I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require insolvency practitioners to provide information regarding redundancies to employment agencies when a company goes into administration within a specified period; and for connected purposes.

At a time of global recession, and its effect on our economy and our people, this Bill aims to improve the relationship between insolvency practitioners and employment agencies, especially Jobcentre Plus. At present, when a company goes into liquidation there is no duty on the administrator to inform Jobcentre Plus of redundancies. I believe that to be wrong.

To be fair, some administrators inform Jobcentre Plus and allow access, but not on all occasions. Employees should have access to the help Jobcentre Plus can offer as soon as possible, and it should not be denied. My Bill calls for a requirement to be placed on administrators to inform Jobcentre Plus of a redundancy situation as soon as possible, and invite the agency to meet those facing unemployment when the company is going into liquidation. It is all about putting people first in difficult times.

Earlier this year, Jobcentre Plus was informed by a company in my constituency that it was going into liquidation. The company informed the redundancy manager at Jobcentre Plus of the insolvency practitioner involved. A series of phone calls took place between the redundancy manager and the practitioner, in which the Jobcentre Plus representative requested access to the employees to issue redundancy packs. The practitioner said they did not want Jobcentre Plus on the site in case it inflamed the situation.

The redundancy manager was on standby to go to the factory because information had been received that the administrator was holding a meeting with staff on that day. The redundancy manager called the administrator on several occasions only to be told that the meeting had taken place at 8 o’clock that morning and that 175 staff had been made redundant, the majority of whom had been sent home. On hearing that, the redundancy manager immediately went to the site in question and managed to catch between 15 and 20 staff. Redundancy information packs were issued to them and the administrator gave an assurance that it would send the remaining packs to the rest of the work force. When I heard that, the words “stable doors” and “horses bolting” came to mind.

The majority of staff at the factory had not been made aware before they left the site of the support and services available to them. Many of those made unemployed had worked for more than 20 years and were unaware of the processes and conditions for claiming benefit; nor were they aware of the redundancy support available to them through the rapid response service. Jobcentre Plus was left with the task of trying to identify those customers as they made claims for benefit.

In another part of the north-east, another company went into liquidation. Staff were not even able to get on to the site to clear their personal effects, as the gates were locked. Jobcentre Plus found out the name of the administrator only through the pages of the local newspaper, and the insolvency practitioner could not help because the staff had all gone home. However, Jobcentre Plus tells me that on other occasions elsewhere in the region it has received excellent support from administrators. They hold joint meetings with employees to talk them through the situation and set out how they can be helped through redundancy. On occasion, redundancy information packs have even been delivered by hand. Those are obviously examples of good practice; if a redundancy situation arises, that is how we would like it to be handled.

We need to iron out the inconsistencies across the piece, not only among insolvency practitioners, but perhaps at the Jobcentre Plus and Insolvency Service end, too. Between April 2008 and March 2009, there were 3,555 redundancies in County Durham. Of those, 513 were caused by company liquidations. Nationally, the figure stands at over 112,000. I want all those people to be treated the same—with respect, not as another commodity that needs to be sorted out, like a piece of machinery left on the site. We are talking about human beings, many with families, all with hopes and aspirations. The Bill will, I believe, go some way towards ensuring that they are treated with dignity.

How would such a Bill work in practice? It would oblige the insolvency practitioner to inform Jobcentre Plus of the situation as soon as possible, but before the liquidation is announced, where there are more than 20 employees involved. There will be an obligation on the administrator to work with Jobcentre Plus to prepare employees for redundancy. The employment service can then act in the most professional way possible and use its expertise to help the employees through the most difficult of times.

Those words and sentiments may be fine, but we need to provide further assistance to insolvency practitioners, Jobcentre Plus and the Insolvency Service. Their relationship needs to be better co-ordinated on the ground. That is why I have already met, both separately and jointly, Jobcentre Plus and R3, the insolvency practitioners’ trade body. I intend to meet the Insolvency Service soon. The Department for Work and Pensions needs to provide R3 with hotline telephone numbers, so that administrators have one point of contact in a region. R3 needs to inform Jobcentre Plus of its major practitioners, so that high-level contact can be maintained at all times. The DWP should issue a rapid-response toolkit to insolvency practitioners, so that they can fully engage with the employees and Jobcentre Plus.

It is to the credit of Jobcentre Plus, the Insolvency Service and R3 that they are ready to look at the problem and to try to resolve it. R3 has assured me that it will work closely with Jobcentre Plus to ensure that people who face redundancy are offered the support and advice that they need. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs has offered me the opportunity to meet the Insolvency Service to discuss the best way of ensuring that insolvency practitioners are aware of their responsibilities and act on them. I know that he has already written to insolvency practitioners, through the Insolvency Service, about the matter.

The main players—the DWP, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and insolvency practitioners—are nearing the same page, but I want to see them on the same page; that is why the Bill is important. I want the sentiments that I have set out to be put into action. A code of conduct needs to be drawn up, and there should be regular meetings between the partners to ensure that the code of conduct is implemented by all parties. The trade unions agree with the move, too. There must be a role for them in the process, so that the whole architecture of the Bill is based on partnership. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s assurance that his Department will look into introducing trade unions into that partnership.

I believe fundamentally that the Bill would close a loophole—an important loophole at that—in the Government’s approach to helping the unemployed back into work. It is a well-known fact that the sooner someone who is out of work contacts Jobcentre Plus, the sooner they can access work. Today, as a result of the Government’s proactive approach to getting people off the dole, 75 per cent. of those out of work still find a job within 6 months. By comparing my experience of this global recession with my experience of the home-grown recessions of the ’80s and ’90s, I hope to give extra impetus to the passage of the Bill, and give the Government confidence that our approach, which is to help those who are out of work, instead of leaving them to their own devices, is right. Doing nothing is not an option.

Unemployment in Sedgefield went up from 1,077 in February last year to 2,456 in February this year. The rate of increase has been rapid, but started from a low base. Even with that rate of increase, the present situation does not compare with the recession of the early ’90s, and especially not with that of the 1980s. In January 1986, unemployment in Sedgefield hit 5,346. Of those people, more than 2,000 had been out of work for 12 months or more. Today, only 70 people in Sedgefield have been out of work for 12 months or more. The last time unemployment in Sedgefield was about 2,500 was in 1996. Almost 600 of those people—more than one in five—had been out of work for over 12 months.

Every person made unemployed is not only an economic tragedy but, more importantly, a personal tragedy for the individual and family concerned. That is why the Government have learned the lessons of the 1980s and 1990s. People who find themselves unemployed cannot be left behind. That is why access to Jobcentre Plus is imperative. In February some 250,000 people left jobseeker’s allowance and found another job. This proves three things to me: people have better skills sets than they once did, Jobcentre Plus is doing its job by finding jobs for people, and the Government’s economic strategy is beginning to work.

The response that I have received from Ministers, Jobcentre Plus, R3 and others to the issues outlined in my Bill prove that the Government are not complacent and are putting hard-working families at the centre of their actions. My Bill will build on the Government’s proactive approach, and will go some way towards ensuring that those made redundant have the earliest possible access to the services provided by Jobcentre Plus. The Government are doing their best to treat those out of work with dignity. The Bill proposes to do the same.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Phil Wilson, Mr. John Heppell, Jim Dowd, Mary Creagh, Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods, Mr. Jamie Reed, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mr. Ian McCartney, Tony Lloyd, Mrs. Sharon Hodgson, Andrew Miller and Mr. Frank Doran present the Bill.

Phil Wilson accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October and to be printed (Bill 84).

Industry and Exports (financial support) Bill (programme) (no. 2)

Ordered,

That the Order of 16 March 2009 (Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 pm at this day’s sitting.—(Ian Pearson.)

I welcome you to the Chair, Sir Alan, for the Committee stage of our proceedings.

Clause 1 amends the cumulative limit on the financial support for business under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. I accept that, as such, it does not authorise actual expenditure, but can the Minister confirm that authorisation for the orders involved, under the new wording, will be made by affirmative resolution? Furthermore, does he accept that it would be good practice that when each order is submitted for debate, it should be accompanied by a detailed update as to the range of schemes involved and their current funding levels?

At present, the Government publish only an annual report, which is often unrelated to the issuing of the orders in question. It would be more helpful if we in the House had the chance to consider the current schemes at the time when we debate the Government’s request to increase their funding limits. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider that carefully and make a specific response in his reply to the debate, should he catch the Chairman’s eye.

On Second Reading the Minister cited as one of the main reasons for moving to a higher limit of £12 billion the Government’s wish to switch away from grants and to increase the proportion of support in the form of loans and loan guarantees. Will he therefore tell us what proportion of the current £6 billion is in grants and what proportion is in loans and loan guarantees?

Overall, the Opposition agree that loans and loan guarantees are often a better form of business support than grants. After all, money for loans can be recycled, but loans are also treated differently by their recipients. When I ran my business a few years ago, I was also a mentor for the Prince’s Youth Business Trust, helping young people to start up businesses. I saw then how the provision of loans motivated a start-up firm far more than a grant did. It is not that surprising; one is far more likely to try to maximise the value of funding if one knows that the money has to be paid back, than if one knows that it has been gifted.

On the whole, therefore, the Opposition support a shift in the balance of financial support. However, it would be helpful, not least in considering the clause, to understand better the current balance. Indeed, of the future £12 billion, and the potential £16 billion that the Government expect the Bill to cover, what proportion do they expect to take the form of a loan over the next five years?

Further, the Minister on Second Reading failed to inform us of the balance of the schemes and their exact proportion of the total. He mentioned a list of different schemes, and we have debated them on numerous occasions, but he has not told us which are the most important. So, in reply to this debate, will he tell us the five most important schemes by value under the clause, their current value and by how much he expects their value to increase with the new total of £12 billion? That will enable us better to understand the direct impact not only on small, medium and large enterprises, but on different business sectors, which I know he is keen to be seen to support.

Finally, on clause 1, the Minister mentioned on Second Reading that the Bill’s remit includes funds for the post office network, and I am delighted to see the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs in the Chamber. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the Minister responsible for the Bill, tell us how much has already been allocated to the scheme, and how much has been paid out to date?

I shall be brief, Sir Alan, as most of what I want to say will come towards the end of our proceedings.

On Second Reading, the Minister described a wide range of schemes that the legislation will cover, and the Liberal Democrats, too, welcome the emphasis moving from grants to loans and loan guarantees, because it creates a fairer playing field for industry generally and should constitute better value for money for the taxpayer. We welcome also the increase to £12 billion and the potential increase to £16 billion.

We appreciate that to elicit the loan guarantees, companies must undertake proper due diligence. However, hon. Members in all parts of the House have criticised the fact that the release of funds to companies, especially to small companies that are not seeking to borrow vast sums, is taking an inordinately long time. Will the Minister comment on the steps that are being taken to expedite the due diligence? The Government quite properly require it, but it can slow things up and is putting small businesses, in particular, which need help fast, beyond the reach of the schemes that were designed to help them.

Clause 1 is essential to enable the section 8 power of the Industrial Development Act 1982 to continue to be used to give financial assistance to industry for the purposes specified in that Act. It is necessary to continue to strengthen the provision of support for businesses so that they come through stronger from the current global economic downturn. The Bill seeks to amend the cumulative limit on financial assistance that may be provided under section 8 to an initial ceiling of £12 billion, which can be increased by four orders of up to £1 billion each to make an overall limit of £16 billion. We have proposed the £12 billion limit as it restores the ceiling to more or less the same proportion of GDP as was the case when the original Act came into force.

The business support that we now provide is often in the form of loan guarantees or loans. Those can offer better value for money for the taxpayer in the long term, as loans are repaid over time and only a proportion of guarantees will ultimately need to be met. The hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and for Solihull (Lorely Burt) recognised and welcomed that.

I want to be clear that when we offer loans or loan guarantees, the full amount secured against public funds will count towards the section 8 limit. That is one of the reasons why we need to increase the limit; we debated the issue on Second Reading. We think that £12 billion is a sensible limit at the current time, when it is vital that we maintain sufficient flexibility to respond to the challenges ahead. I want to say something more about flexibility in a moment, because it is relevant to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the balance of funds between grant schemes, loans and loan guarantee schemes.

However, I also want to be clear that the section 8 financial ceiling does not itself authorise any actual expenditure. The Bill retains the accountability to Parliament contained in the existing legislation, and I can confirm that that is through the need for affirmative orders of the Commons, which would replace the existing limits with new, higher ones, reflecting the need for continuing support for industry when necessary.

We have maintained the £10 million limit for the referral of single expenditure schemes back to the House. As the hon. Gentleman said, an annual report will continue to be published in the Commons Library, setting out how single projects are funded. Combined, the measures provide an appropriate balance between accountability and providing the Government with the legal power to respond to business need.

The annual report can be helpful, but as the Minister will understand and Members on both sides of the House will appreciate, when we are considering an order for an increase of the not insubstantial sums identified in clause 1, it will be helpful if we can see the current point when we debate the issue in Committee, rather than just having the annual report. That was what my point was about. Does the Minister not accept that that would improve the quality of scrutiny in the House?

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and I undertake to consider it. If we lay affirmative resolutions, we want to be able to give the reason why they are necessary. Obviously, that would relate to the spend or potential liabilities as a result of Government commitments.

The hon. Gentleman asked specific questions about the top five schemes. He can see them in the annual report. They include the grant for business investment—previously called “selective financial assistance”—the enterprise finance guarantee scheme and the Post Office reinvention programme; those would account for the bulk of it. The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the Post Office reinvention programme and, as he will be aware, we have made a commitment to the programme of £1.7 billion over the years 2006 to 2011. At this point, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an actual expenditure figure, although I am sure that some of that information can be made available. However, it is clear that there is a programme of spending going on over a five-year period, and that that spending will take place at the appropriate time for the business.

The Minister tells us that the three principal schemes include the Post Office reinvention programme. Some Members will be surprised that that comes ahead of, for example, the automotive assistance package, which they might assume would be larger. Is he telling us that that package is not even one of the most important packages in the total number?

No, I am not saying that. I want to draw a distinction between schemes that have been in the annual report previously and new schemes that the Government have introduced. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the automotive assistance programme was launched as recently as on 27 January this year. It is a new scheme and, as with all new schemes, it had to go through a process of securing EU state aid approval, which was granted on 27 February. We are in detailed discussions with several automotive companies about the programme. He will be aware of the recent announcements made under the European Investment Bank element of the programme whereby Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan have been offered loans by the EIB. We will want to report to Parliament on the automotive assistance programme and on other programmes in due course, because we believe that there should be full accountability in this area.

The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, which replaced the small firms loan guarantee scheme, is now very much up and running. It is spending significant sums of money, to the tune of about £30 million in loans offered every week. The latest figures that I have seen show that well over 2,000 businesses have made applications to it.

I think that it is now time for the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Solihull to welcome the new scheme and to recognise that the Government have introduced it in a remarkably short period, and that it is providing valued support to companies and helping to make a difference to those that are receiving it.

I am sure that all Members welcome any funding that is finally trickling through to business. The Minister mentioned Jaguar Land Rover. Its assistance under the EIB element has not yet materialised, as it is still waiting for the Government’s due diligence to take place. It is obviously important that due diligence takes place, but it appears to be taking a long time. Why is that?

Let me clarify the situation. Jaguar Land Rover has successfully applied to the EIB for a loan to undertake a number of green projects, and it will be up to the Government to provide a guarantee for that loan. That is part of the package of support that Jaguar Land Rover will need to secure its long-term future. We are in discussions with the owners of JLR, as well as its management and its banks, about a package to ensure that it can continue to develop its model programme and have a secure future. The hon. Lady knows JLR well because of her constituency connections. She will be aware that as a west midlands MP, I am also fully aware of its strategic importance not only to the west midlands economy but more generally to the automotive industry in the United Kingdom. We need to continue the discussions that we are having. However, I emphasise the fact that JLR is a successful company that, as with all motor companies, is suffering from the severe economic downturn, which has affected its business just as other businesses in the automotive industry have been affected. However, it was making good profits in the period January to June 2008, and there is absolutely no reason why it cannot do so in future. We need to continue to consider what is the appropriate role for Government in providing support to JLR, and we are doing that in the discussions that we are taking forward with it at the moment.

I am grateful to the Minister, not least for being generous in giving way. I return to my original point. He highlighted the fact that the annual report, for example, showed a certain balance of schemes, and now events have changed. He is right, and we understand that that will continue to be the case. It seems to me that a logical pattern would be that when the Government need to come forward with a request for an additional increase over and above the existing limit, that is the obvious moment at which we in the House would benefit from being able to see the current snapshot of the balance.

I am slightly disappointed that the Minister does not have the figures on the balance between loans and grants, but I wonder whether he will ensure that at least some information can be provided to Members. We will not have the chance to consider this further, as this is the last day on which we will have the opportunity to discuss the Bill. Given the fact that Ministers cited the balance between grants and loans as the principal reason for change, it would be helpful if we could at least have the evidence of what the current balance is and what the Government’s expectation of change is. Does the Minister accept that, and will he undertake to provide it?

I certainly accept that the reason why we need to increase the limits is that a lot of the programmes that we have looked to introduce have been guarantee schemes. Whether the headline guarantee figure is £1.3 billion for the enterprise finance guarantee or £2.3 billion for the automotive assistance programme, it all contributes to the need for the authority to incur expenditure. In that sense, I have given the hon. Gentleman some of the key figures. I shall happily write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library, explaining a further detailed breakdown of the schemes as far as I can. Obviously some of that will depend on future draw-down of loan guarantees, so inevitably figures cannot be precise, but we can certainly provide more information. I am happy to undertake that that will be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Assistance in connection with exports of goods or services

I beg to move amendment 1, in page 1, line 23, at end add—

‘(3) Arrangements falling within subsection (2) may be made only if the Secretary of State is properly satisfied that an adequate case impact assessment has been carried out in accordance with the principles established for the Export Credits Guarantee Department or such other body performing comparable functions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.’.

First, I extend my thanks to the Jubilee Debt Campaign, Transparency International and the WWF for the help and advice that they have extended. Clause 2 will amend the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991, which governs the Export Credits Guarantee Department’s remit, so that the ECGD can provide financial backing for exports that are already under way. My concern is that that will allow for the possibility that the ECGD’s business principles governing environmental standards, sustainable development impacts and corruption will be circumvented.

It is important that the Government do what they can to support British business in a time of recession. However, there is widespread agreement that such support needs to be sustainable and as green as possible, and that it does not do more harm than good. The worry is that the ECGD could, if it supports exports that have already been supplied without the usual due diligence, inadvertently support projects that have a negative impact on developing countries and add to their unjust and unpayable debt burdens. Civil society groups already have serious concerns about the role of the ECGD in supporting investments that have been linked to human rights violations, corruption, environmental damage and increased debt in poor countries. There needs to be an improvement in the ECGD’s involvement rather than a reduction of the existing standards.

Transparency International UK says that there is no evidence that the Government have consulted interested civil society organisations or the Export Guarantees Advisory Council. Given the speed with which the amendment to the 1991 Act has been drafted and the lack of consultation, the consequences are potentially serious and need to be tackled. We are concerned that there is no safeguard for applying the business principles and anti-bribery provisions. To satisfy the ECGD’s business partners’ need for certainty and ensure speed of decision making, the business principles and due diligence procedures may be watered down. Many sectors with which the ECGD has the greatest involvement are historical hotbeds of corruption.

The ECGD currently carries out a case impact analysis to ensure that the principles will not be breached. We simply ask that the Secretary of State certificate that in some way. The ECGD, not the supplier, should undertake the due diligence. That is basically an on-the-record assurance that the case impact analysis has been done.

I am not trying to delay matters, but we must make provisions to ensure that, when the Government exercise discretion and award guarantees when the export process has already begun, at least the same principles are used to approve guarantees as those that apply when companies wait for approval before going ahead.

I want to make several points about clause 2, which are very much in line with the comments of the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt).

I greatly welcome the general powers in the Bill, especially in clause 1, to support industry. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I represent a steel constituency, and support for manufacturing, when justified, is important, especially in the current circumstances. I appreciate that he, too, represents a manufacturing area. I strongly welcome the powers to provide support for manufacturing.

The hon. Lady made some important points about clause 2. My hon. Friend knows that there have been several meetings about the powers that the ECGD should have to ensure that supported projects fulfil high standards of sustainable development, and have good environmental and social standards. He also knows that new guidelines have been drawn up for the ECGD. A debate is continuing with organisations such as WWF about whether the guidelines are adequate and meet the standards.

There is a worry that because of the wording of clause 2 some existing arrangements do not meet the ECGD’s guidelines on sustainability and environmental standards. I would certainly welcome some assurances on that, because the issue might be one that my hon. Friend the Minister’s Department could address by ensuring that even if there is some element of retrospection, as provided for in clause 2, an assessment could still be made of any potential scheme. That is important to the non-governmental organisation community, as well as many hon. Members in all parts of the House, including me, and I would welcome some assurances on it.

I would also appreciate perhaps just a comment about the wording of clause 2(1), which gives the Secretary of State clear powers to

“make arrangements under this section in connection with supplies by persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom of goods or services to persons carrying on business outside the United Kingdom.”

That seems quite a broad definition, so I wonder whether my hon. Friend could clarify whether it gives the Department some flexibility in the potential standards that it might apply in relation to any loan guarantee.

I commend the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) for tabling amendment 1, not least because I hope that it will enable the Minister to put on record the Government’s full position.

At the heart of clause 2 is the Minister’s stated wish to update the facilitating role of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, notably, as we have heard from hon. Members on both sides, with more challenging export and overseas projects. The Government are right to say that the way in which high-value capital goods are transacted today has changed considerably since the original Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 was passed. Conversely, the scope for social, ethical and environmental due diligence by the Government has, for all the best reasons, increased over that period quite significantly. The net result can be, although not in all cases, to slow the ability of the ECGD to keep up with modern business timetables. There is therefore a case for trying to enable British exporters to trade, while not reducing our national approach towards ethical and environmental standards.

That is why clause 2 has the support of the CBI and, quite rightly, the British Exporters Association. It is also why we support the Government’s aims in making such a change. After all, it is vital, as the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) rightly pointed out, that we ensure that businesses can compete in a modern economy, now more than ever. However, there are reasonable questions about the effect of the clause, especially in the minority of cases where projects may have an important ethical or environmental consideration. As the hon. Member for Solihull rightly pointed out, the World Wildlife Fund has rightly set out questions about how projects might be underwritten retrospectively and about how the Government will ensure that they have not breached human rights or created unacceptable environmental damage. Other people are also concerned about the potential problem of bribery in those areas where corruption is rife.

Large-scale infrastructure projects would be especially challenging to police or to audit retrospectively. Equally, if a substantial contract—perhaps for a new dam or a bridge—is commenced, what is the likelihood of the ECGD subsequently withholding support, given the likely economic, employment or political difficulties in such a case? Those are reasonable questions.

Furthermore, as I understand it, the ECGD currently conforms to the standards set by the World Bank. I have tried to consider those and, as I see it, the standards clearly require assessments to be completed before financing is agreed. If that is true, does clause 2 not breach World Bank standards? It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm or clarify that.

For both those reasons we support amendment 1, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull. I hope that, in his response, the Minister will clearly set out the Government’s policy and assure us that their standards will not be diluted as a result of clause 2.

I can indeed assure the Committee that there is nothing in clause 2 that dilutes the high environmental standards or the policies against bribery and corruption that are adopted by the Government. Let me respond to the debate by saying some words about the reason for clause 2. I apologise if I go slightly broader than amendment 1, but other hon. Members have done so, and it seems appropriate for me to do so, too.

I am grateful to the Minister for his thorough explanation, and for all his technical explanations of why the amendment is not entirely appropriate. I think that it has achieved what it set out to achieve: to have placed on the record assurances from the Government that there will be no watering down and no circumvention of the business principles. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is a small Bill with just three clauses, but as the House agreed when we considered it at an earlier stage, it is vital that we continue to help businesses as much as we can in these exceptional economic times. The Bill proposes two amendments to the Industrial Development and the Export and Investment Guarantees Acts.

The first clause is essential to enable the section 8 power of the Industrial Development Act 1982 to continue to be used to give financial assistance to industry for the purposes specified in that Act. That is necessary to continue to strengthen the provision of support for businesses so that they can come through the global economic downturn stronger. As has previously been explained, the Bill seeks to amend the cumulative limit on financial assistance that may be provided under section 8 to an initial ceiling of £12 billion increasable by four orders of £1 billion each to an overall limit of £16 billion. We have previously discussed this measure, and I think there is widespread support for it.

The new forms of support that the Government have been seeking to provide for industry have principally been loan guarantees or loans, and I think there has been acceptance on both sides of the House that that is an appropriate policy intervention. That is why we propose today to increase the limits. Let me offer the example of the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, which has been providing real help to viable businesses.

Since the launch of the scheme in January, almost £270 million-worth of eligible applications have been granted or processed or assessed from more than 2,300 firms. On 31 March, we announced the solutions for business portfolio, which makes it simpler for businesses to access the support they need. For the first time, all Government help for business, including section 8 support schemes, now share an easy, identifiable banner and can be accessed through Business Link. That has been welcomed by a wide range of business organisations, including the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI, but without the introduction of the new limits, the legislative basis for those proposals under section 8 would be exceeded on reaching the limit of £6.1 billion allowed by the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Act 2003. We therefore need the new powers to ensure that viable businesses continue to receive the support they need.

Clause 2 has also been welcomed by the CBI, and I hope that environmental groups and groups that are active in the field of ensuring that the UK has high standards in combating bribery and corruption understand the points I was making in response to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) about the Government intending to continue to maintain high standards and their business principles when looking at large capital goods exports. The Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 governs the work of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, a Government Department that reports to the Secretary of State. As I have said, we have had difficulties with the facilitating of supplies and clause 2 seeks to address that. The high-value capital goods market works very differently now from the way in which it did a number of years ago, and the measure essentially clarifies and legitimises ECGD support, rather than in anyway diluting the standards that would apply when assessing individual applications for high-value capital goods; I am happy to confirm that.

If that amendment were not made, British exporters would continue to risk discrimination from overseas project sponsors, because ECGD would not be able to give the type of support that sponsors want. Other export credit agencies in competitor nations are not restricted in the same way in supporting exports that have already taken place, and without this change ECGD support would be reduced as a result of the increasing number of applications that are made to it at too late a stage in the project for its support to be given. That, of course, would be the position in any circumstances, but in the current economic circumstances support for British exports is particularly important. Over recent months, interest in ECDG support and applications for its assistance have, unsurprisingly, increased significantly. The export industry has made it clear that it feels that the problems that we are addressing through clause 2 are serious for it, which is why it has welcomed the amendment.

As I have made clear, the special interest groups that are concerned about this amendment can be reassured by the fact that the criteria applied to projects where the export has been completed will not be altered or made less stringent. The business principles, whether they relate to the environment or to bribery and corruption, are not weakened as a result of the amendment—indeed, it meets a recommendation of the Environmental Audit Committee that would, in the EAC’s view, strengthen the ECDG’s environmental scrutiny. A report on the ECDG and sustainable development that the Committee published last year recommended the following:

“No offer of support should be made, whether actual or provisional, until ECDG’s Business Principles Unit has completed its assessment”

of the project for which the exports are destined. Although I do not agree that the ECDG’s environmental scrutiny might be compromised by provisional offers of support, the Bill allows the ECGD to implement the EAC’s recommendation. Its environmental scrutiny can now be completed, and a final offer of support made thereafter, without regard to the timing of the delivery of the export.

We face a unique set of economic challenges. I am pleased that hon. Members from all parts of the House have recognised the need for these additional powers and have been supportive of the main aims of the Bill, and I am grateful for the constructive approach that Opposition Members have taken. This Bill may not have had a lengthy passage—it has indeed been a short one—but there has been a proper opportunity for scrutiny on Second Reading and in Committee. These important measures will help to deliver the real assistance and support that business needs at these difficult times, and I commend the Bill to the House.

I thank the Minister for the courteous way in which he deals with my many and often detailed questions. I hope that they keep him and his office busy, but my intention is to ensure that the House’s scrutiny is thorough. He is always courteous in how he handles it, despite being on a sticky wicket, and he defends his position with patience and a degree of calmness that I suspect others would not achieve; I appreciate that, as I am sure the House does. May I also take the opportunity at the beginning of Third Reading to thank the Clerks for their support, because the legislation of this House makes progress only with the aid of their efficiency and effectiveness? We rarely commend and thank them, but we should do so more often; I just wanted to put that on the record.

The Minister has alluded to the fact that the passage of this Bill has been brief, and that brevity belies the huge sums attached to it. After all, it is not every day that three clauses equate to £16 billion. Conservative Members support raising the upper limits, and we are satisfied that the House will have the appropriate opportunity to scrutinise the process. We also recognise the need to update the law on exports and for Government to help British business to remain competitive. We, along with other Members, have raised our concerns in respect of ensuring that ethical and environmental standards are maintained, and I accept the assurances that the Minister has given.

Our concern lies not so much with the legislation or the intentions that it will enact, but with the wide gap between Ministers’ rhetoric and the speed and effectiveness of their actions. As with the Chancellor’s Budget tomorrow, it will not be the words expressed from the Dispatch Box that will lead this country out of recession but how effective Ministers are in delivering real help. On that, this Government’s record has been at best slow, at worst inadequate and all too often incompetent. For the sake of hundreds of firms and thousands of workers, we need change and we need it now.

As the Minister said in his opening remarks, this is a small Bill of huge importance to industry and the future prosperity of this country. It is certainly big on cost, with financial assistance of £6 billion which could be increased to a total of £16 billion. It is also big on help for our exporters. In 2007-08, £1.8 billion in export loans was guaranteed. It is also big in its implications for Britain’s reputation overseas on the environment, human rights and sustainable development, as well as potential corruption and how we deal with it. So it is a big Bill, although it has not received great scrutiny.

We support the first clause, and we agree on the emphasis on a shift from grants to loans and to loan guarantees. Unlike the Conservatives, we believe that in times of great economic difficulty we should do all that we can to help companies, but it has to be real help in real time. Like the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), I feel that the gap between Government announcements and the provision of real money is still too great. Earlier, I asked the Minister whether he could comment on why due diligence was taking such a long time, and whether other issues were hampering the provision of financial help to companies through the Government schemes that have already been announced.

The Minister was good enough to mention Jaguar Land Rover and the £350 million European Investment Bank funding under the clean transport facility loan. That brings me on to green issues and the assistance provided by Government loans and guarantees. JLR is the leading automobile research and development company in Britain, so any help is well merited. We welcome the announcement of the £5,000 to be given towards the purchase of electric cars from 2011, but why were electric vans not included? I have in mind LDV, which has electric vans ready to roll off the production line. If we are talking about reducing carbon emissions, it would be hugely beneficial to substitute many of the vans on the roads today with electric vehicles.

On Second Reading, the Minister did not answer three of my questions, so I shall give him the opportunity to respond to them now. I asked him about help for lease financing companies, which have not been included in the banking industry support schemes although those companies afford tremendous help to small businesses that are arguably the most vulnerable in these difficult economic times. On the issue of the small business automatic rate relief, I suspect that the Minister will tell me off and suggest that I wait until tomorrow. I hope that we will hear some good words from the Chancellor on that.

I also floated a minimal cost idea, which involved a register of administrations and the publication of whether a proposed customer has a history of liquidating companies. It would be relatively easy to see what sort of relative risk would be afforded if one went into business to supply a company whose directors had a history of liquidating companies.

We support the scheme in clause 2 in principle, with the provisos that the Minister has already given to us in amendment 1. However, it is worth looking at who benefits. I looked up the Export Credits Guarantee Department’s annual review and resources account for 2007-08. What did I find? Of the total business support of £1.8 billion, more than £500 million went to Airbus, whereas £750 million went to BAE Systems and was spent on defence—

Order. I have given the hon. Lady some leniency, but on Third Reading we are meant to be discussing the content of the Bill, rather than posing questions as the hon. Lady is doing.

I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was merely trying to talk about what the Bill will achieve in terms of supply and about where guarantees paid for out of taxpayers’ money are being directed. We have a worry—there was a conversation on this subject earlier in the debate—about the proportion of supply that went to smaller companies and to larger companies. My point was that the huge companies seem to be swallowing the guarantees while a relatively small amount of money goes to smaller exporters.

In conclusion, although we welcome the Bill overall, we have some reservations. We would be grateful if the Minister considered conducting a review after a year or so to allow the House to scrutinise whether the Bill is working as well as we all hope that it will.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

This is rather like old times, I suppose, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The business before the House tonight consists of two revival motions, and I know that you would take a dim view were I to stray beyond the arguments in favour of or, indeed, against revival. The debate is clearly narrow, and I hope that, on that basis, it can be short and succinct.

It is worth reminding the House that the revival of this type of private Bill has been common practice for a long time, and I am told that opposition to revival motions is relatively unusual in the annals of the House. In that context, and given that the Bills that received a Second Reading on 29 October 2008 passed that stage so recently, and that the other Bills that we will discuss did not have the chance of being given a Second Reading even though there was lengthy debate, I want to establish that, after less than six months, it would be almost absurd for the House to refuse the revival motion.

In that spirit, I hope that I can say confidently to the Chamber that the revival ought to go ahead. It is up to those who oppose it to put, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, their narrow and brief case as to why it should not.

Surely the hon. Gentleman needs to address the fact that, since the Bills came before the House, the Durham university report has been published. I am sure he will accept that it throws considerable doubt on many assertions in the promoters’ statements.

For the record, the Durham university study does not show that. For example, it said that, even to a sceptical inquirer, it was clear that there were circumstances in which such legislation would be important to certain local areas. I speak from the point of view of Manchester, but I am sure that my colleagues from Leeds and Nottingham, who are alongside me, and those from Canterbury, Reading and Bournemouth, who are also present, share the same sentiments in respect of their own localities. That is an important point. In any case, the hon. Gentleman’s argument about detail and the study’s merits, while fascinating and worthy of debate, would be better conducted when those Bills that have received a Second Reading move into Committee. Indeed, with your agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if we can secure the revival motion for those Bills that have not yet had a Second Reading, we might debate the merits of the Durham study during their Second Readings, too.

In that spirit, I hope the whole House will accept that a revival is desirable. It is only a matter of months since the Bills were debated, and it was clear at the time that, barring a small fringe, a majority of the House massively supported them. It would be contemptuous of the House not to accept the spirit and, indeed, the letter of the revival. In that context, I support the first and, by reference, second motions, on private business which appear on the Order Paper tonight.

I welcome this debate because it should give the promoters of these Bills the opportunity to show cause as to why they should have leave to proceed with them in the current Session. The provisions of Standing Order No. 188B, which relates to the revival of Bills, make it clear that there is no right to have a Bill revived and that it is a matter of discretion for the House. It is therefore relevant to look at the history of the Manchester City Council Bill and the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, which goes back to 22 January 2007, when they were originally introduced in the other place.

Since then, much has happened that renders the Bills, particularly in so far as they relate to pedlars, no longer appropriate. I have particular reason to be concerned about clause 5 of each Bill. A Select Committee in the other place scrutinised the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill in detail in 2007. One of its conclusions was that it had

“strong reservations about the use of piecemeal private legislation to remedy perceived problems in national legislation.”

The justification given by the promoters for continuing to proceed with the Bills was that nothing was happening through national legislation and that therefore local solutions were needed.

However, the caravan has moved on. As a result of pressure from both sides of the House, the Government agreed last summer to commission research from Durham university on the application and perception of local authority controls and pedlar legislation. I opposed the Second Readings of these two Bills—because, among other reasons, I regarded them as premature. I argued that we should await the publication of the Durham university report. For the same reason, I objected to the Bills’ being carried over into this Session. The Government provided no time to debate those carry-over motions before Prorogation last November. That, in turn, resulted in the promoters seeking the indulgence of the House to allow them to revive the Bills in this Session.

I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd): the two Bills that we are considering both received a Second Reading in the House. However, they received it before the Durham university report had been published. I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had the chance to look at the report, but I should say that it extends to 97 pages and, in my submission, represents an important and timely contribution to the debate on these Bills.

The report was published by the Government earlier this year and because of its findings I had expected the hon. Member for Manchester, Central—[Interruption.] He is not paying attention to the debate at the moment. I had expected the hon. Gentleman to have a much more contrite mindset about the alleged justification for including clause 5 in his Bill. I shall expand on this in connection with the other Bills, but I should tell him that I have had discussions with two of the local authorities concerned in this private legislation—those discussions continued today—and I have to report their willingness to be much more receptive to the clear evidence of the Durham university study. It is a matter of regret to me that in his short introduction to tonight’s proceedings, he did not refer to that important report. Among other things, the report draws attention to the fact that there have been only five convictions in the whole of Manchester in the period 2002-06—hardly indicative, one might think, of a really serious issue that needs to be addressed by this House, and has so far been addressed at considerable length.

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case on these matters. Does he agree that it is also important to reflect on what implications there would be for neighbouring local authority areas if the regulations were introduced?

rose—

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too distracted by his hon. Friend, because he understands, I am sure, the careful distinction that we have to make in this debate about what are strictly matters to do with the revival motion rather than with the actual merits of the Bill, where the House has already made a decision. It is a question of whether there would be an opportunity for further consideration of these matters were the revival motion to be approved by the House.

As ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance.

While of course I accept that what has been said from the Chair is correct—and is, indeed, always correct—is it not the case that when deciding whether one should give consent to carry over a Bill, the question whether there is still a need for the provision must be relevant to making that decision?

That is absolutely fundamental. What has happened in this case is a change of circumstances. Where there is fresh evidence, it behoves Members of this House to consider the new situation. The Durham university report makes it clear that if a local authority wishes to use private legislation to change the law in this respect, it needs to have strong evidence—the very last statement made in the report; I do not quote it exactly but summarise, I think fairly. If that is so, it is all the more incumbent on the promoters of the Bill to address the issues contained in that report, particularly the finding, which we were never able to get out of them in the debate in June last year, that in the period 2002-06 there were only five guilty verdicts in Greater Manchester and only three in Dorset—of course, those are the two areas affected by the Bills that we are discussing. The most fair-minded person might say, “If, in that period, only five incidents have resulted in convictions in one area and three in the other, does that really merit the introduction of a complete change in the law with new private legislation?” This is new evidence before the House that was not available to us when we considered the matter previously, and that needs to be taken into account.

This debate is about the revival of the Bill. Could not the Government have found time for a carry-over motion in the previous Session? The only argument from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) as to why this revival should take place was that revivals usually take place, which does not seem a very powerful case.

I am not sure that revivals normally take place; it is a question of judgment. I think that there is a precedent, which has been cited, to the effect that if a Bill has not received its Second Reading during the whole of one of our parliamentary Sessions, it would prima facie not be right for that Bill to be the subject of a carry-over motion or a revival motion. I accept that that constraint does not apply to these two Bills, although it may have some relevance to the subsequent debate.

It is quite clear from examining the private business Standing Orders that this is a matter of discretion for the House. You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I objected to the carry-over motion that was put forward at the end of the last Session in respect of the Northern Bank Bill. I objected to the Bill and made it clear to its promoters that it was not going to be a straightforward tick-in-the-box procedure, and they decided to withdraw it. They recognised that it had not made any progress during the Session, and implicitly recognised that they needed to go back to the drawing board to see whether the Bill was still relevant.

Members on both sides of the House have now said that this is a matter for the discretion of the House. Perhaps I am not as well versed as the hon. Gentleman in the wonderful and mysterious ways in which the House works, but if it is a matter for the discretion of the House, why do we not divide and let Members use their discretion to decide whether the Bills go forward?

I do not think that anybody is ruling out the possibility that there could be a vote on this issue, and then we could find out the view of the House. However, it is a pretty novel proposition that we should not have any debate in this House about the motions that are before us. I happen to think that it is a pity that there was so little debate on the previous business this afternoon that the sitting had to be suspended for more than two hours, at a time when the way in which we conduct ourselves is very much in the public eye, but that is another issue and I will not go down that route.

One of the major findings of the Durham university report was:

“The scale of pedlary in Great Britain is relatively modest, with an estimated 3,000-4,500 pedlars being granted certificates to trade by police forces. There is little evidence that certificated pedlars present problems in city centres, nor are they generally in direct competition with shops or street traders. Indeed, consumers valued their presence in town centres and regarded buying from pedlars as a positive experience.”

That is a direct quotation. In trying to find out the attitude of ordinary members of the public towards pedlars, the report’s producers commissioned research in two city centres. One was Edinburgh and the other was actually Manchester. There is a detailed set of findings in the Durham university report on the views of the public in Manchester, which are that there is no great problem with pedlars. The public think that pedlars add to the character of the neighbourhood and they enjoy using their services. Of course, we have made the point before that it is not compulsory to use their services, but the public enjoy their availability and recognise that they make a major contribution to Manchester’s entrepreneurial flair, which has national renown.

The evidence in the Government’s report is completely at odds with many of the assertions that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central made when he introduced the Bills on Second Reading. In my submission, the fact that the promoters’ assertions have been found wanting by the independent report is relevant in deciding tonight whether the Bills should be allowed to be revived in this Session, notwithstanding the fact that we are already halfway through it.

A further finding of the Durham report, which echoes the speeches that several of us made during the Second Reading debates, is that the problem is illegal street trading rather than the activities of genuine pedlars. That point was made a lot, but the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), whom I am delighted to see in his place, and others disputed it hotly. However, we now have objective evidence from the Durham university study that shows that the evidence that local authorities submitted conflated illegal street trading with the activities of genuine pedlars. According to the report, the promoters of the Bills and their supporters showed confusion about the different identities of pedlars, illegal traders and rogues, just as the Durham university researchers found that local authorities generally had done.

What is the difference between an illegal street trader with a pedlar’s licence and a pedlar who trades illegally? The problem is pedlars trading illegally on the streets of Canterbury—it may not be a problem nationally. What distinction is my hon. Friend trying to draw? He mentioned “promoters of the Bills”, presumably referring to me. Will he explain the distinction?

I referred to the Bills’ promoters, but obviously my hon. Friend is promoting the Bill about Canterbury—a city council—which is the subject of the second debate tonight. Mr. Deputy Speaker has already made it clear that he does not believe that it is appropriate to go into the merits of the Bills. However, to give my hon. Friend a summary response, I commend the Durham university report to him. I do not know whether he has read it, but it is available on the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform website. I am delighted that my diligent hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has not only read and digested it, but has a copy of it in the Chamber. If my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) reads it in full, he will realise that there is a clear answer to the problem that he has raised, and that the findings are not in accord with the prejudices that he brings to the debate, doubtless based on his experiences in Canterbury. However, in the light of the objective report, I do not believe that those experiences warrant the proposed legislation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Will he now answer my question?

I will not answer my hon. Friend’s question directly, but simply refer him to the report because I do not want to consider the merits of the Bills. I want to consider carry-over, which is the subject of the motion. I appreciate that my hon. Friend may mischievously be trying to tempt me into a conflict with the Chair about the procedures, but I shall not be drawn into that. The merits of the Bills have been tackled: I commend the Durham university report to my hon. Friend.

However, I ask my hon. Friend and the other promoters what their response has been to the findings, which came as a relief to many pedlars, but were a surprise to several people who had been seduced into believing that there was a problem that primary legislation needed to address.

I admit that I have not been on the Department’s website, so will my hon. Friend tell us whether, given that the Government commissioned the report, they have produced a response to it?

My hon. Friend raises a point that I was going to come to in a minute. In response to a written question from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) in March, the Minister said:

“The Government will publish a consultation document this summer. Taking into account the findings of the report, we will be seeking views on possible changes to street trading and pedlar legislation, and on draft guidance on the current regime.”

That answer was given in response to a question about when the Minister would

“start his consultation on the findings of the Street Trading and Pedlary in Great Britain report”.—[Official Report, 30 March 2009; Vol. 490, c. 913W.]

That is a very helpful reply. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that that response from the Government should simply conclude the matter for now and that we should all wait until that review takes place? It seems pointless to take any action now, when that review will take place in the summer.

As so often in the House, my hon. Friend makes a compelling statement of what most people would regard as common sense. The issue has national implications, not least because pedlars’ certificates have a national ambit when they are issued. The issue has been the subject of detailed research and the Government are now saying that they are going out to consultation. At best, that may result in some guidance, which is very much needed—people on all sides of the argument would recognise that—and it could result in some legislation.

Why do the promoters not seem to want to go down that path of common sense? As I have said to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, his Bill—the Manchester City Council Bill—may well continue in Committee in this Session, but he will have to take account of the fact that it cannot get on to the statute book until after Report. I anticipate that when my colleagues and I table amendments on Report that reflect the findings of the Durham university report, it will not be just us arguing for them, but the Minister himself—if he is still in the Government then—because those amendments would be a reflection of common sense and the findings of the Durham university study.

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to anticipate the selection that would take place in those circumstances.

Certainly not. Nor do I want to anticipate my drafting of any possible amendments.

My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech, but is not the flaw in the argument that he is developing that if the promoters say, “Well, the Government are going to consult, so we don’t need to carry over,” they will, in effect, have to go back to square one? If they decide that they want legislation that goes beyond what the Government eventually propose, they will have to start all over again. Would not the promoters’ argument therefore be that they want the carry-over motions in order to keep their options open?

Order. For the guidance of the House, it is fairly plain that we have a motion before us for carry-over. It is the merits of that motion that the House is now obliged to consider, rather than the motivation that might lie behind it. The motion is here and it is being debated. I suggest that that is what we strictly do.

Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In fact, the motion is for a revival rather than for carry-over, because the carry-over motion was objected to before Prorogation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. He should forgive me if I do not understand the procedure—I am a new boy here—but if national legislation is anticipated for the future, why on earth are we considering reviving private legislation that might contradict what the House decides that national legislation should be?

My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. One of the questions that we must consider in deciding whether we wish to revive the Bills this evening is whether they have been so discredited as a result of the latest findings and so upstaged by the Government’s announcements to which I have referred that they are now almost redundant and will not make any progress.

I have now come across page 70 of the Durham university report, which states:

“The evidence for private acts should however be convincing, both in terms of the evidence of a problem, as well as the solutions having the desired effects. Local authorities hoping to adopt legislation…should provide a strong case to justify their adoption.”

That is where the promoters of these two Bills have fallen down: perhaps before the publication of the Durham university report, we would have thought that there was not such a stringent test; now that the report has come out, I think most fair-minded people would say that the test is reasonable. We obviously have to take into account the use of the House’s time, the burden placed on those participating in Committee and whether that Committee stage will be worth-while, having regard to the constraints to which I have already drawn attention and the possibility that when the matter gets to Report, the Government might seek major amendments to the Bills—with or without the support of Opposition Members and others who are concerned about ensuring the future of pedlary in this country. I have been unable to tease out from the promoters of the Bills their response to the Durham university report. In my submission, it is not an academic matter; it goes to the heart of whether or not these Bills should be revived.

I also want to draw attention to the fact that if the promoters were, in the light of the Durham university report, prepared to withdraw clause 5 from each Bill, thereby disapplying the application of the Bills to pedlars, I am sure that those who have been concerned about these Bills would be happy to respond positively. To go back to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), it would mean that these Bills could go through very quickly because there would effectively be no opposition to them. What could be more reasonable and sensible than that? To adopt what is tantamount to a heads-in-the-sand approach should give us all great cause for concern, not least because such stubbornness will inevitably result in an elongation of proceedings.

We have established that there is a difference of view between the different promoters of these different Bills; up to now they have been treated as if they were a block of Bills, but we have now found that two councils are willing to admit to substantial amendments in respect of clause 5, but the other four councils are not willing to do that. That is a new development since the last debate on these matters and is a relevant factor in considering whether it is appropriate to allow these Bills to be carried over.

Is my hon. Friend able briefly to say which two councils have compromised and which have not?

Yes, I am. I met representatives from Leeds city council and from Reading borough council today, and on a previous occasion I met representatives from Leeds city council. Both those councils—in fairness to them, they have a different view about their own needs compared with their colleagues’ needs—recognise that their priorities can be satisfied without penalising pedlars in a way that causes a great deal of concern to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to other Members.

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I have been closely involved in the discussions with Reading borough council and the business community in the Reading area. Will he reflect on his earlier comments, which seemed to suggest that Reading borough council was prepared to withdraw its Bill? In fact, that is not the case.

rose—

Order. I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) anticipates what I am about to say. Canterbury has already been raised; Reading has now been raised—but the motion concerns Manchester and Bournemouth. I hope that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) will not think that I am trying to encourage the hon. Gentleman to go down the wrong route. I am sure that he knows not to do so.

While I am on my feet, let me say this. I think that it is a question of balance. It is quite difficult to maintain an equitable distinction between the content, or the merits, of the Bills and reasons why a revival motion should or should not be accepted. The fact of the report to which the hon. Member for Christchurch has referred is an argument in question. To give too much detail about that report would, I think, tilt the balance unfairly.

As ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance. Let me respond to the intervention from the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) by saying that I am sure we shall have a chance to discuss the issue in relation to Reading, but also—I think that I should put this on record—that I do not think I said that Reading borough council was keen to withdraw the Bill. I suggested that it was keen to amend significantly clause 5, which relates to pedlars. Perhaps we shall be able to discuss that later in tonight’s proceedings.

You referred to the Durham report, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have argued that it constitutes new information. Prompted by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I have also referred to the Minister’s written response to the report, which I think also introduces new information and which, in my view, presents a compelling reason for the House not to exercise its discretion and allow these Bills to be revived.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the Durham study observes that circumstances will vary considerably from borough to borough, and, rather than recommending national legislation covering the whole area, states that it will be up to individual boroughs to present and justify its own proposals? Does he not agree that, in the case of the two Bills whose revival we are now considering, the justification process could take place equally appropriately during a Committee or a Report stage? In fairness, if my hon. Friend wants the debate, he should allow it to take place at those times.

My hon. Friend said that there was not a great deal of evidence of demand because there had been only five convictions in Manchester and only three in the Dorset area. However, as he is from Dorset, discussions with the Dorset constabulary will have left him in no doubt that they find it very difficult to secure convictions without devoting a huge quantity of police time to this matter, and also that we experience a good deal of rather more serious crime in the area. Is it possible that the constabulary devote their resources to dealing with that rather than to convicting pedlars?

Order. I think that, in the course of this interlocution between two distinguished members of the Chairmen’s Panel, one might easily find the other to be out of order as a result of the length of interventions such as that.

You will never find me criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West in the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He has a very distinguished record. It was great that we were able to enter the House together all those years ago, in 1983—although, unfortunately, my hon. Friend has been a great deal more successful than me in retaining the confidence of the electorate in his original seat.

Let me deal with the substance of what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that, being diligent, he has read the report from Durham university, and will be aware that it expressed criticism of Dorset police for misleading pedlars in relation to what they say is the law relating to pedlary and the way in which it applied in Dorset. I hope that he will draw the position to the attention of the Dorset constabulary so that it can be put right before his Bill is considered in Committee.

My hon. Friend has already done so.

I have not yet done so, but perhaps we will send a note of the record to the constabulary.

My hon. Friend was mistaken in his intervention in that he was equating prosecutions with convictions, and, of course, it is for the courts to convict, not the police. The question is: how many prosecutions have been brought and have resulted in convictions? That task is normally given to street trading officers and local authority enforcement rather than the police. However, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the new information that there have only been three convictions in Dorset in the last period for which figures are available—a period of four years between 2002 and 2006.

My hon. Friend has considerable knowledge of this subject. In his discussions with the promoters of the private Bills we are debating, has he addressed the fact that we now have considerable experience of Bills that have been passed by this House, notably those in respect of the city of Westminster in 1999, Newcastle in 2000, London in 2003, Medway in 2004 and Maidstone, Leicester and Liverpool in 2006? Has he compared the workings of the authorities that have managed to get private Bills through this House with those of the authorities that have not yet managed to do so?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Obviously, I have not been able to do my own direct research on this matter. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) sounds doubtful about that, but I assure him that that is the correct state of play. I have before me paragraph 213 of the Durham university report. I shall not quote all of it, but it says:

“The direct effects of private acts are difficult to assess, in terms of being able to eliminate illegal street traders. With regard to the Acts introduced in 2006 (Leicester, Liverpool and Maidstone), the effects may not be fully understood for some time. One of their most obvious impacts is that genuine pedlars remove themselves from areas where they must trade from door-to-door or face possible criminalisation.”

So one might say that the jury is still out on that. However, this issue is dealt with in a lot more detail there than in my summary of it here.

As the jury is still out and the report says that we still do not really know what the effect has been, is that not even more of a reason why these Bills should not be revived now and we should wait until further consideration has been given to the impact of previous ones?

That is a statement of self-evident common sense. It is particularly important to pay regard to the costs involved in all this, as this is not a cost-free area of operation. Introducing private Bills costs money, and that burden falls directly on the local taxpayer. I know from my discussions with some of the councils that are concerned about this that they have to evaluate the costs and the benefits of particular courses of legislative action. It is a pity that there has not so far been any evidence that either of the Bills that we are discussing has been the subject of concern expressed at local council level as to whether they will continue to provide good value for money, having regard to all other possibilities.

The issue of trolleys is now very much out in the open. On Second Reading, there was a lot of discussion—not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury—about the burden on local people caused by pedlars using trolleys. The Durham university report makes it clear that only half the pedlars interviewed use trolleys but all of them—

Order. I have tried to give the hon. Gentleman a ruling that the fact of the report is one thing, the detail within it quite another. I recommend that he observe that distinction.

I shall endeavour to comply, as always, with your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I wish to be clear on the issue of costs. If the Bills are revived, would the councils and the local taxpayers incur more costs? Has my hon. Friend estimated how much extra cost to this House would result from their revival?

The short answer is that I have not estimated how much the cost would be to this House. These two Bills have had their Second Readings so if they are revived, they would need to go into Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West will know what the possible timetable is, but I imagine that there would be a separate Committee for each Bill, because separate interests are involved, and that the councils involved would face costs for dealing with those proceedings.

Much of the content of the two Bills is relatively uncontroversial. The point I am making is that if their promoters were saying that the very controversial bits and the bits that are now contradicted by the evidence from Durham university were to be taken out of the Bills, there would not be an argument against allowing them to be revived. When I came into the Chamber this evening, I hoped that I would hear from my hon. Friend or from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central that, in the light of the evidence, there was to be a modification. It may be that in due course such a modification will be made, but we have to judge the situation on the evidence before us at the moment. That evidence suggests that there is no willingness on the part of the promoters to compromise or to reflect upon the findings of the exhaustive study carried out by Durham university.

My hon. Friend will certainly be aware that the House may not—

Order. May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he should face the microphone, because if he does not do so the reporters will not always catch his words? I am sure that he would want them to be on the record, so although I understand his courtesy in turning round to address the hon. Member, he should really be addressing the microphone.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My head will face the microphone and my hand will face my hon. Friend. He will be aware, although the House may not be, that the private Bill procedure in Committee is very different from that in respect of most Committees in this House. I served on the Committee considering the private British Waterways Bill, when British Waterways had a Queen’s counsel on hand for many months. That must have cost it a huge sum, so I think that the answer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) is that this will be a very expensive procedure.

I have not had the experience that my Front-Bench colleague has of serving on a private Bill Committee, but I am sure that what he said will have been noted by the council tax payers in Manchester and Bournemouth. Although we may find that people have no willingness to compromise tonight, taxpayers may be asking whether it is really worth concentrating on clauses 5 of the respective Bills if that is going to add a significant expense to the burden on local taxpayers.

I shall conclude by drawing attention to the fact that another of the Durham university report’s findings is that if a local authority takes strong enforcement action under the existing law, it can achieve its objective of ensuring that it has a lawful regime in respect of street trading and pedlars. That is a further reason why councils that have not done much so far on enforcement might think of it as being a more cost-effective way forward than the process of private Bill legislation.

The point about fees and costs cuts both ways, because if we allow the Bills to proceed, the promoters would no doubt argue that the Standing Orders state:

“The bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the last session or the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages, and no new fees shall be charged to those stages.”

So the promoters could argue that they are trying to be cost-effective in not leaving the matter in abeyance by waiting to hear what the Government say and starting again at a later stage.

My right hon. Friend is noted for his contrariness on such occasions, and it is important that that point should be put on the record—it does not appear that anyone else was intending to refer to it. My response would be that the relatively small fees associated with the placing of a private Bill in Parliament are modest compared with the costs of giving evidence and providing support during the Committee stage in respect of parts of the Bill that subsequently come to be regarded as redundant or incapable of achieving enactment. My right hon. Friend’s background and knowledge as a distinguished lawyer show that he is without self-interest in these matters. He is always as keen to minimise costs to members of the public as he used to be to his clients.

In summary, I have some strong reservations about the merits of reviving the Bills, and I hope that I am not the only Member who has such reservations.

As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). I welcome this opportunity to consider the revival motions and I will listen with interest to the contributions from other hon. Members.

In an attempt to inform the debate and to help Members in deciding whether to support the motions, I thought that I should comment on the research referred to by the hon. Gentleman. While I have considerable respect for him, as I do for every right hon. and hon. Member, I would not want the House to allow his view of what he thinks the Government’s position should be to stand without any Government comment. I should also make it clear that, following the custom, the Government do not take any view on the content or progress of private Bills—that is a matter for Parliament.

The House will be aware that the research I was able to announce when these Bills were debated last June was published by my Department in February this year. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, we agree with the main conclusions from the research findings. First, there is scope for a more flexible enforcement regime in respect of unlicensed street trading, including the possibility of less burdensome options to criminal prosecution. Secondly, there would be support from Government for national guidance on the meaning and application of the current arrangements, which contain ambiguities, the interpretation of which varies across the country, as the research found. Thirdly, we accept too that there is scope for modernising the Pedlars Act 1871, for example by updating and standardising the pedlar’s certificate to enable easier identification of genuine certificates and to clarify the definition of permitted activities of certified pedlars, among other things. I also want to acknowledge that the Government accept that, in some areas and on some occasions, there might be a reasonable case for additional restrictions.

As to what our next steps will be, I should tell the House that there has already been considerable feedback on the research from various organisations, as well as from licensed street traders, individual certified pedlars, and local authorities and so on. Last month, my officials met representatives from the local authorities whose Bills are under discussion tonight. Hon. Members might wish to note that that this summer, my Department will be issuing a consultation document and will seek views from as wide a constituency as we can on the findings of the research and on possible ways forward.

I am not yet in a position to set out firm proposals, but I expect that, in general, the consultation would cover more flexible enforcement tools, the possibility of guidance for pedlars and enforcers, the question of updating the Pedlars Act and the possibility of adapting the street trader licensing scheme in respect of the activities of pedlars.

I and others in Government have not formed our view on what the exact response to the research should be. We genuinely want feedback and evidence from as wide a group as possible to help us think through the various options. Developments in the consultation will be highlighted on the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform website. I hope that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will follow it and study it with a little more care, if he will forgive me for saying so, in future.

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about consultation and I am sure that he will be consulting local authorities and local councils. Will he also give a commitment to consulting business improvement district boards, where they exist, across the country? They take a particular view about the areas that they represent in relation to this issue.

I certainly want the views of business. I would welcome comments from business improvement districts, and I welcome the chance to put that on the record. I shall certainly ensure that my officials consider whether there are particular business improvement districts to which we need to ensure that we highlight the consultation document.

Finally, I should make it clear that the Government would not have a problem if the revival motions were to be carried.

Does the Minister not understand, though, the logic of the argument? I commend the Government for what they are doing, for having commissioned the report and for carrying out extensive consultation. That is certainly to be welcomed. However, does he not understand the logic of the position that reviving the Bills would be premature, given that the Government are undertaking a process that which should be welcomed by both sides of the House?

I am grateful to have the hon. Gentleman’s support. I hope that he will be sufficiently open-minded to support more of what the Government are seeking to do. Let me point him gently towards the point made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill). The Government accept that, on occasion, there are particular circumstances in particular areas that are worthy of consideration.

The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. May I press him a little further on the time scale, because that is obviously very relevant to our debate this evening? If he issues the consultation paper in the summer, when will he expect the closing date for that consultation to be? When does he anticipate that the Government would make an announcement? Would there be the possibility, for example, that legislation might be introduced, if the Government reached the conclusion that that was necessary, during the next Session of Parliament? If he could answer that question, it might give some of the promoters of these Bills grounds to say, “Let’s hold our horses for the time being.”

The hon. Gentleman is sufficiently long in the tooth to know that I cannot tonight give commitments about legislation in the way that he would like. I recognise that there is concern about this issue across the House, and that is one of the reasons why we took the initiative to carry out the research. We want to respond to hon. Members’ concerns about the need for a national response to the issue, and to make progress as quickly as possible.

Finally, I return to the point that I was making when the hon. Member for Shipley intervened, which is that the Government would not have a problem if the revival motions were to be carried tonight.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, the genesis of these revival motions was as long ago as 22 January 2007. We had a considerable debate on this matter on Second Reading on 2 June 2008, there was a further debate on 29 October 2008, and here we are today with these revival motions. The private Bills that we are seeking to revive all do much the same thing—that is, they try to incorporate the definition in clause 3 of the Pedlars Act 1871 into schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

Much of the debate about the Bill does not focus on the true problem of what a pedlar is. Does he go from door to door, or occupy the same spot in a market square every day? It is a debatable point. To be totally clear, the House needs to hear again how chapter 96 of the 1871 Act defines a pedlar. Clause 3 states:

“The term ‘pedlar’ means any hawker, pedlar, petty chapman, tinker, caster of metals, mender of chairs, or other person who, without any horse or other beast bearing or drawing burden, travels and trades on foot and goes from town to town or to other men’s houses, carrying to sell or exposing for sale any goods, wares, or merchandise, or procuring orders for goods, wares, or merchandise immediately to be delivered, or selling or offering for sale his skill in handicraft”.

It is obvious that a pedlar is very different from a street market trader, who is covered by different legislation. The legislation covering pedlars requires them to go to the local police for a certificate, which they can usually obtain for about £12 or £15, whereas a street market trader has to obtain a licence from the local authority that costs in the region of £500 to £1,000. That is a different order of cost.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am happy to give way to the sponsor of the Manchester Bill.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall be brief, as I do not want to encourage long speeches. Will he confirm that what he said is not absolutely accurate, in that to obtain a pedlar’s licence a person does not have to go to the local police force in the area where he or she intends to peddle? The licence can be obtained from any force, even though its officers know nothing about the area where the purported trade might take place.

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right, and he makes a point that I was coming to. For purposes of convenience, a pedlar would normally go to his local police force, but he does not necessarily have to do so. Having got a certificate, he can trade in any area where legislation does not prohibit him from doing so. At the moment, therefore, he can trade in Manchester, Bournemouth, Canterbury or any other area of the country, provided that he has that certificate.

That is part of the problem, and I was delighted to hear what the Minister said about the Government’s intentions in relation to the Durham study. Anyone interested in the subject should read that study—or at least its summary, opening remarks and some of its evidence on prosecutions and complaints—as I think that the problem may have been exaggerated around the country. I think that, on the whole, the perceived problem is much greater than the actual problem because, on the whole, pedlars are law-abiding people who go about their business peacefully.

The main complaint is about competition, given the procedure that I described: pedlars can buy a certificate for £12 or £15, whereas a street trader has to pay between £500 and £1,000. Street traders object to pedlars trading alongside them—sometimes with exactly the same sort of goods, be it balloons, trinkets, bits of jewellery or whatever—because there is unfair competition. That is where some of the complaints stem from.

My hon. Friend has great mastery of the subject and of the Durham report. May I draw to his attention an extract from page 66? It states:

“Street traders on the whole do not sell the same goods as pedlars, nor do they compete directly for customers. One Street trader did express a view of lost earnings to illegal street traders selling inferior goods, but overall levels of competition were low.”

My hon. Friend usefully draws attention to that paragraph, but somewhere else the report notes that competition is one of the causes of complaint. On the whole, the number of complaints in any local authority area is fairly low, so it seems to me that every sponsor of such a Bill—the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) has spoken in support of his Bill—has to make a crystal-clear case as to why their Bill should be revived.

Like the Government, the Opposition have no particular view officially about whether the Bills should be revived. I have no problem if they are revived; if the House in its wisdom votes in favour of their revival and they go into Committee, I have no problem with that. Even if they go through Committee, pass their other stages and are enacted I shall have no problem with it. However, when we discussed the matter on 12 June 2008 I argued from the Opposition Benches that we should have a national study. We now have such a study and on the whole it concludes that there are special circumstances in each local authority area. On the whole, contrary to what I argued on 12 June 2008, the Durham report seems to make it clear that each local case should be taken on its merits, although whether that will continue to be the prevailing view I do not know.

As to whether the Bills should be revived, I was delighted to hear from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that we shall have new guidance from his Department when it has taken evidence. That is really important. Evidence is the key to the whole matter. I repeat even more strongly that it is up to each local authority area that brings forward a Bill to produce evidence of why it needs those powers. All too often in this country—in this place, if nowhere else—we tend to rush into legislation because there is a perceived problem. There may indeed be a small actual problem, but one has to consider whether it is sufficient to warrant a change in legislation.

There is no doubt that a change in legislation would make the act of peddling a very different craft—if we can call it that—from what it is at present, so I was pleased to hear that the Government have embarked on gathering evidence from any interested party. Once they have the evidence they will produce guidance, which will run along some of the useful lines to which the Durham report alludes.

We need better methods of enforcement and of issuing certificates. The certificates need to be clear; they need to include a photograph and to be held on a national database. They should be enforceable across the country, so that a pedlar moving from Manchester to Canterbury to Bournemouth can be apprehended and prosecuted if he is misbehaving. We want clear laws that are easily interpreted and operated, so I was delighted to hear about the guidance.

I was delighted to hear that the whole licensing regime will be considered. At present, the local police force issues the licence—or in fact, it may not be the local police force, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Central said. That police force would be relying only on Criminal Records Bureau information, not even local knowledge of the person and whether they are a true and fit person to hold such a certificate. We need to tighten up that procedure.

Will the hon. Gentleman admit that a residency requirement must be met to obtain a certificate from the police force? That suggests that the police force involved would have to be the local police force.