthmatics who are not troubled by smoke. I am sure that the former are a sizeable minority, but by no means all asthmatics are affected by other people's smoke.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I did not say that all asthmatics are affected; I said that passive smoking can cause asthmatic attacks and that asthmatic attacks can kill. Those are facts. It seems tome that, if we argue along those lines, we shall be on a very firm foundation.
Smoke-free workplaces and public places are essential in order to protect people with asthma. Reducing smoking in pubs and restaurants is a real problem. Half-measures, such as no-smoking parts of a restaurant, simply do not work. Sitting in the smoke-free half of a bar is rather like swimming in the chlorine-free half of a swimming pool.
Passive smoking in children is a very big worry indeed. Children make up 20 per cent of the UK population and, especially when young, they do not have the freedom to choose to avoid smoky atmospheres. Nearly half of all children are exposed to smoke at home and many more are exposed in public places. The home is the greatest source of environmental tobacco smoke as children spend much of their early lives indoors. Nationally, around 17,000 admissions to hospital by under-five year-olds each year are attributed to passive smoking. That amounts to around five hospital admissions a day in London, and the total cost to the NHS of treating those children is more than £400 million.
There is some good news. Children's overall exposure to passive smoking has approximately halved since the late 1980s, and that was achieved without compulsion. There is more good news, as has already been mentioned, in that Pizza Hut has banned smoking in all its restaurants, especially with children in mind.
What are the main health risks for children? They include sudden infant death syndrome, which has a significant relationship with passive smoking. While active smoking during pregnancy has been shown to cause cot death, recent epidemiological studies have now demonstrated that post-natal environmental tobacco smoke exposure is also an independent risk factor in cot deaths. We have already mentioned asthma. Glue ear and middle-ear infections are common conditions, with 15 to 20 per cent of two to five year-old children affected at any one time. The

539
most common symptom of glue ear is that the child does not develop language and speech as expected due to hearing loss. Untreated glue ear can result in permanent hearing loss in a small minority of children. It has been demonstrated that passive smoking is responsible for a 20 to 40 per cent increase in the risk of middle-ear disease in children.
Other health risks include respiratory tract infections, meningitis, and also cognitive behavioural problems. There is evidence that environmental tobacco smoke exposure may contribute to learning difficulties, behavioural problems and language impairment. It has been shown that children with parents who smoke also take much more time off school. Children have a basic human right to be protected from harm caused by environmental pollution and, therefore, it is important to ensure that places where children go are smoke free.
Employers have a duty to protect their staff. They have a responsibility and a statutory duty to provide and maintain a working environment that is safe and free from risks to health. Many employers have recognised that duty and have made their workplaces completely smoke free. By the year 2002 about half of all employees were completely protected in that way.
It has already been mentioned that 20 per cent of people with asthma are prevented from using parts of their workplaces by cigarette fumes. There is no comparable carcinogen to which workers and customers are exposed in such a widespread and uncontrolled way. People suffering from serious exposure to second-hand smoke at work are three times more likely to take time off work.
How can we help smokers to quit? Restricting smoking in public places is part of the strategy to de-normalise smoking. Non-smoking is the norm. A vast majority— something like 73 per cent of British adults—are non-smokers. The great majority of smokers—71 per cent— actually want to give up smoking. Smoke-free policies at work help smokers to realise that ambition.
In all my professional life as a surgeon I have done my best to persuade my patients not to smoke. But I am an adviser; I am not a dictator. As my noble friend Lady Trumpington pointed out, there are problems associated with stopping smoking. A lady of 75 had a new GP who told her that she must stop smoking—that was an order. So she stopped smoking and three weeks later she was profoundly depressed and was put on anti-depressants; she reacted to the anti-depressants, became ill and was changed to another anti-depressant which made her even more ill and so it went on. After about three months, fortunately, the doctor went on holiday and she saw another doctor who said, "I am terribly sorry, we really have made a big mistake; I think you'd better come off all these drugs and go back to smoking". We are advisers, not dictators.
I share the curiosity of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on the subject of cannabis. I wonder whether the Liberal Democrats could clarify their policies on this subject. Am I right in thinking that they wish to ban smoking tobacco in public places, yet wish
540
to legalise the smoking of cannabis, which is known to be 10 times more lethal in producing cancer than tobacco smoke?
Lord Addington: My Lords, we would ban smoking and we would ban smoking of all substances.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, but the Liberal Democrats do not mind people continuing to smoke cannabis?
Lord Addington: My Lords, we would ban the smoking of cannabis in public places as well as tobacco.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, thank you for that clarification.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not true that the smoking of cannabis, as a class B drug, is already banned in public places?
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I believe so but it does not seem to have had any effect.
Many noble Lords believe that the Bill is not appropriate as a Private Member's Bill and that it should have come to Parliament as a government Bill, after extensive public discussion and consultation. The Government may deliberately be avoiding such consultation by taking on the Bill with Government backing in another place, which is a government technique that I have noticed before.
The Government have had ample opportunity to address the issue, but have failed to do so. We believe in principle that everyone should be able to work in a smoke-free environment. However, we recognize the difficulty that poses in some sectors: notably, the entertainment and hospitality section.
The Health and Safety Executive has looked into the issue and drafted an approved code of practice to address the problem, a matter mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen. This code of practice could have clarified the existing legal situation for employees, yet the Government have failed to act, even though that was a central part of their 1998 White Paper, Smoking Kills.
On this side of the House we wanted the Health and Safety Executive draft approved code of practice to be published because we believe that it would have gone a long way to ensure that people are protected from cigarette smoke in the workplace. However, the Health and Safety Executive informed me just yesterday that the Government have scrapped the approved code of practice due to the effect that it would have on the hospitality industry.
In conclusion, the majority of British people would like to see the end of smoking altogether. The question is: how is that best achieved? An outright ban in public places will undoubtedly increase the amount of smoking at home, which will further endanger the health of the children trapped in that polluted environment. Incidentally, if there were an outright

541
ban, presumably trading standards officers would do the monitoring. They are already very hard-pressed. The Government should adopt a sensible code of practice for all work places to eliminate the pollutant smoke on a voluntary basis. That should precede any attempt at more draconian methods. Persuasion is always to be preferred to force.
3.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the opportunity the Bill presents to debate these important issues again. The Government share the noble Lord's desire to tackle the death and disease associated with tobacco smoke and second-hand smoke. We have no quarrel with the evidence that he deployed and that was deployed to this effect so eloquently by other noble Lords, particularly the medical Members of the Chamber. That is why we are currently engaged in public consultation.
Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that we are engaged in a serious public consultation—I shall say more about it later—on how best to take forward government action to achieve the objectives we all share of improving public health.
I have listened carefully to the views expressed from all sides of the Chamber, even to those of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who seems to have deployed the case very well for never stepping outside one's own front door. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, living does kill, but I suggest that it is not a bad idea to put off the end as far as possible.
This is an important debate and one that is going on across the country and internationally. As a government we have always said that entirely smoke-free public places are the ideal, as a number of noble Lords opposite have remarked—and I must tell the House that I am always delighted to be quoted approvingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. We think that having smoke-free public places is one way to provide protection from the dangers of second-hand smoke. We have thus far preferred to look for last and substantial progress on a voluntary basis rather than bringing forward specific legislation in this area.
Although there has undoubtedly been some improvement, we have been disappointed by the lack of action in some sectors, particularly pubs and bars. I reassure my noble friend Lord Faulkner that I was not conveying excessive confidence in this area in the Chamber yesterday. As a result of our concerns, Melanie Johnson and Tessa Jowell met representatives of the hospitality industry earlier this year, to see what more could be done on a voluntary basis. A further meeting is due on 5 May, and we hope to see some new approaches that will hasten the moves to a greater provision of smoke-free places in response to the growing public demand.
Despite disappointment with this one sector, there have, of course, been significant measures of progress across the country. The number of workplaces that are entirely smoke-free has grown by 10 percentage points
542
since 1996—that is up from 40 per cent in 1996 to 50 per cent in 2002. The percentage of workplaces that are either entirely smoke-free or have separate areas for smokers has now grown to 86 per cent.
Let me move on to the substance of today's debate, not in any spirit of opposition, but because the Government need to consider all the implications, and to do so as part of our consideration of the wider consultation on public health. In the past 10 years since Tessa Jowell put forward her Private Member's Bill, there has been considerable movement on the whole area of tackling smoking. Not least are the changes in the public opinion towards smoking, and to the growing percentage of the population that does not smoke and has never smoked.
A YouGov poll published in the Daily Telegraph in December 2003 recorded that 49 per cent of respondents would support a complete ban on smoking in pubs, while 41 per cent would oppose such a ban. This is clearly a fairly balanced issue in this sector. However, the same poll recorded that for restaurants 83 per cent supported a ban, while only 14 per cent would oppose a ban. Even among smokers the majority, sometimes as many as 88 per cent in the case of shops, would support a ban on smoking in railway stations, factories, indoor shopping centres, restaurants, offices and shops. We know that 70 per cent of smokers want to give up the habit, and many would therefore welcome the opportunity to avoid the temptation in as many places as possible. As might be expected in each case, the percentage supporting a ban is higher among former smokers than those who have never smoked.
In addition to the changes in public opinion, there have been changes in workplace practice. It is no longer the case that the majority of us are exposed to smoke in the workplace. What used to be considered normal, people sharing an office with a chain smoker for example, would now be considered most unusual, with 86 per cent of workplaces either entirely smoke-free or with restrictions already in place to separate smoking from non-smoking common areas.
As my noble friend Lady Gale and Cancer UK have indicated, we are making progress. Smoking in cinemas, theatres, planes and the Underground is now thought of as something which previous generations had to endure; something from history. Indoor shopping malls are another area which have transformed people's everyday experience in the past 10 years. Many of these have been smoke-free from their inception. This year, we have seen places such as Salford and Newcastle's Metro Centre go smoke-free. Restaurants are rapidly moving in the same direction, with high street names such as Pizza Hut—which has been getting a jolly good commercial today—and Wagamama completely smoke-free, along with the National Trust property restaurants. One does not always think of the National Trust as being in the restaurant business, but millions of customers enjoy their food in a smoke-free environment, and their workers and volunteers are protected from the health dangers and other dangers of smoking.

543
Things are moving in the right direction, but we recognise that there is no room for complacency. We need to strike a right balance that takes proper account of public opinion. Now is the time to take stock of what has been achieved and where we go next in protecting people from second-hand smoke. This debate has come at an opportune time. On 3 March, the Government launched a major, nationwide public consultation exercise on the future of public health. As John Reid said last month, when he launched the consultation document Choosing Health,
"We need a big debate about the relative roles of Government, individuals and industries in tackling this vital challenge. We need to find the right balance, rejecting both the nanny state and the Pontius Pilate state which washes its hands of its citizens' health".
We have examined the various international examples of bans on smoking in public places. Noble Lords will be aware—it has been mentioned today—that, in some states of the USA, there has been a state-wide ban on smoking in public places. Similar moves have been made in cities and towns in the USA and in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Last month, as noble Lords have said, the Republic of Ireland became the first country in Europe to go for entirely smoke-free indoor workplaces. Norway is adopting a similar approach in June of this year, and Sweden will bring in its own measures next year. Holland is also introducing smoke-free workplaces, although it is looking at bars and restaurants separately and considering how best to deal with that sector.
My noble friend Lady Gale described how bans in one place could have unexpected consequences in others, with her graphic description of Irish smokers pouring across the Irish Sea into Wales. It is important to note that different countries have taken different approaches, even where they have followed the route of legislation. They have tackled the problem of second-hand smoke according to the circumstances, the level of public demand and the strength of public opinion. The approach has not been uniform. The definition of public places in legislation differs from country to country and place to place. What has been appropriate for one state or city is not necessarily automatically transferable to another. In the USA, there has been a steady build-up in recent years of the enactment of local smoke-free legislation. As most people know, in New York, the decision was taken just over a year ago to make workplaces smoke-free. In many other towns and cities in the USA, they have not followed identical paths. In the US, there has been a gradual city-by-city, state-by-state progress indifferent ways.
What has perhaps been common in all places where smoke-free workplaces have been introduced is concern about the impact on business and the hospitality trade in particular. That has often been a point of controversy. I will not comment on the facts of what has happened elsewhere, other than to say that it cannot be assumed that the experience in any particular country would be identical to that here.
544
As I said, different approaches have been adopted in different countries. Even in the UK, there has been a measure of diversity. The Welsh Assembly has made its view known on the subject, and a separate Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, relating exclusively to smoking in public places in Wales will be debated later today. In Scotland, a consultation on smoking in public was launched in January, as part of the Scottish Executive's tobacco control action plan, entitled A Breath of Fresh Air for Scotland. Additionally, a Private Member's Bill has been introduced in the Scottish Parliament containing measures to prevent people from being exposed to tobacco smoke in places where food is served and prepared. So, no uniform solution is being put forward, even by those in the UK who propose legislation as the best way forward. This Bill offers one possible way forward, one set of measures, but there are others.
I accept that there is significant public interest in the subject. It has been reflected in the comments of noble Lords today. The Bill is indicative of the wider debate on the subject and the pressure for more action. Growing concentration on the subject can also be seen in activity at local level. More than 30 towns and cities in England are now seeking ways of increasing the number of smoke-free public places within their boundaries. Big cities such as Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Exeter and Brighton, as well as smaller towns throughout the country, have been taking initiatives to see what they can do to protect people from second-hand smoke. The smoke-free cities network grew out of such local initiatives.
I am grateful to noble Lords who recognised the action that the Government have taken. The Government have an excellent record on tackling smoking. They have introduced a comprehensive programme that includes helping smokers to give up, and we have had considerable success with that. We have also reduced tobacco consumption. Again, the prevalence of smoking is falling in most groups. I suppose that is bad news for the noble Earl, Lord Errol, who seemed to encourage the Government to promote smoking, which I can assure him we will not do. We have also raised awareness of encouraging action on second-hand smoke. There is a year-round education and media campaign. New measures have been taken on labelling and regulation. Alongside that, there have been improvements in the taxation of tobacco products and in tackling smuggling.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the argument put forward by some that second-hand smoke is not a real danger. In 1998, the Government's Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health published a report that clearly identified the dangers of second-hand smoke: namely, that it is a cause of lung cancer and childhood respiratory diseases; that it is a cause of heart disease and cot death; and that restrictions on smoking in public places and workplaces are necessary to protect non-smokers. That is the scientific evidence available to the Government.

545
We have since had the evidence from the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer in its June 2002 report, which classified second-hand smoke as a human carcinogen. There has been a growing body of international evidence that the SCOTH experts have been studying to update the 1998 report. The warnings on cigarette packs that the Government introduced now say:
"Smoking seriously harms you and others around you".
As a number of noble Lords have indicated, I, too, recognise that this Bill is remarkably similar to that put forward by Tessa Jowell while in opposition in 1994. But, as I have outlined, things have moved on since then. Since they took office, measures taken by the Government to tackle smoking have moved things on far further than many campaigners would have dreamed of at the time.
More recently, we have had the Wanless report. The Government are also considering carefully the recommendations of that report in respect of taking action to tackle smoking in public places and in workplaces. The Wanless report looks at the potential gains from a ban on smoking in enclosed public places. It notes that interventions to improve public health have the potential to reduce personal freedoms. It goes on to say that there should be at least a strong consensus that public health measures are necessary to prevent harm to others.
As I have already said, on 3 March John Reid launched what has been described as the biggest consultation ever on public health. Headlined as one of the key consultation areas, there are questions relating to smoking in public places and workplaces. The consultation continues until the end of May. We will give everyone the maximum opportunity to take part and to answer questions on smoking in public places.
Perhaps I may briefly remind your Lordships of the specific questions being put to the public. Should the Government pass a law to make all enclosed workplaces and public places smoke-free? What about restaurants? What about pubs and bars? Would local authorities be better placed than central Government to introduce laws? Apart from bans, how could local towns and cities respond to calls for more smoke-free public areas?
As part of the consultation process, perhaps I may reassure my noble friend Lady Gibson that the HSE's advisory code of practice will be considered carefully. We will listen to the answers to those questions and consider carefully how best to carry out the wishes of the people. People are being given the opportunity to have their say. Therefore, in the Government's view, it would be quite wrong to respond today to the noble Lord's Private Member's Bill other than to thank him and others who support it, and then to allow the consultation to reach its conclusion.
The debate today has been a useful addition to the wider consultation that I mentioned. As I said, we have reservations about the content of the Bill. Until we have reached the conclusion of our wider consultation on public health, it would be premature to commit to one particular course of action. That is why I am urging patience today;
546
something that I suspect I' shall be doing for some time in the coming weeks. In conclusion, I pay tribute again to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for introducing the Bill. I am grateful to him and to other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he confirm that the draft approved code of practice produced by the Health and Safety Executive has been rejected by the Government?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government are still considering the code of practice.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am reminded of a statement made by an American gentleman, Fletcher Knebel, who said that smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics. Certainly when I was listening to a number of speeches today— particularly the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—that saying came very much to my mind.
I thank every noble Lord who has taken part in the debate. It has been very spirited and, at times, very entertaining, and a wide range of views have been expressed. Your Lordships will be relieved to know that I do not intend to go through each speech individually but merely to pick up on one or two points where noble Lords may have misunderstood me or I did not make myself clear in my opening speech.
Before I do so, however, I should express particular thanks to all noble Lords who have supported the Bill with such enthusiasm—my noble friends Lady Gale, Lady Gibson, and Lord Rea: the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and also, from the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord McColl. He made the most clear exposition of Conservative policy on the issue of passive smoking that I have ever had the opportunity to listen to. The fact that it comes from a strong medical background lends tremendous weight to the points that he made.
The House owes a particular debt to all Members from a medical background who have contributed to the debate today. I would much rather listen to doctors on this subject than trust my own prejudices. Each of their contributions was outstanding.
Perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in two ways. I think she understood the Bill to have the effect of not providing any protection for barmen and restaurant staff if they are working in bars or restaurants which have designated smoking areas. That is not the case. The point about the reserved smoking areas is that they are purely for members of the public; they are not intended for employees. The main purpose of the Bill is to protect employees from the effects of customers' passive smoke.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I was arguing that in the Bill it states that people should have set times. It makes no mention of whether a barman is to be there for four hours or 12 hours. That was the point I was trying to make.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the Bill seeks to ensure that the areas in bars where people are working are smoke free. So the bar staff will not be exposed to second-hand smoke.
The noble Baroness made a familiar point: that particular foods are as bad for you as tobacco. She referred particularly to butter and French fries. The one great difference between tobacco and all other products is that it is the only one which, when it is used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, causes death and disease. That does not apply to butter or to French fries. We have incontrovertible evidence that tobacco is a product that kills. That is why the treatment of tobacco deserves to be different.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, whose speech I enjoyed very much because, as he said, his views are not much different from mine—indeed, he expressed them in the debate on the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in January—in regard to the need to segregate smokers from non-smokers. His main point was that the Bill is not necessary. On consideration, having listened to the other speeches and the fact that there are 3 million employees in this country who are exposed to the effects of other people's smoke, I hope he will agree that if we cannot get a very satisfactory and rapid adoption of a voluntary practice, legislation of this kind will be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that he did not think public transport was included in the Bill. It is included in Part 1 of the schedule. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, asked whether the Bill sought to ban smoking altogether. I do not think the noble Earl was in his seat at the start of the debate because, if he had been, he would have heard me say in my opening words that this is not a Bill to ban smoking but to limit its application in public places.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I asked whether it was part of a drive; I realise that it is not in itself an attempt to ban smoking.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the Bill is not part of a drive; it will do what it says it will do.
Finally, I should like to comment on the speech of my noble friend Lord Warner, which I found very encouraging and interesting. The fact that there is obviously some government irritation at the speed with which the hospitality industry is adopting the public places charter is understandable. One of the messages that will go out from this debate is that when the Minister meets the industry in May, he can say that there is a very strong body of opinion which believes that much faster progress needs to be made.
548
The Government may wish to remind the industry that at the beginning, when the charter was set up in 1998–99, they said that they expected fast and substantial progress. By last year, at least, one in three pubs was still completely non-compliant with the code and nearly half of compliant pubs allowed unrestricted smoking throughout. They have a very long way to go before they match even their own modest ambitions.
There was one point that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, made, and I should have referred to it earlier. He talked about whether driving smokers out of workplaces and the hospitality industry means that they will smoke more at home. I am assured that the evidence from Australia, where a workplace smoking ban has been in force for some years, shows that people are smoking less at home as well and it is reducing the prevalence of smoking. Certainly, if the experience of my family is anything to go by, my daughter, who smokes spasmodically, but not heavily, is monitored by her 11 year-old daughter, who demands to know each day how many cigarettes her mother has smoked and reprimands her if it is more than the day before.
The basis of tackling smoking in the home, I suspect, will be peer pressure in the same way as it is applied on public transport and in all the other areas where smoking has been banned.
I thank all noble Lords for taking part in the debate. I take on board very much what my noble friend Lord Warner has said, and I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Smoking in Public Places (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Finlay of Llandaff.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Simon) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Prohibition of smoking in public places in Wales]:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 3, after "prohibition" insert "or restriction"
The noble Baroness said: All the amendments tabled today are in response to comments noble Lords made on Second Reading. I hope that they will clarify areas of potential confusion. I will try to be very brief in addressing them because I am well aware of the time on a Friday afternoon, but I am grateful that the Government have given time for the Bill.
Amendment No. 1 clarifies that the Bill gives powers to the National Assembly for Wales to restrict or prohibit the smoking of tobacco products in public places in Wales, allowing flexibility to the Assembly. The consultation exercise being undertaken by the Assembly will reveal what the population want and how they wish a ban to be implemented. The Assembly must be able to respond to the wishes of the people that it serves. The amendment will allow the Assembly to limit by place and time rather than only ban or not ban.
Amendment No. 8 ensures that the long title of the Bill is accurate. The Bill does not ban smoking in public places per se; it empowers the Assembly to do whatever it feels appropriate. It gives the Assembly the powers that Scotland already has and the Assembly has requested. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 3, after "tobacco" insert "products"
The noble Baroness said: For clarification, I had asked that Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 be degrouped from Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 7. I shall address Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 now.
In all five amendments, definitions are addressed. The first two cover specific definitions. Amendment No. 2 covers all tobacco products that can be smoked and not only pure tobacco. That is compatible with the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 and keeps the same definition as is already used in legislation. Amendment No. 3 concerns contravention of regulations in Section 1. It would prevent the owner or his deputy, manager or other person in charge of a place encouraging the flouting of the law. Such encouragement could occur if the smoker is the only person committing an offence. The amendment would also ensure that the owner of a premises, or his delegated person in charge, has a duty to bring the ban to the attention of members of the public, such as tourists, who may be unaware of local regulations that pertain to Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Offence]:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
"() Where in relation to any place specified in section (Definitions) there is a contravention of regulations under section 1, the occupier, manager and any other person for the time being in charge of the place shall each be guilty of an offence."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: I shall now speak to the amendments that have been degrouped. Amendment No. 4 would remove Clause 2(2) to the proposed new definitions section. Amendment No. 5 is consequential
550
on it. Amendment No. 7 would create the definition clause. In it, "tobacco products" would mean any product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco. That is the definition used in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 and, again, it ensures compatibility with existing legislation.
The definition of a "public place" was of concern to your Lordships. Therefore, I have taken extensive advice on it. A public place means any premises or place to which, at the material time, the public or any section of it have access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission.
A public place was so defined to allow the Welsh Assembly to decide the venues that it wishes to deem covered in its secondary legislation. This definition of public places is based on a well founded definition in the Public Order Act 1936. As its name suggests, that deals with areas where the public congregate. That Act concerns the wearing of uniform in connection with political objects. Just as such a uniform can cause offence or anxiety, smoking can cause harm or anxiety of harm to those who do not wish to be exposed to the hazard.
The definition would allow the Millennium Stadium to be covered by secondary legislation if the Assembly wishes. Also, new architectural designs may emerge which the Assembly would wish to encompass in its regulations and which cannot be accounted for by tight lists.
"At the material time" includes the times that such places are open to the public, but not otherwise. It is intended to allow regulatory flexibility to the Assembly to prescribe those times more precisely and could cover such times as an hour prior to the opening of a private house or residence to the public as occurs in some places in country houses on a Sunday.
The Assembly would have the flexibility of deciding to which type of public place the legislation should apply. That flexibility allows the Assembly to assess the most effective way of pursuing the ban and to respond to its own detailed consultation exercise across Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I declare an interest as presiding officer of the National Assembly. I support Amendment No. 7, in particular, and thank my noble friend Lady Finlay for addressing the issues raised at Second Reading. This Bill, and these amendments in particular, provide an excellent example of what co-legislation between Westminster and Cardiff should be about. This House and, one hopes, another place, is able to address the general framework issues, enabling the National Assembly and the leadership of the Welsh Assembly government to pursue the detail. I refer particularly to Alun Pugh AM, now the Minister for Culture, who was the initial instigator of this whole project and is now actively pursuing his campaign on public health in public buildings throughout Wales. That is as it should be; it is a sign of devolutionary times and a test

551
for Parliament and Westminster in framing legislation, as well as a test for the Assembly in Cardiff in terms of the details of legislation. I am happy to support my noble friend and to thank her for the lead she is taking in this matter in this House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Orders and regulations]:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 1, leave out "2(1)" and insert "2"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 2, leave out "imprisonment for more than three months or"
The noble Baroness said: The amendment will delete imprisonment as part of the process, should any ban be contravened. I had previously had the phrase,
"imprisonment for more than three months",
in the Bill. The amendment will ensure proportionality to the offence, and will avoid the Bill being disproportionately punitive. I listened very carefully to the debate and took account of all the points made by noble Lords and others outside the Chamber over the issue of potential imprisonment. It is worth noting that Ireland has included the possibility of imprisonment in its legislation. However, I was persuaded by your
552
Lordships that it might be inappropriately punitive and burdensome on our already over-stretched prison services. I beg to move.
Lord Roper: We on these Benches are grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has introduced the amendment. Given the present situation of our prisons, we are extremely cautious about doing anything that might increase overcrowding. We are very pleased that the amendment has been introduced.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"DEFINITIONS
In this Act—

"tobacco products" means any product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco;

"public place" means any premises or place to which at the material time the public or any section of the public has access on payment or otherwise as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
In the Title:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 8:
Line 1, leave out "Prohibit" and insert "Enable the prohibition or restriction of"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before four o'clock.

  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland Housing Executive
  Northern Ireland Housing Executive
  Northern Ireland: Suicides in Police Custody and Prisons
  Northern Ireland: Suicides in Police Custody and Prisons
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Belfast Education and Library Board
  Belfast Education and Library Board
  International Law: Armed Intervention
  International Law: Armed Intervention
  School Attendance
  School Attendance
  Further Education: Funding for 16 to 18 Year-Olds
  Further Education: Funding for 16 to 18 Year-Olds
  Azinphos-methyl: Inveresk Study
  Azinphos-methyl: Inveresk Study
  Patient and Public Involvement Forums and Support Organisations
  Patient and Public Involvement Forums and Support Organisations
  NHS Foundation Trusts: Electoral Guidance
  NHS Foundation Trusts: Electoral Guidance

  Commercial Property Leases
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Government are today announcing a forthcoming consultation about whether to legislate to regulate terms in commercial property leases and if so what form that regulation should take.

  In April 2002, the commercial property industry introduced a new voluntary code of practice for commercial property leases. This sought to address government concern about the lack of choice and flexibility in commercial leasing; in particular, the lack of alternatives to upward only rent reviews in longer leases and the poor information available to small business tenants. The Government announced that they would review the impact of the code, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned the University of Reading to undertake research. The office asked the university to prepare an interim report on the first year of the code, by the end of 2003, and a final report on the whole of the first two years of the code, by the end of this year. The Government announced that they would consider whether it would be sufficient to continue relying on a voluntary code of practice or whether to move to regulate lease terms, in the light of the research, feedback from stakeholders and an analysis of complaints received.
  WS 22
  Informal feedback during the first year of the code was that despite major efforts to disseminate it widely, it was having little effect on leasing practices. In view of this, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the 2003 Budget Report that if the interim report suggested that little progress had been made, we would consult during 2004 on legislative options. This would enable the Government to introduce legislation at an early stage if the final report then confirmed that progress had been disappointing and the Government concluded that they should proceed with legislation.

  Earlier this year the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister received Reading University's interim report, which we are publishing on our website today. This paints a disappointing picture of the impact of t he code in its first year. It has found that although there has been no reversal of previous trends towards shorter leases and that more leases contain operable "break" clauses, rent review provisions are almost universally upwards only. It is particularly disappointing that there are few signs yet of landlords offering alternative leasing packages at different prices, although the report finds that a degree of negotiation does take place. The Government are also concerned about the evidence that small business occupiers have too little information to be able to negotiate the best deals.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will therefore shortly issue a consultation paper in conjunction with the Welsh Assembly government about the regulation of commercial lease terms in England and Wales. This will seek views on the whole principle of legislation in this field as well as the various options for regulating lease terms. The Government will not make a decision about whether or not to legislate until we have studied the final report from Reading University, due at the end of this year, taking account of the outcome of the consultation exercise.