I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).

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

I know of your connection with Wales, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and there is certainly a Welsh flavour about what I trust will be a very short debate. I am a member of the Church in Wales, although I was brought up in Eglwys Bresbyteraidd Cymru—yr Hen Gorff—and I am very proud to bring the Bill before the House.

When the Public Bill Committee met on 24 February, Members from all four parties representing Welsh constituencies attended and spoke. There was unanimity across all parties and all denominations from Free Church to Catholic, and support from all parts of Wales, north, south, east and west. Perhaps that is the most surprising element of unity.

It is ironic that the established Church of England can make a change of the sort introduced by the Bill through a simple Measure, but that we need a private Member’s Bill, that most fragile of legislative vehicles, to do so in Wales. The purpose is simple. On 1 October 2008, the Church of England Marriage Measure 2008 came into force. Before then, marriage banns could be called in a parish church if one or both of the parties to be married resided in the parish. If they lived in different parishes, the banns had to be called in the parish church of each party.

The Measure added five additional cases of qualifying connection with the parish. In summary, they are as follows: first, that one of the parties was baptised or confirmed in the parish; secondly, that one of the parties had, at any time, his or her usual place of residence in the parish for not less than six months; thirdly, that one of the parties had, at any time, habitually attended public worship in the parish for not less than six months; fourthly, that a parent of one of the parties, during the lifetime of that party, fulfilled either of the two previous conditions; and finally, that a parent or grandparent of one of the parties was married in the parish.

The affirmation of the relationship between two people in marriage is important, and in these days of a highly mobile population, people want to make the connections that are indicated by those five additional qualifying criteria. All that the Bill will do is bring the arrangements of the Church in Wales into the same situation that the Measure brought into place for the Church of England. The only difference is some of the terminology that is necessary to meet the arrangements in the disestablished Church.

Given the unity of support for the Bill throughout the Chamber and across all denominations, I am sure that I need say no more on the subject.

I declare at the outset that, like the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), I am a member of the Church in Wales. As he said, the Bill has full cross-party support for all its provisions, and perhaps more importantly, it has the full support of the governing body of the Church in Wales and therefore represents its official policy.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill will bring Church in Wales practice in line with that of the Church of England. He outlined the consequences of the Church of England Marriage Measure 2008, which introduced five additional cases in which marriage banns may be called in a church in a particular parish. As he said, the change in practice was meant to reflect social changes, in that people are far more mobile than they were but nevertheless feel an affinity with a particular place where they have lived, or where a parent or a grandparent has lived, and wish to mark important occasions such as marriage there. The Church in Wales recognises that the change effected by the Church of England is good and sensible and wishes to adopt it too.

There is another point that should perhaps be made. Along the often highly populated border between England and Wales, there are parishes that fall within with one ecclesiastical jurisdiction but a different political one. The changes contemplated under the Bill will therefore resolve a great deal of possible confusion, of which there is already enough along the English-Welsh border.

As my hon. Friend regularly attends church in Wales, does he know whether the proposal will result in an increased number of church weddings in Wales? Does he have any information about the impact of the 2008 Measure on the number of weddings in churches in England?

I do not have any information about the consequences of the 2008 Measure, which is clearly fairly recent. However, I have received representations from people interested in the Bill who think that a widening of the categories of people who may be married in a particular church will have a desirable effect on the number of weddings. I have been approached in particular by people in the catering trade who say that wedding catering may well be stimulated. In both business and social life in Wales, the consequences are highly desirable.

The Bill will make it easier for people to get married where they wish, which is surely a good thing. The Opposition welcome it unreservedly, and look forward to its enactment.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) on the Bill, which is a sensible measure. I declare an interest as a former practising barrister who undertook a certain amount of family law. I absolutely agree with the purpose of the Bill, because the existing requirement is for the banns to be read in the parish churches of the groom and of the bride. The fact that the qualifying criteria are so strict leads to some hardship because, as the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) pointed out, many people wishing to marry have moved away from home. They have gone to university and taken jobs elsewhere, yet they want to get married in their local church, perhaps in the place where their grandparents live or where they have other family connections. It is only fair that they should be able to do so—as, indeed, they can in the Church of England. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, we now have a much more mobile population, and the Bill is an important measure to ensure that those people can get married in the church of their choice, in a place where they have connections.

I am slightly concerned about the churches in the Welsh marches, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West. The church may be in one jurisdiction, but the county in a separate jurisdiction across the march. I do not quite know how that problem is going to be sorted out—perhaps the Minister can fill us in regarding the verdict of the Ministry of Justice. It is an important issue, and a few anomalies may be thrown up.

The Bill is a small but important measure, and it will bring a great deal of happiness and joy to a significant number of people. It is good to see right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches supporting the institution of marriage.

I have very little to say about the Bill, given that I am not a member of the Church of Wales. It would be interesting, however, to speculate on whether the measure will result in an increased number of church weddings. For my part, I certainly hope that will be the consequence. In principle, if we give a wider choice of venue to people who wish their marriage to be solemnised in church, that should increase take-up.

I wish to examine the consequences of the equivalent Church of England Measure. Unfortunately, the most recent statistics are for 2008, before the Measure was fully implemented on 1 October 2008. In the Church of England, between 2002 and 2008, the number of weddings was relatively constant: some 54,800 in 2002, and 57,000 in 2004, falling to 53,100 in 2008. Given that there are some 16,000 churches under the control of the Church of England, that is an average of only three marriages per church per year. Marriage ceremonies are a good way of increasing church income—with due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), the income for the church is probably more important than the income for the wedding cake makers. I hope that the Church of England Measure that was introduced has resulted in an increased number of church weddings. The Church of England website—I imagine that the Church in Wales would do something similar—says that as a result of the Measure

“the Church of England’s network of 16,000 churches—ancient or modern, intimate or grand, simple or spectacular—can offer a wider wedding welcome than at any time in the Church’s history.”

I hope that the Church in Wales, although not an established Church, will say something similar, and will use this Bill to promote the case for family involvement in the Church and particularly the importance of church weddings.

I should like the Church, in Wales and in England, to produce statistics to show the durability of marriages that take place in church, compared with that of marriages that take place in purely civil ceremonies, as that might be encouraging for couples wondering whether or not to get married in church. The Church, whether in Wales or England, has a lot more work to do to promote that cause. The statistics produced by the governing body of the Church in Wales show that there were only 68,837 communicants at Easter. In 2006—the last year for which statistics are available—there were only 3,779 church weddings in Wales, which is a pretty paltry figure.

We all know about the fine singing of the Welsh choirs and everything that comes out of Wales, so I am surprised that relatively few people wish to get married in church in Wales. I hope that the Bill—I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and its sponsors on its introduction—will ensure not only that there is improved church attendance but an increase in the number of church weddings in Wales. I am therefore happy to give the Bill my enthusiastic support.

The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support the Bill, and we congratulate the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) on its introduction. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked about the impact of the equivalent Measure in England, but for me the important thing is that the Bill provides greater flexibility. It gives people the opportunity, which they have been denied in the past, to get married in a place to which they have an emotional attachment or a close family connection. It brings the Church in Wales into line with the Church of England, so it makes eminent sense for us to get on and introduce it. I do not want to delay it any further.

May I first congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) on successfully steering this Bill through its remaining stages in the Commons? It is good to note from the speeches we have heard that it has not only cross-party support but cross-denominational support.

The Bill seeks to introduce widened “qualifying connections” for couples who wish to get married in a parish of the Church in Wales, which will be equivalent to those introduced by the Church of England in October 2008. Since then, parishioners of the Church in Wales have been at a disadvantage compared with parishioners in England when it comes to their choice of venue for a church wedding. The Bill will remedy the position so that couples will not necessarily need to be resident in the parish in which they wish to get married, as is currently the case. For example, a couple may have moved away from their home parish in Wales, but may wish to get married there because their family and friends still live in the area. The current more restrictive rules could prevent them from doing so, but if the Bill is enacted, they would need only to show that they have previously lived or worshipped in the parish. Alternatively, they could demonstrate one of the other widened qualifying connections set out in the Bill—for example, that their parents or grandparents were married in that church.

I know that the Church in Wales is looking forward to welcoming more couples to its parishes for marriage as a result of the Bill, and it seems only fair that people with a connection with Wales should have the same access to their church for marriage that people in England now enjoy.

The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) mentioned the border with England. The Bill will regularise the border problem, which is the fact that some districts in Wales are under the Church of England, so parishioners in those districts are covered by the Church of England Measure.

As the Bill is a matter of Church administration, the Government have remained neutral. However, I am aware that many people with a link to Wales will welcome it and benefit from it. Therefore, with complete neutrality, I wish the Bill well.

I hope that in future we will be able to look at how we legislate for the Church in Wales and perhaps produce a simpler solution and one that is appropriate in the age of devolution. I am grateful for the support of Members on both sides of the Chamber. I know that people in the parish of St. Mellons in my constituency are looking to see what happens today with interest, because the Bill will make a difference to the traditional links between the Llanrumney estate and the parish. I am sure the Bill will make a similar difference in parishes up and down Wales and, as the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) said, particularly where parish boundaries cross the border.

I am grateful for the support the Bill has received, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 1, in clause 2, page 1, line 11, leave out ‘18’ and insert ‘16’.

Amendment 2, page 1, line 15, leave out ‘18’ and insert ‘16’.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 16, leave out ‘18’ and insert ‘16’.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 15, leave out Clause 3.

Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 3, line 2, leave out ‘18’ and insert ‘16’.

Amendment 5, page 3, line 5, leave out ‘18’ and insert ‘16’.

Amendment 6, page 3, line 7, leave out ‘18’ and insert ‘16’.

Amendment 15, page 3, line 11, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment 16, page 3, line 14, leave out Clause 5.

Amendment 31, in clause 10, page 4, line 36 leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment 10, in clause 11, page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (1).

Amendment 11, page 5, line 17, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 12, page 5, line 24, leave out ‘to which this subsection applies’ and insert ‘containing regulations made under this Act’.

The background to the new clause and the group of amendments, all of which are in my name, is regulation. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that has been a perennial theme in Friday debates for many years. As this may be the last occasion on which you preside over our private Members’ Bills proceedings, I am sure that you are deserving of praise for your forbearance during these repetitive debates, which have often centred on whether more regulation is the answer to the nation’s ills or whether we should consider legislative proposals more carefully before rushing them on to the statute book to deal with any problem that arises. That theme is very much pertinent to proposed new clause 1 and the proposed amendments.

Are the Bill’s regulations necessary? Are they proportionate? Could the problems that they seek to address be dealt with in a better way? Will the regulations be vulnerable to the law of unintended consequences? Are the regulations necessary as a matter of substance, or are they more equivalent to exercises in gesture politics?

My understanding is that the sponsors of the Bill believe that exposure to ultra-violet light can lead to skin cancer, particularly if young, unprotected skin is exposed over a prolonged period. There seems to be a substantial amount of medical evidence to support that proposition. The sponsors consequently argue that because malignant melanoma is one of the five most common cancers among those aged 15 to 24, and because four out of five melanomas are caused by exposure to UV sunlight, something has got to be done, but it will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is an undistributed middle in the sponsors’ logic.

That malignant melanomas are one of the five most common cancers among 15 to 24-year-olds is a statement of fact, but the suggestion by implication, is that those melanomas are caused by exposure to artificial sunlight, and there is no evidence for that at all. In Committee, the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), argued that the consequences of UV exposure—in terms of skin cancer—are often not apparent for many years. If it is correct that exposure to UV rays results in malignant melanoma a long way down the track, where is the evidence that the melanomas in people aged between 15 and 24 are caused by UV exposure? Might there be some alternative explanation?

The incidence of cancers among relatively young people is quite small. Obviously, one case of cancer is one too many, but the sponsors of the Bill, who say that UV exposure is the fifth most common cause of cancer in young people, have unfortunately not given us any direct figures. We need to ensure that intellectual rigour is brought to the arguments in support of the Bill.

The sponsors have not discovered a way in which to prevent people from exposing themselves to natural UV light from the sun. That is obviously the most common way in which people are exposed to UV light, and thereby the risk of contracting melanomas. We know that as soon as there is any sunshine, the number of people who rush out and strip off—not necessarily completely—is considerable. That shows that there are limits on the legislative zeal to regulate. There is no proposal by the promoter of the Bill to regulate exposure to ordinary sunlight. Instead of doing that—they cannot regulate such exposure, but it is obviously the biggest cause of melanomas—they are bringing their legislative zeal to regulating exposure to artificial sun.

Artificial sun is produced by sunbeds or, more accurately, by the ultra-violet tubes inside sunbeds. I am told by the Sunbed Association that an ultra-violet tube emitting ultra-violet radiation of 0.3 W per square metre is equivalent to being in the Mediterranean sun at midday, so a 10-minute session on a sunbed should produce a tan without burning. Prevention of burning is often ensured by the use of anti-sun tanning creams, which stop the skin being over-exposed to the ultra-violet light from the sunbed tubes.

Interestingly, although the Government apparently support the Bill, they continue to impose the full rate of VAT on sun creams, which are a much better way to prevent the adverse consequences of exposure to all UV light, whether from the sun or artificial sources. So although the Government say that this is a desperately important problem that needs to be addressed urgently, they still impose a 17.5 per cent. tax on the creams that help to prevent the adverse consequences of exposure to UV light.

New clause 1 addresses the issue of sunbeds with tubes that emit higher levels of UV radiation. If a sunbed has tubes that emit levels of radiation greater than 0.3 W per square metre, the likelihood of consequent burning is greater. Burning is normally the precursor to a raised risk of melanoma, so it is important to prevent burning and ensure that only a gentle tanning takes place. I was very interested when my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds)—I am delighted to see him in his place on the Front Bench—raised this issue in Committee. He said that if we want to deal with this problem and reduce the risks of using sunbeds, we should first act to regulate the amount of UV radiation emitted by the tubes in sunbeds. I was surprised that the Government did not say that they agreed and would therefore use this Bill as an opportunity to ensure that the European standard was incorporated into British law, so that anyone hiring out or selling a sunbed that exceeded the recommended maximum wattage per square metre of UV would be outlawed. A logical regulator would make that their starting point in introducing legislation.

I note that this Bill places new duties on anyone hiring or selling sunbeds. Regulating the wattage is a fairly simple aspect on which to regulate, but under the terms of the Bill people who carry on sunbed businesses would have to ensure that people under the age of 18—it would be reduced to 16 if later amendments are accepted—do not use them. How, in reasonable terms, could every operator be certain that someone below that age will not use their sunbeds, especially when the sunbeds are unattended? At some premises, no one is in attendance, but there are warning signs. How can operators be reasonably expected to stop people ignoring the warning signs? If someone below the relevant age did ignore the signs, who would be responsible—the person who had ignored the signs or the owner of the premises?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point and I shall address it later in my remarks. New clause 1 would provide that we deal with that issue at the earliest possible stage. It would ensure that the tubes in the sunbeds comply with the European standard. That could be achieved easily, which would then raise the question of whether we would then need to criminalise those who are duped by someone aged between 16 and 18 into allowing them to use a sunbed. The person using the sunbed would incur no penalty, but the person supplying the sunbed—however innocently—could be brought before the courts. That is one of the flaws in the Bill.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals in the Bill are in line with the way in which the law works when it comes to selling cigarettes to those under age, or admitting under-age people to public houses?

My point is that the Government have introduced an extension of the nanny state to try to make it more difficult for those between 16 and 18 to gain access to cigarettes and alcohol, but we know how counter-productive that exercise has been. We now probably have record levels of youngsters using illegal drugs, drinking to excess below the age of 18, smoking tobacco and carrying illegal knives. I could go on. My hon. Friend may have heard reports on the radio just this morning about the number of youngsters engaging in self-harm by cutting themselves. Some 3,000 youngsters a year end up in accident and emergency for that reason. The promoter of the Bill is not suggesting that we should bring in a law outlawing self-harm, but that statistic illustrates the propensity of young people to experiment and do their own thing, irrespective of what the legislation says.

I do not wish to be unhelpful to my hon. Friend and I accept his point about the levels of smoking and drinking, but that is not an argument to abandon the law altogether in those areas.

I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were to suggest that we could use the Bill as a vehicle for changing the laws on alcohol and cigarettes. I am certainly not going to be drawn down that line.

I was not for one minute suggesting that the Bill be used in that way. My point was that, to my mind, the Bill is eminently sensible in having an 18-year threshold. That is in line with the law on buying cigarettes and going to public houses, so it would be a consistent and logical level, if we are to have an age limit.

I shall address in more detail the question of whether the limit should be 16 or 18, if it should be regulated at all. Before we start introducing more regulations—this is a very good rule of thumb—we should see whether similar regulations are working in practice. I put it to my hon. Friend that similar regulations trying to restrict access to alcohol and tobacco by 16 to 18-year-olds have not achieved anything, except—probably—to bring the law into disrepute. I can see that the argument, “Well, because we already have that bad law in place, there is a case for putting another bad law on top of it,” might be logical—I cannot argue against the logic—but I do not agree with the wisdom of it. That is the point that I shall try to address when I turn to the amendments in this group dealing with the question of whether regulations should apply only to under-16s using sunbeds or whether they should extend to those aged 16 to 18 as well.

Before those interventions, I was talking about what I think is the most important issue. My new clause 1 is designed to improve the Bill by introducing more protection for people who use sunbeds, so that they do not—unwittingly or otherwise—use any that emit more than a safe amount of artificial UV radiation. I wait with anticipation to find out whether the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, and Ministers have changed their tune on this issue. I would have thought it logical for any rational regulator to put at the top of any list of priorities the need to ensure that there are no sunbeds for sale, hire and, ultimately, in use—this point is supported by the Sunbed Association in England and Wales—that emit more than 0.3 W of radiation per square metre.

That elementary, cost-effective and simple regulation could, and should—in my view—have been enacted by the Government already. It is the specification in European standard EN 60335-2-27, which is referred to specifically in new clause 1. That standard was recommended by the European Union Scientific Committee on Consumer Products in 2006, and was adopted and published in a European Union declaration in January 2007. The United Kingdom Government signed up to that declaration, but have failed to legislate to ensure that all UV tanning equipment in service complies with that important safety standard.

That is another example of the Government talking tough on questions of health protection, but actually failing—neglecting—to take measures that, at a stroke, could increase product safety and reduce the risks to sunbed users resulting from exposure to sunbeds with wattages higher than the limit to which I have referred. I am told by the Sunbed Association that there might be as many as 60,000 sunbeds around, and that a large proportion of them contain tubes that emit UV radiation in excess of the European standard.

New clause 1 would fill that gap in the law and ensure that all sunbeds for sale or hire would have to meet that basic safety standard. In my view, that is common-sense consumer protection. Although I am instinctively against regulation, there is a lot to be said for consumer protection when the consumer himself cannot be expected to have the information available to determine whether the product that he is using is safe. I see this as being a very sensible area for the law of consumer protection to apply. The reason is that no ordinary consumer would otherwise know what level of UV radiation emissions from the equipment would be safe.

The fact that the Sunbed Association, which has been prayed in aid as supporting the Bill, strongly supports the new clause makes me feel that I am doing the cause of public health a good turn by enabling the House to adopt the new clause as part of the legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness will support the new clause if it goes to a Division. Before that, however, I hope that the Government or Bill promoter will accept that it would be much better to incorporate the new clause than to exclude it.

Although there may be a change of heart along those lines today, I must say that at a meeting this Monday, when the Bill’s promoter held a discussion with representatives from the Sunbed Association, who argued strongly for my new clause, she expressed her strong opposition to it. Perhaps she was echoing the bizarre line of defence given by the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) to my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness in Committee. The Minister said:

“It is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, so it is not appropriate for such a measure to be included in a public health Bill”––[Official Report, Sunbeds (Regulation) Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2010; c. 15.]

Why not? If something is the responsibility of Lord Mandelson, why should it not be included in a Bill before the House? Were it included in the Bill, it would increase consumer safety. A satisfactory answer has never been given either by Ministers or by the Bill promoter to the question of why, just because it is technically the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, it cannot be incorporated into the Bill.

We have had almost 13 years of this ghastly Government. They have spoken repeatedly about the need for joined-up government, but here we have, on the eve of their demise, a ringing example of how, even now, they are not joined up—indeed, there is a stand-off; they are in different silos. Perhaps because it is Lord Mandelson’s Department’s responsibility for some reason the Department of Health cannot possibly engage with it and is not prepared to concede the point—or perhaps they are simply not discussing it with each other.

In Committee, the Minister went on to say that

“although the concerns are real, unfortunately the Bill is not the right instrument to tackle them.”––[Official Report, Sunbeds (Regulation) Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2010; c. 16.]

Perhaps—this is being generous to her—she thought then that the new clause might not be selected because it was not within the scope of the Bill.

However, the new clause has been selected; therefore it must be within the scope of the Bill. The new clause having been selected, it is apparent that this Bill could be the right instrument to tackle the problem.

My hon. Friend refers to 16-year-olds, whereas 18-year-olds are deemed to be adults, and therefore responsible for their actions. Just as with the purchase of alcohol or tobacco—in that parents must be responsible for how much money their children have to spend unsupervised, as well as knowing where they are and what they are doing—where does my hon. Friend see parental responsibility in the use of sunbeds by 16-year-olds?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but the trouble is this. I speak as a parent of one child who is still a teenager, and not yet 18, and of another who has just turned 20, but I am not sure that all young people are blessed with families who are sufficiently concerned about their welfare and well-being. We hear of the most ghastly cases of parental neglect, and not just of children between the ages of 16 and 18, but of far younger children. I am afraid that the reality is that parental responsibility does not enter into the lives of lots of families up and down this country, which is a great pity.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend could enlighten me—and possibly other hon. Members present—on the cost of a session on a sunbed. I do not know what the cost is, but the money has to come from somewhere, and where 16-year-olds are concerned, presumably it comes from the parents.

That might be true in the world in which my hon. Friend lives, but I suspect there are large parts of the country where the money that 16-year-olds have does not come from their parents. It might come from casual work—who can speculate?—but in answer to my hon. Friend’s question about the costs, I did not inquire in the Christchurch studio that I visited.

It might be of assistance to my hon. Friend to learn that evidence was put before the House on Second Reading to suggest that it might be possible to get a session in a treatment salon for as little as 15p.

Fifteen pence? Well, that sounds pretty inexpensive to me—it is even less than the price of a Mars bar, or whatever young people eat these days. I read somewhere that the price was 25p in an unsupervised studio, but if the price can be as low as 15p, that suggests that the costs of provision are probably very low and that there is scope for the development of a black market, with substantial profits to be made. If sunbeds are driven out of the legitimate community and pushed underground, we could end up with another sub-culture being exploited by some of our friends from Albania or wherever, although that is speculation. It would therefore be a mistake to start legislating heavily in a way that would result in such activity going underground and thereby becoming even less apparent to those concerned to regulate it and ensure that it is of high quality. There is an important educational role to be performed, in relation not only to artificial UV but to the natural UV from the sun.

Many people experience a feel-good factor following exposure to UV light. Indeed, the dark, sunless days of winter are known to have an adverse effect on the mental health of many citizens, although I am not advocating access to sunbeds as a solution to all the mental health problems in this country. On the radio this morning, I heard evidence that mental health problems had increased significantly during the lifetime of this Government, but I will not go down that route now.

It used to be the privilege of only a few to be able to top up their tan in the West Indies in January and February. Now, that can be done by jetting off to places such as Dubai, Egypt, other parts of north Africa or the Canary islands. For those who cannot afford the time or the expense of such excursions, however, a local sunbed salon is attractive. Only a couple of days ago, I was talking to someone who works in this great Palace of Westminster and who is getting married next month in Las Vegas. She has decided that it would be a good idea to top up her tan in advance of the trip by using a sunbed. She told me that that would raise her self-esteem and prepare her for the sun that she hoped to experience in Las Vegas. The local sunbed salon has a legitimate role to play in that regard.

I was unfortunately unable to attend the Second Reading debate, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised the possibility of there being an agenda out there among those who want to ban all sunbeds, and wondered whether everyone in the country might ultimately be prohibited from using them. There was no clear answer from the Minister or from the promoter of the Bill to the question whether the Bill would set us on the slippery slope, or whether it was simply a free-standing Bill that was not part of a more wide-reaching agenda.

How great is the demand for sunbeds? There is a shortage of hard evidence, but the Sunbed Association has told me that there are up to 6,000 salons, of which about 1,000 are members of the association.

Has my hon. Friend given any thought to the anecdotal evidence in the newspapers that a small number of young people—young women in particular—are almost addicted to having a very heavy tan? Does he think that some thought should be given to the frequency with which customers visit sunbed establishments, and to whether, in extreme cases, the proprietors should take responsibility for limiting the number of such visits by young girls?

rose—

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, may I point out that he is in danger of straying into a Second Reading debate? He ought to be a bit more specific and relate his remarks to the new clauses and amendments before the House.

Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should just like to respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). We should think about that issue. The Sunbed Association has a demanding code of practice that includes the need for the inspection of premises. I believe that the association would have regard to whether people were having sunbed treatment too frequently, particularly those between the ages of 16 and 18. If a member of the association failed to comply with the code of practice, they would lose their status as a member of the association. Such status can be helpful in enabling them to drum up business and build a reputation for providing a high-quality service.

Would my hon. Friend give the vote to 16-year-olds, then?

rose—

Order. I do not think that we can start talking about voting in a debate about sunbeds for 16-year-olds. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) should definitely ignore that intervention.

I will ignore it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, other than to say that I note the inconsistency of the promoter of the Bill saying that it should apply to people up to the age of 18, even though she introduced a Bill two years ago—admittedly without success—to reduce the voting age to 16. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) could draw that inconsistency to her attention at an appropriate moment.

The Government’s attempts to deny those aged 16 and 17 access to alcohol and cigarettes have manifestly failed. Illegal drug taking among teenagers has now reached epidemic proportions, as have alcohol consumption and tobacco smoking. Even more sinister is the fact that the laws to restrict the carrying of knives and the sale of knives and other offensive weapons to people under 16 seem to have had no effect whatever. Record numbers of young people drive without insurance—they routinely ignore those rules—and the incidence of drink-driving and drug-driving among young people is also on the increase, having at one stage started to decline.

The Bill in its present form would ban 16 and 17-year-olds from using tanning salons, but would those young people actually forgo their tanning sessions if they really wanted them? Of course not. They would simply go and find another outlet where they could have access to a sunbed. I have looked on the internet to find out the availability of sun-tanning machines. They can be bought online for a couple of hundred pounds. If we drive 16 and 17-year-olds out of the legitimate salons on the high street, they will simply go to friends’ houses. They will club together to buy pieces of equipment—often second-hand—which may not comply with the standards that I mentioned earlier. All of this would be counter-productive.

Is that not one of the reasons why this legislation is before us today? I have no doubt that the vast majority of people who provide sunbed facilities and services are highly reputable and that the services are well and properly run, but there is a rogue element whose standards are not at the proper levels demanded—hence the need for regulation and legislation such as the Bill before us.

My hon. Friend will know that the Health and Safety Executive has an important role to play. The rogue elements to which he refers are probably already operating in breach of relevant health and safety regulations. Another disease that we have as a Parliament is that where existing regulations are not complied with or not enforced, we duplicate them instead of enforcing the existing ones. We say, “Let us make a fresh lot of laws and see if we can make them a substitute or a duplicate,” thereby adding to the legislative burden and making it more difficult for people to understand where they are. I believe that existing laws are in place to deal with what my hon. Friend describes as the “rogue” tanning salons.

I am much more concerned about driving—unwittingly or otherwise—legitimate, good-quality salons out of business, forcing people who want to get access to these salons to go underground, adding to the underground culture that is on the increase in our society. My question is this. By banning 16 and 17-year-olds from sun-tanning salons, will we ensure that they do not expose themselves to sun tanning? Of course we will not. One might also ask the rhetorical question, “How naive can MPs be about this?” Indeed, “naivety of MPs” might be quite a good collective noun to apply to MPs in this gesture-ridden and regulation-obsessed generation of parliamentarians.

My amendments to change to 16 rather than 18 the age limit for entry to a salon are designed to address the reality gap between good intentions and unintended consequences. Far better, in my opinion, for a 16-year-old who wants a tan to go to a tanning studio and receive proper advice than to go to a friend’s house where the tanning is uncontrolled and unsupervised.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) will know of the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), supported by me and others, for more private Member’s Bill Fridays in this last Session of Parliament. This is now the last private Member’s Bill Friday, so it is a time when compromise should be in the air. Although the hon. Member for Cardiff, North might ideally like her Bill to extend the restrictions to 16 and 17-year-olds as well as to those below that age—we look forward to hearing her contribution shortly—she might share a spirit of compromise and accept that passing a Bill that is less than ideal from her point of view would be better than passing no Bill at all. On those grounds, she might feel it sensible to concede to my amendments.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is generous in giving way. I am a bit confused, however. He is making a powerful case, from his point of view, about 16 to 18-year-olds, but if we look at his amendment 8 we see, surprisingly, that he proposes to remove from the Bill the exemptions relating to the use of sunbeds for medical purposes, yet part of clause 3 specifically provides that people under 18 who are based in a medical establishment will be allowed to use a sunbed. Is there not a contradiction there?

On the face of it, I would concede to my hon. Friend that there is a contradiction. When I come to discuss amendment 8, however, my hon. Friend will see that it takes the form of a probing amendment rather than one that I would wish to press to a vote. I hope to be able to come to that point quite quickly.

I was saying to the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, that there is an opportunity for compromise between reasonable people on this issue. At the age of 16, people are able to take key decisions relating to their personal health and well-being. In a sense, issues around sunbed exposure are relevant to personal health and well-being. People at that age are able to choose their doctor and their medical treatments; they can also choose which piercings they want, which tattoos, if any, and so on. The Electoral Commission produced a list of all the things that 16-year-olds could do. It seems to me that the opportunity for them to take responsibility on whether or not to go to a sun-tanning studio and expose themselves to artificial UV should be included on that list.

If my hon. Friend’s amendments succeed and the Bill prohibits under-16s from using sunbeds, an offence would be created. To whom would that offence attach? Would it be to the provider or proprietor of the sunbed establishment; would it be to the individual who used the facilities; or would it be to the parent, who is still responsible for the behaviour of their children?

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the parents are not responsible, even though they have responsibilities under other legislation. There is no responsibility for the users, even if they acted with deception, malice or criminal intent. In the rough world of competition, a sunbed provider might set up someone who looks well over 18—but is younger—to go along to a rival sunbed establishment to get access to sunbeds; then, as soon as access is given, they could blow the whistle. There might be scope for that sort of activity because of the arbitrariness of the enforcement and penalty regime in the Bill. If my hon. Friend looks at the selection list, she will see that it is the second group of amendments—amendments 7, 21 to 25 and 32—that deal with offences and penalties. When we reach that stage of the debate, I hope that she will be able to develop her remarks in more detail.

To summarise so far, I have discussed new clause 1, along with amendments 1, 2 and 3, which leave out “18” and insert “16”. I now come to amendment 8, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford referred. Under this amendment, clause 3 would be left out. It is a probing amendment, because I wanted to find out exactly in what circumstances it was thought reasonable for a person under the age of 18 to have access to a sunbed for medical treatment.

If the promoter’s argument is that any exposure by a young person, or child, to artificial ultra-violet light on a sunbed is bad for the health, why does clause 3 contain a special exemption for medical treatment? It would be useful to know in what circumstances that exemption would apply, and whether it would extend to medical treatment not directly related to a skin condition, but related to a person’s mental state. Medical treatment can be related to mental as well as physical health, and it is not clear to me whether clause 3 would apply in that context. I hope that, in the spirit of openness and transparency, the promoter will help us to understand the thinking behind the clause.

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, but surely he is not comparing like with like. The existing rules concern false claims, whereas clause 5 merely deals with the provision of factual information about the health risks. Surely educating people about risks, and about how they can protect themselves to benefit their general health and well-being, is a positive step.

I think that my hon. Friend has misread the clause. It does not deal simply with facts; it deals with propaganda approved by the Department of Health. If the Department says that something is a health risk, even if it is not, under the clause it could require the provider of a sunbed to put up a notice containing the information that it posed a health risk when it did not. We seem to be moving away from the concept of factual information. If the information is factual, the Bill should state that it is. If the information is not factual, a remedy will be available under consumer protection or trading standards legislation that prohibits people from making false claims. Are we really saying that the state—the Government—should require each sunbed salon to put up notices that comply 100 per cent. with terms laid down by it, at the centre? These are some of the most prescriptive measures that I have ever come across.

I am sure there is a middle way between our different points of view. I am sure my hon. Friend does not object to the fact that in the safe sex campaigns the Department of Health and others educate people about the health risks of unsafe sex; indeed, I believe he thinks that that is sensible. These proposals are on a par with such campaigns, which most people in this country regard as highly beneficial, informative and educational.

Taking my hon. Friend’s analogy further, in effect this Bill would require every nightclub in the country to put signs up on notice boards, and to do so in such a way as to conform with a series of prescribed rules—on where the notice boards must be located, for example, and the size of both the notices and the writing on them. All of that would have to be prescribed from the centre. That is, in effect, what this clause is saying must be done in respect of health information and sunbeds.

I am a bit confused. Why would all this be put up in nightclubs?

I am sorry that my hon. Friend is confused. He has been talking about unsafe sex. As I understand it, all sorts of allegations are made against sunbed parlours, but I do not think that even their most vigilant and enthusiastic opponents have yet claimed that they are places where unsafe sex takes place. It may well be desirable to warn people about unsafe sex, but if we apply my hon. Friend’s analogy to clause 5, the equivalent measure would be for it to be required that notices be put up in a prescribed form in a prescribed location and with prescribed content. Nobody—not even my hon. Friend, with his understandable concern to reduce the amount of unsafe sex—would suggest that the Department of Health should be so prescriptive about health information for sunbed users.

If there were to be a power to require the proprietors of sunbed establishments to provide information to users, does my hon. Friend think it would be reasonable for there to be a similar power to require users to provide relevant information to the establishment, particularly about their age and any health complications that they know of?

My hon. Friend is saying, with her typical fair-mindedness, that if we are going to have these powers, there must be a two-way street. There are no measures in this Bill that would impose a duty or obligation on a sunbed user to provide accurate information to the provider or leaser of that sunbed, let alone any measures addressing the provision of false information. That shows that the legislation does not provide a level playing field, but that, basically, it is designed to place an additional—and, in my view, unfair—burden on the legitimate and lawful operators of tanning salons.

The Sunbed Association wholeheartedly agrees that salons should display appropriate advice and information on who can use a sunbed and how to use a sunbed responsibly, but it does not think it necessary to include a provision prohibiting any sunbed business from providing or displaying statements relating to the health benefits, because the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 are already in force, and they prohibit unproven, unfounded and misleading claims. Clause 5 is, therefore, at best a duplication of the 2008 consumer protection regulations, and at worst, goes far beyond them by seeking to introduce what I consider to be unreasonable, detailed prescriptive requirements, including the imposition of penalties for failure to comply.

The question is that new clause 1 be read a Second time. Does the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) wish to respond? Does the Minister wish to speak?

rose—

May I say to the House that I am not a mind reader? Unless Members rise and indicate their wish to speak, I cannot call them.

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had assumed that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) would wish to respond, but she has evidently decided not to do so on this group of amendments.

I congratulate the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James) on getting the Bill—

Order. May I make it clear, in case there is any misunderstanding, that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) can come in at whichever stage she likes, so she may well decide to contribute later in the proceedings?

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the clarification.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, North and those supporting the Bill will be aware that from the Conservative Front Bench we are supportive of it. We are keen to see the Bill progress on to the statute book as fast as possible. It could make a significant difference to the rates and prevalence of skin cancer in young people and, through the information that has been mentioned, create a much greater awareness of lifestyle choices and their impact on the health of young people.

There is substantial clinical evidence to support the proposed change in the law, not just from Cancer Research UK but from the World Health Organisation, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and clinicians. There has been a significant increase in the incidence of malignant melanoma and other health conditions. In addition, the European scientific committee looked into this and produced a good report in 2006. The Sunbed Association, the overarching association for responsible sunbed operators, of which there are many, is also in favour of this Bill.

My hon. Friend has already referred to the Sunbed Association’s support for the Bill in general, but he will accept that it does not support the provisions in clause 5 that duplicate the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which already prohibit unproven, unfounded and misleading health claims.

I am not sure that I share my hon. Friend’s analysis of the Sunbed Association’s position on that. We discussed this in Committee, and subsequently there has been some correspondence clarifying the role of those responsible for the advertisements and misleading advertisements and the contents of the clause. I see the Minister acknowledging that she will address this when she replies.

My hon. Friend is right to push the Government for more detailed clarification through new clause 1. He will be aware that that was an issue that I raised on Second Reading and in Committee. We are talking about a 2007 EU declaration on sunbed equipment, which the Government signed up to, but they have still to announce any time scale for its implementation, unlike many other EU states. The EU scientific committee on irradiance levels set out clearly, as my hon. Friend accurately reiterated, 0.3 W per square metre as the safe level. Any level above that was deemed to be unsafe. That was set out in January 2007, which is considerably more than three years ago.

The Sunbed Association, in wishing to put pressure on the Government by saying that they need to consider new clause 1, really wants, as do I, some clarification from the Minister about the time scale within which the EU declaration will be fully implemented. If other EU countries can do it, and have done it already, why cannot we do it in the UK? I hope that the Minister today will come up with a response to that. COMARE, which, as the Minister will be aware, is a research body, said that full implementation was needed as fast as possible, but that advice seems to have been ignored. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out today the minimum time scale for implementation.

The other main thrust of my hon. Friend’s amendments was the change to the age limit. If we are being honest, we must accept that the clinical evidence as between 16, 18, 21 and 25 is questionable, but there is no doubt that some sort of additional regulation is necessary to reduce the incidence of skin cancer among young people. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made in his usual forensic manner was absolutely right. The age of 18 fits comfortably with other pieces of public health legislation, whether it be on smoking or drinking. Therefore, the conclusion of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, no doubt in consultation with the Department of Health, that 18 is the right age is correct.

In the process of enabling young people to understand the impact of their lifestyle choices, the Government need to work more closely than they have so far with both the charitable and voluntary sector and with schools and businesses to raise awareness of the symptoms and risks of skin cancer, and to work towards changing the attitudes of some young people, which was exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.

It is clear that there are significant problems in some parts of the country. The great cities of Sunderland and Liverpool are always the exemplars. There needs to be a much greater focus on changing attitudes in particular geographical areas where there is a significant problem, not just—although it is important and related to the Bill—with regard to the impact of overexposure to UV light, but in making sure that people understand the impact of natural sunlight if they are not protected. Clearly, there is a significant ignorance on those two points. When focus groups and people are asked about the lifestyle choices that they make that may give rise to prevalent rates of cancer, it is interesting that the only one of the main six that people mention is smoking. Those of us who are interested in reducing the rates of cancer in this country still face an enormous job in getting those key messages across.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things that adds to the problem is the widespread belief that melanoma is a type of cancer that is easily cured and treated, and that in any event it will occur many years after the exposure takes place, so there is little immediate threat?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The length of time from the initial exposure to artificial light or sunlight to the occurrence of skin cancer is one of the major problems in making people take this issue seriously. However, I do not think—although I am not saying that my hon. Friend is suggesting this—that that is an excuse to do nothing. We must do what we can to ensure that people understand the potential risks of exposure to artificial and natural sunlight.

I assure the Minister and the hon. Members for Cardiff, North and for Swansea, East that we on the Opposition Front Bench support the Bill, and we hope that it has an expeditious passage into law.

I shall keep my remarks very brief, because the Liberal Democrats do not want to do anything to slow the progress of the Bill, which we wholeheartedly support. I, like the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), the Conservative spokesman, also see the case for implementing a control over the strength of radiation from sunbeds in this country, and from discussions with the industry I am conscious that very many salons have sunbeds with radiation that is above the recommended EU level. That is putting people—both youngsters under 18 and older people—at risk. I should like to see effective action from the Government on that issue, but subject to that we are very keen to see the Bill implemented. It is evidence-based, and it will save lives.

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and his new clause 1, which seems to be an excellent way of protecting the public and ensuring that we comply with European standards.

I have not used a sunbed for more than 40 years. Indeed, the reason why I have such red skin is not that I sit under sunbeds. I am interested in the subject because I was prescribed sunlamp treatment—we did not really have sunbeds 40 years ago—when I was under 18 years old. I have always suffered from various skin diseases, and I suffer from rosacea now, but when I was under 18 I was advised to sit under what would now be considered very old-fashioned and, I think, very primitive sunlamps. I remember that I wore some horrible black goggles, and that horrible lamp was boring rays into me. The whole thing was completely unregulated. There was no proper advice; one just went to a local shop and bought the machine, and I was under the impression that it would solve the skin ailments about which I felt more embarrassed at 17 and 18 than I would now.

Since then I have suffered from skin cancers, which have had to be removed. Luckily they have not been particularly serious, but I have always thought that the very powerful sunlamp treatment that I was given, without any proper medical advice more than 40 years ago when I was under 18, was probably a very serious mistake indeed, and not something that a fair-skinned person in a northern temperate climate should undergo. I am not antagonistic towards sunbeds, because everyone is different and entitled to their life, but unless people are very careful, particularly when they are young, sunbeds can be quite dangerous.

A couple of years ago I was sitting with my father-in-law in a local restaurant in Lincoln, and we noticed that he was scratching on the back of his leg a spot that was bleeding badly. We said that we should really do something about that, and he had not bothered, of course. He took himself off to the doctor, however, and it turned out that my father-in-law was six months away from death: the spot was a melanoma. The medical staff had to remove all his lymph glands; it was a very serious condition; and they reckon that it had arisen just from some sun—probably not a sunbed or anything like that—that he had received 40 or 50 years before. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) made: people just do not realise not only that these conditions can be very dangerous, but that they can arise 40 or 50 years later.

So anything that educates the public about the risk of sunlamps or sunbeds, and anything that ensures the greater protection of children, is a good thing. I am therefore glad that in dealing with clause 3, entitled “Exemption for medical treatment”, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has made it absolutely clear that his new clause is only a probing amendment. Indeed, with medical knowledge being much more advanced now than when I was under 18, it may be appropriate for under-18s to undergo sunbed or sunlamp treatment.

Generally, I think the Bill is probably a good thing. It is unlikely to become law, but at least it raises the relevant issues and makes people more aware of what is going on. I very much hope, however, that the Government and the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), will feel able to accept new clause 1. We would then be able to protect all the public, not just children.

As my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for public health has said on previous occasions, the Government fully support the Sunbeds (Regulation) Bill. It is about tackling a public health issue and protecting young people, but we believe that it will also raise awareness of the dangers of sunbed use more generally.

I shall speak first to the new clause that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) tabled. The new clause would make it an offence, punishable by a fine of up to £20,000, to sell or hire a sunbed that failed to comply with a European technical standard or that emitted a certain level of UV radiation. The proposed new clause is therefore about product safety and technical standards.

The standards in new clause 1 are those that apply in a number of EU countries. If the EU is content that those standards should apply in those countries, why is the Minister raising the canard that they might not be able to be applied in this country?

I am advised that considerably increased use of sunbeds and the associated risks have spurred the Commission to press member states to take positive action to protect consumers. However, I am not aware of any Government sign-up or when that will take place. I am advised that the hon. Gentleman’s point would not be acceptable, as that is not the case in other member states.

The directive 98/34 procedure requires a three-month standstill period after notification before any action can be taken on the proposed legislation. It is clear that accepting the new clause would stop the passage of the Bill. The Government resist new clause 1, as they think it unnecessary.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I need to make progress, given the time factor.

I will now speak to amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, which all relate to the reduction of the proposed age from 18 to 16. The World Health Organisation, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, which I will refer to as COMARE from now on, and the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products of the European Commission, have all recommended that under-18s be prevented from using sunbeds for cosmetic purposes. Setting the age limit at 18 is clearly in line with these recommendations. Scotland already has legislation on the use of sunbeds, and it sets the age at 18. It is also worth mentioning that in Europe, France, Germany, Finland and Spain all ban people under 18 from using sunbeds. Of course, there is other legislation that imposes age restrictions and that has been raised in the debate on the amendments this morning. The Government do not support the proposed reduction of the age limit from 18 to 16.

Amendment 8 seeks to remove clause 3 from the Bill. Clause 3 provides for an exemption from the duties in clause 2 that prevent sunbed use by under-18s when the treatment is for medical purposes. There may be some medical complaints—some skin problems, for example—for which the use of a sunbed is advised as part of treatment. COMARE and the World Health Organisation recommend that medical treatment should take place in clinical settings under clinical supervision.

However, it is important that that medical exemption should not be used by sunbed businesses to circumvent compliance with the duties in respect of the main offence in clause 2. For the exemption to apply, the medical treatment must be under the supervision or direction of a registered medical practitioner such as a licensed doctor. It must also take place on a sunbed in, or provided by, a “healthcare establishment”—a hospital, for example—and the sunbed must be used only for the purposes of medical treatment. This is a very tightly drawn exemption, and rightly so.

The Government acknowledge that there will be situations in which the therapeutic use of sunbeds for under-18s is necessary for medical reasons. For that reason, a medical exemption is necessary and the tightly drawn conditions required for the exemption to apply are appropriate.

Amendment 15 seeks to delete clause 4(4). Clause 4 contains some regulation-making powers, some of which require mandatory consultation with interested parties before the regulations are made. If the Bill receives Royal Assent, there will be a year before it comes into force. That period can be used effectively to consult on some of the proposed regulations. The effect of amendment 15 would be to remove the confirmation that the consultation before the Bill comes into force is the effective mandatory consultation required by the Bill.

Amendment 16 seeks to omit clause 5 from the Bill. Clause 5 allows regulations to be made that require any person carrying on a sunbed business to provide and display information about the health risks of using sunbeds to those who use or may seek to use one. Regulations may ban sunbed businesses from providing or displaying any material containing statements relating to the health effects of sunbed use, other than information prescribed by regulations.

All users of sunbeds should be aware of the health risks involved in using sunbeds. It is right that there should be regulations. It is also right that users should not be misled. COMARE recommendations are that information on the health risks associated with the use of sunbeds must be provided to users, and that commercial outlets and sunbed retailers should be prohibited from using information promoting unproven health benefits of sunbed use. The World Health Organisation guidance says that claims of health benefits should not be made in the promotion of sunbeds. Clause 5 is in line with recommendations, and therefore the Government do not support amendment 15.

Amendment 31 relates to clause 10(2)(a), which allows for regulations made under the Act to

“make different provision for different cases or different areas.”

It is a standard provision seen in connection with all modern regulation-making powers and means that regulations made under the powers in the Bill do not have to make a single, blanket provision but can be adapted for different areas and circumstances.

Amendments 10, 11 and 12 would amend clause 11 and they would attach the affirmative procedure to all regulations made under the Bill. That procedure is already attached to all such regulations save for those made under clauses 5 and 6—the latter of which is on protective eyewear—when they do not create an offence, increase the penalty for an offence or include enforcement provisions. In practice, that means that the vast majority of regulations will already require debate. The small proportion that will not are those containing details that, although important, do not justify taking up parliamentary time by automatically requiring approval after a debate.

Considering amendments to a Bill is always a useful exercise in reviewing its provisions and determining what purpose they serve and whether they are necessary. I believe it is clear from what has been said that the provisions of this Bill have been carefully considered and that each subsection has been drafted for a specific and very useful purpose. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Christchurch to withdraw the new clause.

I shall attempt to cover briefly the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). New clause 1 raises an important issue, which the Minister covered fully in her response. The important point is that were the new clause to be successful, there would have to be a standstill period for consultation in the European Union. Adopting it would wreck the Bill.

The hon. Lady completely overstates her case. She recognises that the Bill would not be implemented until at least 12 months after obtaining Royal Assent. Would that not be enough time for any consultation if that is needed? Can she confirm that at the meeting on Sunday with the Sunbed Association, it made it clear that it was absolutely determined to ensure that new clause 1 should form part of the Bill?

If the new clause were passed, we would have to stand still while there was consultation in the EU, so the Bill would not be able to go any further. That is why I am resisting the new clause. As far as the Sunbed Association is concerned, it supports the Bill as it is but would prefer it strengthened.

Amendments 1 to 3 relate to the age limit. I believe that 18 is the right choice based on the scientific evidence. We have already heard that the risk of skin melanoma is increased by 75 per cent. if the use of tanning devices starts before 30 years of age, and all the scientific and medical evidence is that the minimum age should be 18. As hon. Members have said, that also fits in with the fact that under-18s are not allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes, and that the Scottish legislation relates to under-18s, so I firmly stand by the age of 18.

Amendment 8 has been clearly covered. There are occasions when medical treatment through sunbeds is needed, so it is very important that clause 3 remains. For example, sunbeds are sometimes recommended as treatment for psoriasis. We are saying very strongly that such treatment should be under medical supervision at medical premises, so it is important that the provision remains in the Bill.

Amendment 5 and 6, again, would lower the age at which young people are restricted from using sunbeds. I repeat that I believe 18 is the right age.

On amendment 15, clause 4(4) deals with consultation by the appropriate national authorities before supporting regulations are made. The principle of the subsection is important to ensure that there is full consultation by the relevant authority before regulations are introduced. It is procedural and helps make the Bill workable, so I do not support the amendment to leave the subsection out.

Amendment 16 deals with the provision of health information in regulations. Sunbeds have been linked to eye damage, premature skin ageing and skin cancer. The point that we cannot always see the damage straight away has been forcefully made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). It is crucial to provide information. There should be full consultation on what that information should include, so I am happy that the regulations include a requirement for health information. I oppose amendment 31, which would delete paragraph (a) from clause 10 (2). The remaining amendments are technical.

The Bill is an important measure. In moving new clause 1, the hon. Gentleman said that if one young person loses their life to skin cancer, that is one life too many. If the Bill is enacted, it will certainly protect young people’s lives.

We have had a useful debate on this group of amendments, particularly on new clause 1. Before replying to the debate, may I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) who, in his typically succinct and articulate way, explained that the issue should be about proper education so that people are aware of the risks and consequences associated with exposure to ultra-violet light, whether natural or artificial? That is a common cause across the House. If anyone is following the debate in the real world, they might decide that they are now going to put on protective creams, and not expose themselves to the sun too much, particularly on their first exposure of the year. They might decide to ensure that their children use protective sun creams, or to write to their Member of Parliament and campaign for the Government to reduce VAT on sun cream. I hope that the debate has generated interest outside this place, and thus become a means of promoting the educational cause that we all support.

New clause 1 presents the opportunity to include a measure in the Bill to increase consumer protection for everyone who uses sunbeds, particularly those hired from sunbed operators. On the other hand, it could be argued that we should confine our concerns about sunbed users to people under 18, as the promoter of the Bill would argue, or to people under 16. As we rarely have the opportunity to legislate on such issues in the House, we should incorporate new clause 1 in the Bill, as that would be a major step forward. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) agrees with me. Although it might appear counter-intuitive for me to argue for a wider scope for regulation, I think we should deal with the big issues as much as possible, rather than try to confine our interests to the narrow ones. I am therefore delighted that the Sunbed Association very much supports new clause 1, and it made its position quite clear to the Government last Monday.

I am disappointed and dismayed by the Minister’s response to the new clause, as she said that we could not introduce such a provision without further consultation with the European Union. Previously, she argued that the measure would need the co-operation of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Secretary of State, the right hon. Lord Mandelson, but today she has a different proposition—that there must be consultation in the EU. I cannot understand why that should be a problem even if it is necessary, but if it is necessary, why were we not told sooner? I am sceptical about the Minister’s claim, but even if it is correct, the Bill will not take effect for at least 12 months after Royal Assent, so there is more than enough time for the necessary discussions and consultations with the EU.

Describing such a period of discussion as a standstill completely overstates the case, as the Minister did—not unusually—in saying that new clause 1 would cement a standard into primary legislation that could be altered subsequently only by more primary legislation. One reason why I gave more than two weeks’ notice of my proposal was to enable the Government or the Bill’s promoter to table an amendment. If the Government thought that such a standard might subsequently need changing, they could easily have sought to amend the Bill so that that could be done by regulation, yet they declined to do so. That might be because the Minister was preoccupied with other affairs at the time, but I do not know.

It is typical that the Government have come along today with another red herring as an objection to new clause 1. I suspect that they are angry about the proposal because they did not think of it themselves, and because they realise that I am on the side of the angels in this debate, and that they are lagging behind on consumer protection for people who are exposed to higher than necessary UV from artificial sunbed tubes.

I am absolutely convinced that the Bill would be better for the inclusion of new clause 1, and I am strengthened in that belief by the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who is an extremely experienced legislator. I am concerned that the Minister, in reading out her scripted response, has not really engaged in the detail of what is involved in new clause 1. She asserted—wrongly—that no other EU countries have introduced similar regulations to those proposed in the new clause and she mentioned Spain, Finland and France. However, as far as I know, those countries have introduced similar legislation, so it is fanciful to suggest that there is a problem with it. The only problem is the lack of will on the part of the Government, an all too typical stubbornness and a reluctance to change a Bill when the case has been overwhelmingly made, not only in the House today but by people outside, not least the very knowledgeable and sensible members of the Sunbed Association. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

I beg to move amendment 7, page 2, line 10, leave out ‘£20,000’ and insert ‘£5,000’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 21, page 4, line 6, leave out ‘any facilities, assistance or’.

Amendment 22, page 4, line 11, after ‘which’, insert ‘he knows’.

Amendment 23, page 4, line 12, leave out ‘and’.

Amendment 24, page 4, line 13, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 25, in clause 9, page 4, line 22, leave out from ‘by’ to end of line 23.

Amendment 32, in clause 10, page 4, line 43, leave out ‘£20,000’ and insert ‘£5,000’.

The amendments in the group deal with offences and penalties. Amendment 7 seeks to reduce the maximum penalty in clause 2(6) from £20,000 to £5,000. That would be a more reasonable and proportionate maximum penalty in this context, because a maximum penalty of £20,000 on summary conviction of the offence of breaching the duties imposed by the Bill would be devastating for someone carrying on a sunbed business. Many such businesses are relatively small, employing small numbers of people—perhaps one or two—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said earlier, we are talking about something that is tantamount to a strict liability offence. It will therefore be very easy for people to be found to be in breach, albeit not knowingly in breach—for example, if a sunbed is used by somebody who is under 18, but who looks significantly older.

We know that offences relating to the sale of alcohol to under-18s, which is pretty rife up and down the country, do not result in penalties anything like as great as that which is proposed by clause 2. I hope that the Minister will explain why she thinks that a penalty of £20,000 is appropriate.

There is a difference between this proposed penalty and the penalty of £20,000 that I envisaged in new clause 1, which would have been imposed for a breach of equipment regulations in which someone had supplied equipment, for hire or otherwise, that was unsafe for use. That is a very different proposition from the imposition of a fine on someone because they have been duped by a young person into unwittingly allowing them to gain access to a sunbed.

Amendments 21 to 25 relate to clause 8, which deals with the obstruction of so-called authorised officers. Amendment 21 would have the effect of making clause 8(2) read as follows:

“A person who without reasonable excuse fails to give to an authorised officer, acting in the exercise of the officer’s functions under this Act, information which the authorised officer reasonably requires of the person for the performance of those functions commits an offence.”

As currently drafted, that subsection states that the offence would be committed if the person failed to give the authorised officer

“any facilities, assistance or information”.

That is far too vague and wide-ranging, given that it would trigger an offence for which there would be a substantial financial penalty. I hope that the Minister and the promoter of the Bill will be able to explain what those words add to the Bill.

The clause, as drafted, says that anyone who does not answer the questions put to them will be committing an offence. That seems to cut across the principle of being innocent until proven guilty, and the principle that no one should incriminate themselves under English law. My amendment would not exclude all that; it merely says that those principles should not be undermined simply because someone fails to provide facilities or assistance. We all remember people in “Dixon of Dock Green” assisting the police officers with their inquiries. Under clause 8, anyone who did not assist the police officer with his inquiries would be guilty of an offence, and that seems a step too far.

Amendment 22 tries to address the mischief of strict liability. Clause 8(3) states:

“A person (“P”) commits an offence if, in purported compliance with any requirement of an authorised officer mentioned in subsection (2)—

(a) P makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material respect”.

I believe that that should be an offence only if the person knows the statement to be false or misleading in a material respect. Even in this House, even by Government Ministers and even perhaps by the Prime Minister, statements are sometimes made that are

“false or misleading in a material respect”,

but they may not be “knowingly made”; rather, they can be described as “inadvertently misleading the House”. Why should someone who inadvertently makes a misleading statement be guilty of an offence? I hope that the Minister will address that issue, as I would suggest that this is not a million miles away from some of her own recent experiences.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right in saying that the additional burden specified in the regulatory impact assessment is only £88,000 for the whole of England and Wales. I expressed concern about that figure on Second Reading and in Committee. We must ensure that it is monitored carefully. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that it really is so low, given that it relates to an additional responsibility for staff in local authorities throughout the country who already have other responsibilities. Enforcement is key to the success of the Bill.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about the penalties. I think it important to provide for significant penalties that will act as a deterrent. However, my hon. Friend made a good point about the burden of proof, and about people who are not knowingly in breach of the provisions. It would also be helpful if the Minister made it clear that the £20,000 figure is a ceiling rather than a fixed penalty, and also that it will probably apply to repeat offenders only. As my hon. Friend said, it is a significant amount. We do not want genuine, responsible sunbed operators to be deterred from entering the market and operating within the legislative structure that we are creating. Some of them operate on very slim margins.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has tabled a number of amendments relating to the offences and penalties specified in the Bill.

Amendments 7 and 32 apply to clauses 2 and 10, and seek to reduce the maximum level of the penalty from £20,000 to £5,000. The risk posed to young people who use sunbeds is great, and sunbed businesses must take their duties under this Bill seriously. The Government believe that the maximum fine should be substantial, so that we can ensure that the sanction provides an adequate deterrent. The maximum penalty is proportionate to the offence. However, it is important to stress that this is the maximum fine that can be imposed for committing the offence. Clause 10(3)(a) enables offences created by regulations to incur that maximum fine.

Amendments 21 to 24 relate to clause 8. Clause 8(2) requires people to co-operate with enforcement officers who have entered the premises, but amendment 21 would require only that information be given to the enforcement officers. Clause 8 is about facilitating co-operation with enforcement officers, and in order for enforcement officers to do their job properly, it is reasonable to expect that they may need more than information; they may need to access files on a computer, for example.

Clause 8(3) creates an offence where a person makes a false or misleading statement either knowing or not caring that the statement is false or misleading. Amendments 22 to 24 would amend the offence so that it coverered only people making statements that they knew to be false or misleading. The problem with amending clause 8(3) in this way is that it means that there is no recourse against a person who is asked for information by an officer and guesses an answer, but does not care whether the answer is wrong or right.

Clause 8(2) refers to:

“A person who without reasonable excuse fails to give to an authorised officer, acting in the exercise of the officer’s functions under this Act, any facilities, assistance or information”.

What exactly does that mean, and what does the word “facilities” mean in this context? As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I am also worried about the £88,000 figure. It seems to me that we are racking up ever higher costs for regulating this industry. I simply do not believe it will cost only £88,000 to implement and regulate the Bill’s provisions.

These points were addressed in Committee. I therefore suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the record of the proceedings in Committee, where he might find the answers he seeks.

Amendment 25 relates to clause 9. Clause 9(2) allows for a director, manager or secretary of a body corporate who agrees to play a part in, or turns their back on, the commission of an offence under the Bill to be guilty of the offence, in addition to the company. The effect of amendment 25 would be that those individuals would be caught by this provision only where they had actually committed the offence themselves. That would make the provision too narrow.

I ask the hon. Member for Christchurch to withdraw his amendment.

The issue of the cost of £88,000 per year has been raised several times, and I just want to reassure Members that the Local Government Association specifically worked out how many situations it would have to deal with. It is also important to remember that this work would be done by existing environmental officers. Therefore, this figure of £88,000 has been very carefully calculated. It is also important to remember that Scotland is allocating no additional money for enforcing this, because it thinks it can be done with existing staff.

The only other point I want to make is that £20,000 is the maximum fine, and we would not expect it to be imposed very often. This is a very serious issue, however, so it is important to have that high sum as the maximum fine.

I was disappointed with the Minister’s response, particularly her response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Knowing that my hon. Friend was not invited to be a member of the Standing Committee and was therefore unable to participate in its proceedings, the Minister asserted that the issue that he raised in relation to the proper interpretation to be put on the words in clause 8(3) was discussed in Committee, and she told him to look up the Committee proceedings.

It so happens that I have the Committee proceedings before me. They show that there was no debate whatsoever in the Committee on clause 8 or on clause 9. I hope the Minister will intervene on me to explain what she had in mind when she told my hon. Friend that the issue had been dealt with in Committee. Obviously, that is the only procedure by which we will be able to get an answer to my hon. Friend’s point.

I am winding up the debate, which included a reasonable question from my hon. Friend to the Minister. The hon. Lady has given a response on the record which must be inaccurate. I am not suggesting that that was deliberate, but it is misleading. I am not even suggesting it was reckless, which under the terms of the Bill would result in a criminal conviction. What I am saying is that the Minister’s response was not correct, and I hope she will intervene to correct the record, apologise for inadvertently misleading my hon. Friend, and also address the substance—

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is well experienced in matters in the House and realises that he has made his point and is now winding up the debate on the amendments.

Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, I realise that I am winding up the debate. I hope I am not winding up the Minister too much and that she will engage with my comments. If not, the only course open to me, and to my hon. Friend, is to seek to divide the House on amendment 21.

I do not wish to detain the House. I thought clause 8 had been discussed. I was advised that it had been discussed.

“Facilities” could mean being able to use an office or even a photocopier. “Assistance” could mean getting help working the computer or filing system. Those are examples, of course, and they are not exhaustive. The House needs to move on.

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. She has confirmed me in my opinion—I cannot speak for my hon. Friend—that the clause is a load of nonsense. Why should somebody whose premises are entered by an authorised officer be required to make his photocopying facilities available to that officer, with the consequence that if he does not do so, he will be guilty of a criminal offence? Even under the anti-terrorism legislation, I do not think there is any requirement that terrorists should make their photocopying equipment available to investigating officers. The provision is manifestly absurd. It smacks of the extension of regulation far beyond what is reasonable or proportionate.

The promoter of the Bill asserted that the costs of policing the Bill would be only £88,000 across the whole country. I share my hon. Friend’s incredulity at that, but we will have to see what happens in practice. I repeat what I said earlier—that is only about £200 per constituency per annum. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) says, we need strong implementation and enforcement, the costs will end up being much higher than suggested. Rather than have an academic argument about that, it is better to say that we do not want to have people made into criminals because they will not let the local authority officer visiting their premises borrow their photocopying machine. I would have thought that that was something that we should leave to their discretion rather than make it a criminal offence not to allow the photocopying machine to be used. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 7 and to press amendment 21.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

Obstruction etc. of authorised officers

Amendment proposed: 21, page 4, line 6 , leave out ‘any facilities, assistance or’.—(Mr. Chope.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

The Sunbeds (Regulation) Bill will protect children; that is why it has Government and cross-party support. It was clear on Second Reading and on Report that the Bill could save lives. I am grateful to everyone who has supported it, particularly those Members who turned out on more than one Friday.

I should like to put on the record how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James) for all her support. She has campaigned tirelessly on this issue for many years. I thank everybody who has made such an effort to support the Bill. It is important and it will protect young people. I commend it to the House.

I should like to join the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) in congratulating everybody who has been involved in getting the Bill to this stage. I include, of course, the hon. Lady herself and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James), who have both been tireless in their pursuit of that end.

The Bill is sensible and is supported by a significant amount of clinical evidence. If it is enforced properly over a period of time, it will make a contribution to reducing rates of skin cancer. It is vital that we should find ways of improving cancer outcomes in this country, and the Bill is one small contribution to that.

I want to make two final points. It is essential that we provide greater, more accurate and more easily accessible information to enable people who might use such facilities to understand the implications of doing so; I am thinking of those over 18, and those below 18 in respect of whom medical exceptions apply.

I should like to leave the Minister with this message: the success of the Bill will be in the evaluation and monitoring. That issue must be consistently looked at by the Department to ensure that if there are any improvements, the cost of the Bill is closely considered as it develops 12 months hence.

I wish the Bill swift passage, and I look forward to its receiving Royal Assent.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) on having got the Bill through the House to this point. She has wholehearted support from the Liberal Democrats.

The Bill will save lives and protect the health of young people. It will also help to meet the educational challenge of raising the profile of this health risk. The truth is that most young people simply do not recognise the risk. When we read that 250,000 children have used sunbeds in England, we recognise the scale of that risk, as we do when we read that the International Agency for Research on Cancer has reclassified sunbeds and put them in the same category as smoking. We see the absolute importance of getting the message out to young people in particular, but to others as well, that there is a real risk involved and that we all need to take care of ourselves and avoid the risk of cancer. I congratulate the hon. Lady, and we will support the Bill.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) on her achievement so far in piloting the Bill through this place, because there is an overwhelming need for it. Nobody wants to legislate and regulate for the sake of it, but there are times when one has to save people from themselves either because of their ignorance of a problem or because of their bloody-mindedness and refusal to accept that something might harm them.

I am aware from a number of press reports of horrific stories involving young people who, either through ignorance, because they thought they knew better, or because of the poor operation of a salon, have done great and lasting damage to themselves, leading to great pain. I have had four operations in the past six years for medical conditions related to sunbathing many years ago, though I hasten to add not in a sunbed salon. It was done through ignorance, but I am paying the price now and hope that other people can learn from the mistakes and ignorance of my generation. If the Bill goes any way towards helping young people and others, through the restrictions on the age at which people can enter sunbed premises and the displays that will have to appear about the risks, it will be positive and a price worth paying in regulation to help the next generation.

May I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) on promoting the Bill? As will have been apparent, I have been trying to improve it, sadly without success so far today. I do not live without hope that it might be improved in the other place, and that the big gap in the Bill, which was exposed by the failure to include new clause 1, will be remedied. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) pointed out, an even bigger gap is the fact that the Bill deals only with the exposure of young people and children to artificial UV. It does not deal with the much bigger problem of exposure to natural sunlight and burning. I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North will show equal enthusiasm for campaigning for a reduction in VAT on sun creams, which would contribute to wider use of those—

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that matter is outwith the Bill and should therefore not be included in his speech.

I absolutely know that, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps that gives me an opportunity to thank you for all the times you have managed to keep me in order on so many Fridays during the time you have sat in the Chair. I think I speak for many Members when I say that we very much regret the fact that—

Order. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I have to be consistent with him.

Nobody would ever accuse you of being anything other than consistent, Madam Deputy Speaker. We much appreciate it.

I am not going to make a long speech, because I do not wish to vote against Third Reading. Although the Bill is not as good as I would like it to be, I grudgingly concede that it is probably better than nothing. As I said at the outset—the hon. Member for Cardiff, North picked up on this—if one person dies as a result of overexposure to artificial UV, that is one person too many. However, we are not just talking about deaths. As my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) have pointed out, we are also talking about the worry and pain associated with melanoma and other conditions that, although not fatal, result in a need for medication or operations. They could be reduced if the Bill allowed us to give more publicity to the consequences and risks of overexposure to ultraviolet light, whether artificial or natural.

I take quite a lot of satisfaction from the fact that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North implicitly recognises that 16 and 17-year-olds are not responsible enough to be able to decide for themselves whether to use sunbed parlours. It flows from that that they cannot be deemed responsible enough to exercise the vote at 16, for which she has campaigned. That, however, is outside the strict terms of debate on Third Reading. I hope that the Bill will lead to more information becoming available, and more awareness of the health issues involved and, as a result, a better quality of life and standard of public health in the UK.

I am pleased and proud to speak to the Bill, and I apologise on behalf of the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who has played a key role in its progress. She is disappointed and sorry that other business prevents her from being here today.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), who should be proud of her achievement in introducing the Bill. In addition, I recognise the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James), who has championed this cause too. It is a tribute to the energy and commitment shown by my hon. Friends that the Bill has gathered strong cross-party support and has reached Third Reading. Much has been said about the cities of Cardiff and Liverpool, which are known as sunbed capitals, but they are also known for their sport—rugby and football—culture and music. On behalf of the London Welsh contingent, I am proud to support the Bill.

As has been said during the Bill’s progress through the House, the evidence is clear that sunbeds are a health risk, and that the risk is greater for young people. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) spoke about his personal difficulties with the effects of the sun. We are pleased that he is well, and is active in the House. Voluntary self-regulation by the industry has not worked, and the Government are committed to taking action to prevent young people from harming themselves through sunbed use. The Bill seeks to prevent under-18s from using sunbeds by making it a criminal offence for sunbed businesses to offer them sunbeds. There are also provisions that set the scene for the future regulation of sunbed use. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has ministerial responsibility for public health, said:

“Should the Bill receive Royal Assent, the Government would begin consulting on further regulations…at the earliest possible opportunity, because the evidence is compelling.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2010; Vol. 504, c. 1082.]

We are committed to preventing cancer in young people. We have the knowledge, so we must act on it. As a result of the measures in the Bill, people will have a greater awareness and understanding of the risks of using sunbeds and of sun damage generally, not only to young people under 18 but to people of all ages, so I am proud to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

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

I promise that this will be a very short speech, but I need to detain the House for a minute or so with an explanation. I originally introduced a similar measure on 21 January 2009. That went through the Commons without being amended and with all-party support, but it was unable to complete its passage through the Lords before Parliament was prorogued on 12 November 2009.

Concerns in relation to that Bill were raised in the Lords by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, and the Constitution Committee, as well as by Baroness Noakes, who introduced amendments in Committee that formed the basis for some of the changes that were made before I introduced the Bill that we are debating.

The Bill was introduced as a private Member’s Bill in the House of Lords on 19 November 2009 with all the required changes having been made, thanks to my colleague, Lord Tomlinson. As we have heard, no amendments were made in a very brief Committee sitting following Second Reading. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

I sincerely thank Lord Tomlinson for steering the Bill with great ingenuity and authority through another place. I also thank colleagues on both sides of the House and in the co-operative movement for their support for the Bill.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks). His handiwork was delayed in the previous Session, but this Bill is heading towards the statute book. He was right that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee identified deficiencies, and that they have now been rectified in clauses 5 and 6.

It is important to recognise that a great deal of the work to modernise the framework for mutual societies in the past few years has been done by virtue of private Members’ Bills. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) and others, on both sides of the House, have introduced Bills in recent years. When a Bill such as this has the sponsorship of the Treasury, it is incumbent on the Treasury to ensure that the right steps are taken to ensure that it is robust, and that it meets the requirements of a proper legislative process. It is the fault of the Treasury that such a measure, which has a great deal of support, has been delayed because it did not take enough time to get the drafting right.

I am afraid that the Bill is not the only example of that. The legislative reform order for credit unions has had to be withdrawn because the Treasury’s supporting documentation was inappropriate. That also delayed the process of reform for credit unions, so there is a lesson to be learned by the Treasury. When it seeks to use such a route to modernise and update legislation, it should do so in a way that meets the highest possible legislative standards.

My recollection is that the Bill was not debated on Second Reading. It was quite a way down the Order Paper, but in recognition of the fact that there was quite a full debate on a similar Bill in the last Session and cross-party support, it went through on the nod. That is unusual—very few Bills receive that treatment—so the right hon. Gentleman should be grateful that the procedure of the House worked to his advantage. As he said, the Bill was not amended in Committee this time, nor was it the first time. The Bill is therefore unamended today.

We all recognise the importance of mutuals, which play a huge role in the economy. There are some very well-known mutuals, such as the Co-operative Retail Society, and credit unions are another form of mutual society. The Wine Society—the right hon. Gentleman and I are both members—is an industrial and provident society. There are mutuals across the country and they are increasingly being used as a way of delivering services and opportunities to communities. This is a booming sector, so it is important that the legislation affecting it is up to date, and provides people with the protection that they would expect in a modern, 21st-century economy. The Bill would make some fundamental changes that we should reflect on before it receives its Third Reading, especially as it did not receive a proper outing on Second Reading a few weeks ago.

There is huge support for mutuals on both sides of the House, although I think that everybody recognises they have some limitations and the mutual sector has had some problems in recent years. We do not need to dwell on the Dunfermline building society or the Presbyterian mutual society, but we know that mutuals fail occasionally, and we need to think carefully about what happens then. Directors of friendly societies, building societies or limited companies are disqualified in such instances, but the directors of industrial and provident societies would be able to move on to another such society and continue to serve in that role, and that creates a risk for consumers. It is right that the powers in the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1976, which apply to building societies and friendly societies, should be extended to industrial and provident societies to provide that protection for consumers, creditors and employers. That is an appropriate modernisation measure.

The Bill would also modernise the language involved. Industrial and provident societies are redolent of Victorian times, when so many of them were established. In the Second Reading debate on the original Bill, I recall that someone suggested that the Romans had set up co-operatives, but in the UK their origins are the Victorian sense of self-help, with communities coming together on a voluntary basis to establish businesses and enterprises that help to meet the needs of their members or employees. “Industrial and provident society” is a rather out-moded term and it does not reflect the modern uses to which such societies are put. For example, several football supporters’ clubs are industrial and provident societies, and foundation hospitals also take that route. It sounds like a very restricted category, but it has now broadened out. If we are to modernise the methods of organisation for enterprises in establishing themselves and setting up governance models, we should also try to modernise the language that is used.

Clause 1 would require new industrial and provident societies to register as co-operatives or community benefit societies, and that recognises that the nature of such institutions is to benefit the whole community, rather than being some relic of the industrial revolution. As part of that, clause 2 would rename seven Acts of Parliament, dating back to 1965, which will now use the new nomenclature. The mentions of industrial and provident societies in the titles of those Bills will become co-operative and community benefit societies and credit unions. Again, that would modernise the back catalogue—as it were—of legislation governing industrial and provident societies. We would welcome that move.

As I said, the Bill tackles a second issue in applying the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to industrial and provident societies. I think that Members from both sides of the House will recognise the need to ensure that officers of mutual societies are subject to the same disciplines as directors of limited companies, friendly societies and building societies. That function is provided for in clause 3, and it is a welcome approach. The language has also been modernised to reflect the different nature of governance of those entities. Proposed new section 22E(3)(b) modernises

“references to a director or an officer of a company”

to

“a member of the committee…of a registered society.”

There are also provisions in the Bill relating to extending the equivalence of companies legislation to those societies. For example, provisions are being made to bring societies in line with companies when it comes to striking them off: a company can be struck off the register of companies, and now, in this case, a society’s registration could be cancelled.

The Bill gives the Treasury powers to apply other provisions in companies legislation to industrial and provident societies, including powers of investigation into companies, and provisions relating to company names, the dissolution of companies and restoration to registers. That is another aspect of how the legislative framework has been set up. As with many Treasury Bills, it creates enabling powers, and indeed there will be secondary legislation to work through the detailed application of the provisions to individual societies.

The hon. Gentleman is singing the praises of the legislation, but does not seem to have any criticisms of it. Were he to make an extended contribution, is there he any danger that he might be perceived as actually being less positive about the legislation than his comments would imply?

It is important that legislation is properly scrutinised. Although there was discussion about the Bill in the previous Session, so far there has been no such discussion or debate on the Floor of the House. It is the responsibility of parliamentarians to scrutinise legislation properly, to identify its benefits and to ensure that it is clear to people what its purpose is and, in this case, where it takes the legislative framework around co-operative, industrial and provident societies and credit unions. That is the right thing to do. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, although one can make a speech about a measure, the balance of opinion in the House will be revealed in a Division on Third Reading, if there is one.

Can the hon. Gentleman detail any criticism he has of the Bill?

My concern is that, when the Bill was first tabled before the House in the previous Session, it turned out, on further scrutiny, to be deficient, but thankfully it has been corrected. That was the right approach. All of us would want to ensure that a Bill is not simply rushed—or railroaded—through on the nod, and that there is proper scrutiny, because sometimes that can identify issues that need to be teased out. I am afraid, however, that the hon. Gentleman’s interventions are prolonging the rather brief speech that I wanted to make. As I said, we support the Bill, which is why it was given a fair passage when it returned from the other place, after Lord Tomlinson’s very able stewardship of it through the Lords.

This is an enabling Bill, giving the Treasury the flexibility to apply the existing provisions of company law to industrial and provident societies or to make new, equivalent provisions. Although we want to ensure the right framework for industrial and provident societies so that their governance is on a par with that of companies, part of the challenge is that, in essence, industrial and provident societies are different from limited companies because of the role of their employees or members. We therefore need to ensure that we do not allow the crude application of company law to industrial and provident societies, but instead take a nuanced approach. I am sure that the Treasury will work with a number of organisations to ensure that such an approach is adopted.

The fourth issue that I want to address is supporting credit unions. All of us across the House recognise the importance of credit unions in providing an alternative to the banking system. A number of moves have been made in recent years to modernise the legislative framework for credit unions, to ensure that they are capable of being sustainable and viable, and can provide a proper alternative to banks. I meet regularly the Association of British Credit Unions to talk about such issues, and I know how keen credit unions are to see this Bill put in place and for the legislative framework to be modernised.

This Bill is not the only such measure—I referred earlier to the legislative reform order that was tabled, but which subsequently had to be withdrawn because of the inadequacy of the supporting documents—but it enables primary legislation to be amended to facilitate the application to the credit union movement of various provisions in the legislation on building societies. The Bill does that by inserting a new section 23A in the Credit Unions Act 1979. It also gives the Treasury the power to amend by regulation the statutory provisions for credit unions to bring them more into line with those applicable to building societies. Again, the power is drawn broadly: any provision in the building societies legislation deemed to be appropriate can be adapted to credit unions.

Indeed, the Bill also includes provision to create equivalent criminal offences, which was one of the areas of concern for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. There was a concern that the criminal offences created in the previous versions of the Bill perhaps went further than those in the comparable legislation. The amendments made to the Bill address that problem, and we are all grateful that the two sponsors of the Bill were happy to make those changes.

One of the clear themes to emerge from the Bill is that if we are to ensure that industrial and provident societies continue to play an important role in the provision of services, adapting to reflect the needs of a modern society, the legislative framework needs to be enhanced to ensure that the consumers, employees and suppliers of industrial and provident societies are protected. That is why we welcome the measures dealing with disqualification. The change in language is also important, in ensuring that people recognise that industrial and provident societies play a role in modern society and are not remnants of the industrial revolution. For those reasons we support the Bill. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Croydon, North for his persistence in taking it forward. The Bill makes an important contribution to the legislative framework and will be widely welcomed by those in the credit union and co-operative movement who have long looked forward to the day when it is passed.

Let me confirm the Liberal Democrats’ absolute support for the Bill and congratulate the right hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks). We are committed to championing the role of mutuals, and we see great potential for extending their role as we seek to transform our economy. In particular, I am a passionate supporter of the role of employee-owned businesses and mutuals; indeed, I see a considerably greater role for them in the delivery of all sorts of public services, including in the health service. I have also seen credit unions developing in my area, offering people who are often on low incomes a vital alternative facility to that offered by doorstep lenders who charge high interest rates. We need to do everything that we can to encourage and promote credit unions.

The Bill, which is rather dull but necessary, modernises the regulatory framework—[Interruption.] Well, if hon. Members get excited by these things, they need to get a life. The Bill also provides added consumer protection and aligns the rules relating to company directors with those of companies, as the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) rightly said. It is essential to have a modern regulatory framework to ensure that the mutuals can flourish in the future. We are therefore very happy to support the Bill.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks) on at last getting the Bill closer to the statute book. I also congratulate and thank our noble colleague, Lord Tomlinson, who played a significant role in bringing the Bill forward in the other place. The Government support wholeheartedly the benefits of mutuals in providing choice and diversity in the financial marketplace, particularly during these uncertain times.

I also welcome the gracious, if slightly extensive, support from across the House, and the work of the Co-operative group of MPs and the Co-operative party, whose chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), is sitting next to me on the Front Bench. The party’s general secretary, Michael Stephenson, has also played a sterling role in helping to steer the Bill through the House.

The Bill will modernise the legislative framework for about 500 credit unions and about 8,000 industrial and provident societies. It will benefit those bodies and their many millions of members, so that, after an illustrious history over the past couple of centuries, they can move forward proudly into the 21st century. The fundamental nature of the mutuals will not be undermined by the legislation; they will be strengthened by the Bill. The sector will continue to grow, as the legislation will increase member confidence in the societies by improving their standards of corporate governance, thus placing the mutual sector on a firmer footing.

This week saw the laying in Parliament on Monday of the Legislative Reform (Industrial and Provident Societies and Credit Unions) Order 2010, the secondary legislation that partners the Bill. The Bill seeks to address matters that could not be dealt with under the powers of the legislative reform order but that are equally important for the legislative and regulatory reform of this valued sector of the financial services field. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North has brought it this far, and I commend the Bill to the House.

As the sponsor of the Bill in this House, I hope that I am not dull; I am, however, necessary, because it was necessary to take the Bill through the House of Commons again. It might seem strange to anyone reading the record that the sponsor of the Bill in the House of Commons made the shortest speech on it, but I believe that over the past two years we have scrutinised and improved the legislation across the parties in both Houses of Parliament.

The expert exposition by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), was most welcome, and I also welcome the full support for the Bill from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). Furthermore, it is always useful to give a Whip an opportunity to speak in the House of Commons. This might, in a sense, be a Treasury Bill, but the Treasury Minister clearly had so much confidence in me that he or she did not feel it absolutely necessary to be here in person to voice their support. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

I beg to move amendment 8, page 1, line 12, leave out ‘section’ and insert ‘significant section’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 9, page 1, line 15, leave out ‘or’ and insert ‘and’.

Amendment 10, page 1, line 19, at end insert

‘at the point of use of the public service by the public’.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

‘( ) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consider their potential effect on small businesses and voluntary or community interest organisations.

For this purpose—

“small business” means a business that employs fewer than 50 employees;

“voluntary or community interest organisation” means an organisation (other than a local authority or other public body) whose activities are carried on—

(a) otherwise than for profit, or

(b) for the benefit of the community on the basis that any profits are reinvested in the business of the organisation or applied for the benefit of the community.’.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

‘(8) The Secretary of State must on an annual basis review the meaning of a “designated authority or person”, with a view to removing any authority or person that no longer meets the definition of a “designated authority or person”.’.

Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, leave out ‘negative’ and insert ‘the affirmative’.

Amendment 17, page 2, line 31, at end insert—

‘(i) only where that person is reasonably able to attend and answer questions within their personal resource base or that of the organisation they represent, and

(ii) only where the requirement for such attendance is not in contradiction to part of an existing formal agreement the person or the organisation they represent has entered into to provide public services’.

Amendment 18, page 2, line 42, leave out ‘person’ and insert ‘the role of the person’.

Amendment 16, page 3, line 1, leave out ‘negative’ and insert ‘the affirmative’.

Amendment 21, in clause 4, page 3, line 15, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘three’.

Amendment 22, page 3, line 20, at end insert—

‘(i) only where such compliance is reasonable within the resource base of the designated organisation or person.

(ii) only where such compliance is not in contradiction to part of an existing formal agreement the designated organisation or person has entered into to provide public services’.

Amendment 20, page 3, line 23, leave out ‘negative’ and insert ‘the affirmative’.

Amendment 23, in clause 6, page 4, line 16, leave out from ‘England’ to end of line 17.

Amendment 24, in clause 7, page 5, line 15, at end insert—

‘(5) The Secretary of State must bring forward regulations to allow for joint overview and scrutiny committees to be established between county councils and one or more district councils in their area, as provided for in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, before the provisions of this Act come into force.’.

Amendment 26, in clause 10, page 6, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert—

‘(3) All regulations under this Act are subject to “the affirmative resolution procedure”, and the regulations must not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

Amendment 27, page 6, leave out lines 13 to 15.

Amendment 28, page 6, leave out lines 16 to 18.

I am speaking to these amendments on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who represents the constituency in which I had the privilege to be born—some years ago.

Amendment 8 would leave out “section” and insert “significant section”; amendment 9 would leave out “or” and insert “and”, and amendment 10 would insert

“at the point of use of the public service by the public”.

These three amendments, along with the others in the group, are part of a theme. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, like me, does not agree with too much prescription in local government. Indeed, we can now see that the Local Government Act 2000, which required most local authorities in England to abolish the traditional committee system of governance and to adopt new executive structures, was unnecessarily prescriptive. That is why my hon. Friend seeks through the amendments to reduce the level of prescription and the extent of the regulation-making powers.

Let us look at the amendments in more detail. Amendment 8 would narrow the definition of a “public service” for the Bill’s purposes. In order to fit in with the Bill’s parameters, “public service” would be

“a service provided to the public, or a significant section of the public, that…is provided in the exercise of functions of a public nature or under statutory authority,”

“and”—rather than “or”, as affected by amendment 9—

“is wholly or partly funded by grants, subsidies or other financial assistance from central or local government funds”.

Those two amendments are complemented by amendment 10, which changes clause 1(3)(c) by adding additional words that would make it

“irrelevant whether a service is provided on payment or without payment at the point of use of the public service by the public”.

Effectively, the promoter and his supporters think that local authorities should branch out from their core business into the business of looking at local public services other than the ones run by the council itself. They believe it would be a good idea for the local council to hold these other public services to account, irrespective of whether they are provided by other public bodies or private companies delivering public services. The promoters argue that councillors will have the ability to shine a spotlight on services that they do not think are delivering for local people and will be able to demand action on behalf of their communities to resolve local problems.

As I see it, however, the difficulty is that we already have local authorities up and down and country that are not even getting on properly with their core business. If they cannot cope with their core business and are always complaining—well, not always, but quite often—about the lack of resources they have to discharge that business, why should we let them nose around in other public services in the area? Why cannot we leave the people charged with taking responsibility for those services to get on with providing them and to be accountable to the public either through their Members of Parliament or through some other means? If they are in receipt of public funds, all sorts of methods and avenues of accountability are available. Why should we want to get the local council involved in all that?

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is desirable and important that we have the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure? Given that one is not able to amend a statutory instrument or regulation, and that instead they have to be taken on an all-or-nothing basis, having the affirmative procedure guarantees, or at least enhances the chance, that they will actually be debated so that the Government of the day can be held to account on the contents of the order or regulation.

As so often, my hon. Friend makes a very important point. We are talking here about interfering with another elected body—local authorities—and we should not change their regime without giving proper notice and ensuring that we can have a proper debate in this House. We should pay due respect to such democratically elected bodies. We are also talking about the implications for other public sector bodies in respect of their interactions with local authorities, and that is another important issue. If we are going to change these regimes, we must ensure that there is a chance for proper debate. Although we would not be able to make any amendments, of course, there would be more chance of any consultation beforehand being meaningful if it were conducted in the knowledge that the statutory instrument could not just go through on the nod, and that there would have to be a debate in this place. I think that all my hon. Friend’s amendments dealing with changing the way in which regulations could be amended are very important.

Amendment 22 to clause 4 states:

“page 3, line 20, at end insert—

(i) only where such compliance is reasonable within the resource base of the designated organisation or person.

(ii) only where such compliance is not in contradiction to part of an existing formal agreement”.

That is similar to the one that I described earlier.

Then we come to amendment 23 to clause 6, which states:

“page 4, line 16, leave out from ‘England’ to end of line 17.”

That is a sensible way of restricting the ambit of clause 6, which is the interpretation clause. It states:

“‘designated authority or person’ has the meaning given by section 1(4);

‘local authority’ means—

(a) a county council in England,

(b) a district council in England, other than a council for a district in a county for which there is a county council’” .

Under the amendment, the reference would be to all district councils, rather than just to those in a county.

Perhaps I should intervene on the Minister later for an answer to this question. In the interpretation clause, there is no mention of borough councils, only district councils. There may be a logical reason for that, but as my hon. Friend knows, there is a subtle difference between the two.

It is true that there is no reference to borough councils, except London borough councils. Colloquially, people often talk about “the borough council”. For example, they talk about Christchurch borough council, but in strict parlance, Christchurch council is a district council, rather than a borough council.

My hon. Friend is right, as usual. The reason I asked is that in the area that I represent, the council is called Chelmsford borough council, whereas in the neighbouring two districts, the councils are Braintree district council and Brentwood district council. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that.

Indeed. The more important issue that the Minister needs to address is why a local authority is defined in clause 6 as not including a district council which is

“a council for a district in a county for which there is a county council”.

It would be useful to find out why that wording is included. Amendment 23 tries to tease that out of the Minister in the course of the debate.

Amendment 24 to clause 7 states:

“page 5, line 15, at end insert—

‘(5) The Secretary of State must bring forward regulations to allow for joint overview and scrutiny committees to be established between county councils and one or more district councils in their area, as provided for in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, before the provisions of this Act come into force.’.

Of all the amendments that have been tabled, this is the most relevant to my own experience. In Dorset, we are lucky enough to have two-tier local government, where we have a county council and some good district councils. They are almost invariably under the control of the Conservative party, but that is another story.

I should say at the outset that I am taking the Bill through its remaining Commons stages on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), and that is why I am speaking to this group of amendments. I should also repeat the declaration of a non-pecuniary interest that I made on Second Reading and in Committee: I am chairman of the Centre for Public Scrutiny, a body that promotes good-quality scrutiny by public authorities.

This large group of amendments all deal with the range and scope of the regime, and the extent to which the powers may be exercised by local authorities. In Committee, I accepted the importance of amending clause 1 to safeguard against potential burdens that may arise on designated bodies, in particular, to ensure that it does not have the unwanted effect of unduly burdening small business and charities. Throughout, we have been clear that this scrutiny regime must be proportionate.

Amendment 1 builds in such safeguards for small business and voluntary or community interest organisations. It does so by requiring the Secretary of State to consider the potential effect on small business and voluntary and community interest organisations before making an order designating bodies as subject to the regime.

The definitions in the amendment are generous. “Small business” is defined as

“a business that employs fewer than 50 employees,”

and it is consistent with the definition in section 382 of the Companies Act 2006. Similarly, a “voluntary or community interest organisation” for these purposes means

“an organisation…whose activities are carried on otherwise than for profit, or for the benefit of the community on the basis that any profits are reinvested in the business of the organisation for the benefit of the community.”

That covers a wide range of third sector organisations, charities, voluntary and community groups and social enterprises alike. Taking those provisions together, the amendment would ensure that specific consideration was given to those specific groups. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) seemed sympathetic to the amendment, and I trust that he will support it.

Amendments 8 and 9 would simply serve to limit the scope of the scrutiny regime, rendering it less effective and less able to scrutinise matters of local concern. I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman has spoken to those amendments on behalf of the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), because they are very inconsistent with the position that the hon. Lady adopted on Second Reading.

The hon. Gentleman was not at that debate and will not be aware of what the hon. Lady said, so I shall remind him. She appreciated the Bill’s intentions to give councils

“much greater powers to scrutinise local public services,”

and she noted

“a growing recognition that overview and scrutiny committees need to have powers over a wider range of external organisations as they become more involved in local public services”.—[Official Report, 5 February 2010; Vol. 505, c. 524.]

That view is supported by the Local Government Association, which has noted that

“much public spending…is in the hands of agencies with little or no democratic accountability.”

It is also

“pleased that this Bill proposes to strengthen the powers of scrutiny available to councils”.

So, far from imposing unwanted obligations on councils, as the hon. Gentleman implied early in his speech, the Bill responds to councils’ aspiration for a more coherent framework in which to scrutinise local services. I find it curious therefore that he seeks to adopt a contrary position to that which his hon. Friend took on Second Reading just a few weeks ago.

Amendment 10 is otiose. It is simply unnecessary and would add nothing to the Bill. Amendment 6 is also unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman admitted that he had not discussed it with the hon. Lady, but had he done so and looked into it, he would have discovered that a “designated authority or person” is simply an authority or person designated by regulations made by the Secretary of State. Requiring the Secretary of State to revisit that designation every year would therefore have absolutely no purpose, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the amendment is unnecessary.

However, I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), will be able to reassure us that, as a matter of course, the Government will keep under review the list of designated authorities or persons alongside that of the operation of the enhanced scrutiny regime itself. I think that the amendment’s objective was to ensure a periodic review of the scope of the regulations and the organisations covered, and I am wholly sympathetic to that, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to provide such reassurance.

Amendments 14, 16, 20 and 26 to 28 seek to subject to the affirmative procedure all regulations made under the Bill. The key issue in the operation of the regime is the designation of the bodies that will be subject to it, and that is what determines the scope of the new powers. I recognise that that power can be said to have special importance, and that is why, under the Bill, it is subject to the affirmative procedure. That approach was adopted to provide hon. Members with appropriate, ample opportunity to scrutinise and debate any designation prior to regulations being made.

I do not, however, agree that the supporting regulations for the regime merit the same requirements. Those regulations will deal with some of the detail and technical matters relating to the operation of the regime, but there is no reason why they should be subject to a procedure that, as all Members know, is reserved for the most significant delegated powers, such as those creating new criminal offences. Furthermore, regulations will be made following consultation, and in Committee the Minister undertook that such consultation will take place. So, there will be an opportunity for people outside the House to have their say before regulations on those issues are drafted, and hon. Members will obviously be able to have their say as well.

The negative procedure provides hon. Members with the opportunity to secure a debate if they are so minded; I remind the House that Members have not sought such an opportunity to debate similar supporting regulations, on proportionality and the operation of the scrutiny regime covering local area agreement partners, that were introduced by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. It would seem inconsistent to seek the affirmative resolution in respect of the supporting regulations in the Bill.

Amendments 17 and 22 would undermine the Bill’s objectives; they would make it easy for any designated body or person to argue that their resource base was insufficient to comply with the requirements of the scrutiny regime. Like the previous amendments, they are also inconsistent with the view taken by the hon. Member for Putney on Second Reading. I quote her comments once again:

“Overview and scrutiny committees perform an important function, reviewing policy and performance and holding local public service providers to account. Currently, those committees have the power to require information from a range of organisations including councils, NHS bodies, law and order bodies and partner authorities that are involved in local area agreements. The committees can also summon representatives of most of those bodies to appear before them, and they can require such officials to respond to reports and recommendations that have been issued to them. However, that does not happen with all bodies—for example, partners that are involved in delivering local area agreement objectives. Indeed, many other local bodies are not required to submit to the same level of scrutiny by local authorities, so their voluntary participation in scrutiny is not guaranteed.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2010; Vol. 505, c. 524.]

The hon. Lady supported the Bill on Second Reading because it was creating a more coherent framework for scrutiny, and one without the holes that exist in the current situation. Unfortunately, the amendment would create another very large hole because it would allow any organisation—even the largest and most wealthy—to claim that it simply did not have the resources to attend a scrutiny hearing. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will give further thought to that.

Amendment 18 would add nothing to the current draft, which would see any description of persons in regulations by reference to their role.

Given that existing scrutiny regimes provide for responses to scrutiny reports and recommendations within two months, amendment 21 would complicate the scrutiny landscape, leading to confusion in respect of not only scrutiny committees, but bodies subject to scrutiny in all its forms. Under some powers they would be required to respond in three months, but under others they would have to respond within two. That does not seem at all helpful. The two-month time frame for responses is already in place, under the Local Government Act 2000 and the Local Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees) (England) Regulations 2009.

Contrary to the concerns expressed in Committee about proportionality and the potential burden of the scrutiny regime, amendment 23—and I suspect that the hon. Member for Christchurch is not aware of this—would increase potential burdens on other bodies. The hon. Gentleman was having a little difficulty at that particular point in his speech, and I suspect that he had not grasped that amendment 23 would allow a series of different district councils in county areas to have simultaneous scrutiny of the same organisation. Clearly, that would impose an unreasonable burden.

The purpose of the provisions in the Bill is to ensure that there is a proportionality and that within county areas where there are district councils as well as the county council, there should be a joint approach rather than separate scrutiny powers being available to all the separate bodies.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer my question; I genuinely do not know the answer. In such circumstances, what would happen in a county where there was a borough council rather than a district council?

The hon. Gentleman raised that issue in an intervention on the hon. Member for Christchurch. I am happy to give the reassurance that I think they were working their way towards during their exchange. The formal designation relates to a district council and therefore the concept of a borough council has no impact at all.

The purpose of the provisions is to avoid unreasonable regulatory burdens that would result from different bodies scrutinising separately. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will recognise that his amendment would open up the scope for extra regulatory burdens on business and voluntary organisations, and will not press the amendment.

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I consider the amendments other than amendment 1 to be unnecessary. I hope that he will now agree not to press them, and to support my amendment 1, with which he seemed to have a great deal of sympathy.

I will be as brief as possible. First, the Government wholeheartedly support amendment 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), which addresses concerns raised in Committee about the potential impact of the enhanced scrutiny regime on small businesses and voluntary or community interest organisations. I urge hon. Members to support it as well. I am happy to give my right hon. Friend the commitment that he sought by confirming that the Government intend to keep under review the list of designated authorities or persons throughout the continuing operation of the enhanced regime.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that the other amendments, tabled by the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), are entirely unnecessary and would in fact hamper the effective operation of the enhanced scrutiny regime. On amendments 14, 16, 20 and 26 to 28, I gave a commitment in Committee that the Government would consult widely before making any regulations under the provisions of the Bill. I repeat that commitment today, and I hope that that will satisfy the concerns.

On the hon. Lady’s amendments 23 and 24, we have yet to make regulations to allow for the establishment of joint overview and scrutiny committees involving a county council and one or more district councils. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, in this case that includes borough councils. The power to make such regulations was originally included in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, and following consultation we strengthened it in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. We recognise the importance of those regulations and see them as a high priority for the next Parliament, so that we can ensure that district and borough councils have a full role in the enhanced scrutiny regime being established in the Bill.

In closing, I echo my right hon. Friend’s comments by saying that I hope the Opposition amendments will be withdrawn. They are entirely unnecessary and in fact detrimental to the local government scrutiny regime that the Bill establishes.

It is a pleasure to wind up the debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) for having resorted to what is rather an old-fashioned practice in the House of actually responding to the points put forward in the debate. The Government, whom he supports, are a less powerful body as a result of his not being a member. Although I do not agree with the Government, he knows this subject and a lot of others well, and he has always treated us with respect and listened to the arguments that are put, over however short a period they have been developed. Unfortunately I have not had a hotline to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) to be able to take her further instructions on his points.

I am not sure that I go along with the right hon. Gentleman’s argument about the case against the affirmative resolution procedure. The mere fact that the negative procedure has not been utilised does not, I submit, mean that it is not appropriate to have the safeguard of the affirmative procedure.

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the complexity of having a whole series of district councils scrutinising one body, but there are situations such as that in Dorset, where each individual district council has a different take on the performance of the fire and rescue service as it operates in its own area. Last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) introduced an interesting debate on sustainable communities and the operation of the fire service in Windsor. I am not sure that the complexity of the situation would be resolved if the House failed to accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney. Ultimately, one would hope that if the district and county co-operate, with a combined scrutiny committee, they can decide for themselves which issues to raise. The fire authority could be brought before the scrutiny committee if Christchurch borough council were concerned about its activities. It would not be easy for the council to rely solely on a scrutiny committee comprised of members of other district councils and the county council.

That, however, is a debate that we can hold at much greater length on another occasion. The answer is to reduce the overlap between these different bodies, and I would certainly like to see directly elected police authorities, which would be a much better arrangement. I would also like to see—this is my personal view—directly elected and accountable fire authorities. That is probably a better way forward than introducing a complex system of joint scrutiny. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney accepts in a sense that that is the situation—we do not have directly elected fire authorities, police authorities, and a whole lot of other quangos involved in local government, which is why the solution is complex.

I look forward to a further discussion with my hon. Friend on the subject. It would be churlish, as I, like the Minister, support amendment 1, not to seek leave to withdraw amendment 8, and urge the House to accept amendment 1.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

‘( ) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consider their potential effect on small businesses and voluntary or community interest organisations.

For this purpose—

“small business” means a business that employs fewer than 50 employees;

“voluntary or community interest organisation” means an organisation (other than a local authority or other public body) whose activities are carried on—

(a) otherwise than for profit, or

(b) for the benefit of the community on the basis that any profits are reinvested in the business of the organisation or applied for the benefit of the community.’.—(Mr. Raynsford.)

Clause 8

Membership of overview and scrutiny committees

I beg to move amendment 25, page 5, line 18, leave out Clause 8.

With this we may consider amendment 2, page 5, leave out lines 26 to 30 and insert—

‘(a) allow an overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority (or a sub-committee of such a committee) to co-opt members of the authority’s executive as non-voting members of the committee (or sub-committee) for the purpose of considering a particular matter that does not involve it exercising functions in relation to the executive; and’.

Amendment 2 was tabled by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). Although it is an improvement on the existing wording of clause 8, the solution to the problem is better resolved by the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) to remove clause 8 in its entirety.

The clause deals with the membership of overview and scrutiny committees, and it seeks to amend section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000 by adding a regulation-making power that would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to

“allow an overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority, or a sub-committee of such a committee, to include members of the authority’s executive when the committee (or, as the case may be, sub-committee) is not exercising functions in relation to the executive; and…make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State about any conflict of interest arising.”

The key to the problem is in the final phrase,

“any conflict of interest arising.”

Either we effectively go for separation of powers and have an overview and scrutiny committee for a local authority executive, or we have the old-fashioned system, which I prefer, of committees, so that all members of the local authority have the same status in holding one another to account—although obviously, some will run the council or be the leader or chairman of a committee.

I am not sure that the overview and scrutiny process is the right solution, but I would not wish to be prescriptive. Rather, I would like less prescription, and to allow more local authorities to revert to the old committee structure if that is what they want to do. However, if we are going to have overview and scrutiny committees, it would be wrong to allow the executive to take places on them, certainly if they had voting powers, as envisaged in clause 8.

It might help the hon. Gentleman if I tell him that that is exactly the effect that amendment 2 would have—to prevent the executive members having a place by right on the committees. It would allow executive members to be invited in a co-opted role to the scrutiny committee when the committee believes that their expertise might be useful in relation to some outside matter, but not in relation to scrutiny of the authority or its executive. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that amendment 2 would achieve the objective he wants.

As always, the right hon. Gentleman is very persuasive, and I can see the advantages of amendment 2 over the clause as it stands. However, my preference—not just out of loyalty—is for the solution proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, which is to stop yet another regulation-making power being given to the Secretary of State. He should keep his nose out of such things and leave the arrangements for overview and scrutiny committees as they are, under the terms of section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000. That system seems to have been working. I have never heard a member of an overview and scrutiny committee saying, “Ah, but life would be much better if we’d been able to get the advice of a member of the executive.” The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s point is that an overview and scrutiny committee would only rarely decide that it was necessary to seek advice from a member of the authority’s executive.

This is therefore an academic argument. My view and those of the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney are close. We are basically saying that we think clause 8 is a load of nonsense. If one is being generous, as the right hon. Gentleman is, one says, “Well, let’s amend it and completely negate it, but not directly.” The approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and myself is more direct: we say, “It ain’t worth including in the Bill, so we want to remove it.”

I hope the House will not accept the amendment.

Amendment 25 negatived.

Clause 8

Membership of overview and scrutiny committees

Amendment made: 2, page 5, leave out lines 26 to 30 and insert—

‘(a) allow an overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority (or a sub-committee of such a committee) to co-opt members of the authority’s executive as non-voting members of the committee (or sub-committee) for the purpose of considering a particular matter that does not involve it exercising functions in relation to the executive; and’.—(Mr. Raynsford.)

Object.

Bill to be read the Third time on Monday 15 March.

In accordance with the decision of my predecessors, I regard amendments which do not bear the name of the Member in charge as constituting notice of opposition to the Bill.

Bill to be considered on Friday 23 April.

DEBT RELIEF (DEVELOPING COUNTRIES) BILL

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

Object.

Who objected?

It is certainly not for me to identify who objected.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member who objected may have been the Member who chaired the Committee, who is actually responsible for reporting the Bill to the House. This Bill has all-party agreement and considerable concessions were made in Committee. If the objection came from the person who chaired the Committee, I believe that that would be out of order.

No. I am afraid the hon. Member is misguided in assuming that.

Bill to be considered on Thursday 18 March.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE SUPPORT BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April.

ILLEGALLY LOGGED TIMBER (PROHIBITION OF SALE) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April.

SCHOoL ADMISSIONS BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 March.

YOUNG PEOPLE LEAVING CARE (ACCOMMODATION) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April.

CLIMATE CHANGE (SECTORAL TARGETS) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April.

LIVE MUSIC BILL [LORDS]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 March.

CONTAMINATed BLOOD (SUPPORT FOR INFECTED AND BEREAVED PERSONS) BILL [LORDS]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 March.

Remembrance Sunday (Closure of Shops) Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Object.

Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April.

I open this debate by thanking the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office. It would appear that not only are they highly competent and hard-working Ministers, but they have a crystal ball, because most of what I intended to call for in this debate was highlighted recently in the Home Secretary’s announcement on Tuesday of the consultation to take place on toughening up existing laws to protect the public from dangerous dogs. Or perhaps Stourbridge just has a psychic MP!

I will begin by explaining how a reign of terror by two dogs, of the presa canario breed, in Stourbridge, and the increase in the west midlands of dogfighting and breeding for fighting, prompted me to call for this debate. Wollescote is one of the most ancient parts of my constituency, and one of the nicest places in which to walk and play is the green space by Rufford primary school. Presa canario dogs are Canary island fighting dogs, and a relatively new breed to this country. Two such dogs have been allowed by their owner to run free on this field for some time, and have attacked other dogs and chased and frightened young children and parents on their way to and from school. On each occasion it has been reported, and the police have attended, but of course the incident is usually long finished.

I am sure the Minister can imagine that such dogs do not sit well with pensioners out for a stroll, responsible dog walkers and primary school children. The presa canario is classed as a dangerous dog in the USA, and quite recently two of these dogs killed a trainer in Los Angeles. Further details of the breed are available on the internet—it makes quite alarming reading. Although I know most people would agree that, as a rule, there are few dangerous dogs but many irresponsible owners, in this case I would like the Minister to investigate this breed and consider it for inclusion on the dangerous breeds list.

There have been several local meetings on this issue, because obviously my constituents are concerned by what is effectively antisocial behaviour of the worst kind. As a result of those meetings, local people have come up with a set of clearly defined requests. First, they are asking for clearer Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs guidance on prohibited dogs, because there appears to be a great deal of confusion over cross breeds, in particular, as well as the protracted detention of such dogs while awaiting assessment. They would like stricter licensing of new breeds, and are asking how anyone could have gained a licence for a presa canario given that it is known to be a fighting breed.

Local people would also like irresponsible owners who allow their dogs to intimidate or harm others to be held responsible for veterinary or medical bills resulting from an attack. They are asking also for stricter legislation to enable the police to seize and detain any dog that attacks. Local people also asked for stricter law enforcement when a dog owner disregards police advice, and for a review of dog control orders and local council responsibility for their implementation in public areas, because the question of who is responsible for which area has made the problem quite difficult to sort out in Wollescote.

Whether such terrorising is due to the breeding of the dog or the irresponsibility of the owner goes right to the heart of the issues that Ministers need to consult on. I have spoken to many of my constituents about the proposals to tighten the law and to local police officers who deal with dangerous dogs, and I can tell the Minister that they are very keen to support the proposals.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals saw a twelvefold increase in complaints about dogfights between 2004 and 2008, and there are significant increases in the west midlands in particular. Dogfighting—both caged fights and rolling fights, usually organised quickly in parks and open spaces—is becoming extremely well organised and is seen as a great money spinner. The main focus is usually on pit bull-type dogs. They are bred to reach an extreme state of attack arousal much more quickly than other dogs and to maintain it for longer. That, coupled with their strong physical stature, makes pit bull-type dogs the dog of choice in such situations. They also attract a certain element of society who sees a status value in owning such a dog or regards them as so-called weapon dogs.

Dangerous dogs are widely used by gangs and criminals to intimidate and cause injury, and possession is associated with worrying elements of antisocial behaviour and gang culture. Sadly, the dogs are often victims too, suffering from cruelty, neglect or conditioning to encourage further aggressive behaviour. The RSPCA reports a recent explosion in the numbers of such dogs, particularly with indiscriminate breeding across cities. Exhausted bitches are regularly brought to animal hospitals, having been used as breeding machines, which has also led to a flooded market. The puppies that once earned their owners £200 to £250 now fetch only around £100, so many are now abandoned, which is an additional problem.

Part of the problem is that dogfighting is still legal in many parts of the world. It is important that people realise that dogfighting is most definitely unacceptable and against the law in this country; indeed, along with many of my colleagues, I regard it as cruel as fox hunting.

I would like to commend the west midlands dangerous dogs unit and the work that it does, particularly in identifying, investigating and seizing such dogs, and in bringing their owners to justice. I spent time with members of the unit when I participated in the police parliamentary scheme two years ago. I am filled with admiration for their dedication to duty and their skilled handling of complex and dangerous situations.

Let me turn quickly to the consultation. I am pleased to see that the Government want to update the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, to ensure that it works better and enables the police, local authorities and the RSPCA to take swift action to protect the public and other animals, and to stop abuse. It is particularly helpful that the Government want to extend legislation to cover private property, so that postal workers, engineers, health visitors and so on can be protected and allowed to do their job in safety. I have spoken to a midwife and a social worker this week who described how frightened they feel when visiting a home where such dogs are allowed inside or even allowed close to the babies or children they are attending. I have long felt that we surely owe a duty of care to such workers. We must protect them from fear or injury when they attend family homes in the course of their duties.

Along with many dog welfare institutions, I welcome the news that dogs should be microchipped and that insurance is to be considered. I would, however, like to flag up an area of concern. We must consider the cost of such items for pensioners and those on fixed incomes. We must also think about how we would enforce such measures, especially among those whom we consider to be irresponsible owners, who might be less likely to have insurance.

I was also pleased to hear that the Home Office is increasing funding to the Association of Chief Police Officers to help the police to train dog legislation officers, matching the funding from DEFRA last year. Alongside all this, it is essential that well-funded and targeted education programmes are encouraged, to assist in persuading dog owners to be more responsible for the care and control of their pets. I hope that the Government will take on board the wishes of my constituents during the consultation, so that the law relating to dogs can function better, and that the dogs, their owners and the wider public can cease living in fear or with cruelty.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) on securing this very well-timed debate. She is not only psychic but assiduous in her work on behalf of her constituents, and not least on this issue, which has caused widespread concern throughout the United Kingdom. The debate provides an opportunity to discuss dangerous dogs legislation. I present my apologies to the House for the absence of my colleague Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick). I give him credit for bringing forward the timely consultation on this issue, and he would have loved to be here today, but I will happily try to fill his shoes.

The debate is well timed because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge mentioned, only this week the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office launched a wide-ranging public consultation on dangerous dogs legislation. Let me explain why we have done that now. We are responding to the genuine and widespread public concern about the problem of dangerous dogs, and to the question of whether the law in this area is adequate. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has reported a twelvefold increase in complaints about dogfighting between 2004 and 2008 in London alone, and 719 dangerous dogs were seized by the police between April 2008 and April 2009. That recent increase in the numbers of attacks and prosecutions show that we should consider the matter urgently.

Members of Parliament will shortly be using the services of postal workers. The postmen and women will go about the country, delivering our leaflets that will seek to persuade people to get out and vote, one way or the other. The Communication Workers Union has campaigned assiduously for the law to be amended, the better to prevent attacks on postal workers. I have certainly come close to some full-frontal confrontations with a variety of dogs in my time, as I am sure have other hon. Members. We try to do our best, but postal workers have to do that every day, so we must take their views into account.

The Government share the concerns about dangerous dogs, including dogs that are being used to threaten and intimidate people, as well as those that present a risk because they are just not being controlled properly. That is totally unacceptable, and in the consultation we are asking those who enforce the law as well as animal welfare organisations, the general public and Members of Parliament for their views on what needs to be done. We are asking about a range of measures aimed at dealing with the problem.

The press has, perhaps understandably, tended to major on dog control notices and third party insurance. I would therefore like to say a quick word about microchipping. This is already done by responsible dog owners, and it can be done quite cheaply. I know that many police officers and local authorities feel that if it were to become mandatory, they would be better equipped to trace and deal with irresponsible owners.

I was a little surprised by comments made over the last few days by the Opposition Front-Bench team stating that the Government have been slow to pick up on a problem that has been around for years. On the contrary; the Government have responded very quickly to what I have just described as a problem that in the scale of its escalation is very new.

Five years ago, the Metropolitan police seized just 42 dogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. In 2009-10, the figure is likely to exceed 1,100. There are similarly depressing figures on the kennelling costs incurred by the Metropolitan police, showing that the problem is not just the capture and identification of these dogs, but the fact that they have to be kennelled. Somebody has to pay for that; it is the taxpayer, through the police. In 2008-09, £1.35 million was spent on the kennelling of seized dogs; this year, the figure has risen to £2.65 million, and it has been necessary to allocate £2.85 million for the next financial year. Those figures show a rapidly and recently deteriorating system, which is why the Government are determined to act now.

Changing the law is only one aspect of solving the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge remarked on that herself. Much more important are changing attitudes and fostering responsible dog ownership. We should not forget, however, that despite all the tabloid headlines, there are a lot of responsible dog owners out there in the country. In this context, I am particularly heartened by the fact that a growing number of community-based projects during the last few years have been aimed at encouraging responsible dog ownership. They involve the police, local authorities, community groups and animal welfare organisations going out into particular areas where there are problems in order to encourage responsible dog ownership. What do they do? These initiatives involve talking to people to encourage a responsible attitude to dog ownership and they offer practical help, including with regard to microchipping and neutering.

It would be unfair and invidious of me to single out particular welfare organisations that are in the vanguard of encouraging responsible dog ownership, but I must take the opportunity to pay particular thanks to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dogs Trust, the Mayhew Trust, the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals and the Blue Cross for the fantastic work they do to encourage people to give their dogs the care that they deserve.

We have heard from my hon. Friend about the presa canario breed. I can reassure her that the Government go into the consultation with an open mind on possible legislative changes. We have advanced for consultation a number of different ideas on changes. I would be interested to hear more of my hon. Friend’s views and I am sure that both DEFRA and the Home Office would welcome from her a further detailed response to the consultation, representing the views of her constituents, which she does so well. The consultation opened on 9 March 2010 and will close on 31 May, so there is plenty of time for my hon. Friend to contribute her views. She will consult her constituents further and I know that she will seek out a wide range of views to present.

I am aware of campaigns to add more dogs to the list of types banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The consultation will help me and my ministerial colleagues better to assess the case for adding more types and breeds to the banned list. However, we will also need to consider whether imposing bans is the best solution. Some hon. Members have made the point that the emphasis in new legislation should be on the deed—that is, the risk presented by any type or breed of dog—rather than the breed itself. That is one of the issues covered by the consultation.

The consultation is only the most recent evidence of the seriousness with which the Government take this issue. We have already taken a number of other steps that we believe will make an impact. My hon. Friend has already spoken about the sterling work of the West Midlands police force. I suspect that some of her insights have not only been gained from constituents who have been confronted by some of these dangerous dogs—and, occasionally, their owners—but have arisen from her service on the police parliamentary scheme.

I fully endorse my hon. Friend’s comments about the West Midlands police. They are among the leading forces in tackling the problem of dangerous dogs. They work closely with the RSPCA in tackling the scourge of organised dogfighting. Who, in this century, could smile on that sort of activity? It is sheer madness. The police also deal with more general issues relating to antisocial behaviour involving dogs, and have developed effective policies and procedures to tackle problems caused by dangerous dogs.

My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties that police officers can experience in identifying banned breeds. Last year the Association of Chief Police Officers introduced a programme of training for officers who are responsible for dealing with dogs, and I am pleased to say that it covers recognition of pit bull types. I am also pleased to say that—as my hon. Friend rightly acknowledged—DEFRA and the Home Office are contributing to the cost of the training.

DEFRA’s policy has been to improve the way in which current legislation is enforced nationwide. We do not simply produce legislation and hope that the problem has been solved; we know that we must continue to learn. In 2008, we produced a clear and easy-to-read leaflet intended to better inform the public about current law on dangerous dogs. In 2009 we issued widely welcomed guidance on the law, aimed at those who enforce the legislation. The guidance, written in association with the police and the RSPCA as well as some local authorities, sets out the current law on dangerous dogs, and advises enforcers on how the law can be used effectively to tackle the problem of irresponsible dog ownership.

The guidance recommends that each force should have, or have access to, a designated dog legislation officer who knows the law and how it can be used to best effect. Last year, DEFRA provided £20,000 to help fund training courses for new DLOs. The West Midlands police force has played a central role in the provision of DLO training and the Home Office has just announced another one-off grant of £20,000 to fund further training.

But that is not all. In 2009, DEFRA commissioned new research on dog aggression against humans. The project will last for 15 months, and will entail an analytical study of the risk factors associated with past aggressive dog behaviour towards people. At the end of last year, DEFRA published a code of practice for the welfare of dogs. It provides advice on owning a dog and responsible dog ownership, and will come into force on 6 April. DEFRA has also worked with the Ministry of Justice, Her Majesty’s Courts Service, the police and the RSPCA to produce new guidance for the courts on the handling of dangerous dog cases. The guidance has just been published, and we hope that it will help courts to improve the processing of cases involving dogs.

We are working across Government to tackle this issue, because it straddles several areas. The Home Office has recently sponsored the passage of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, which includes a new prohibition in the gang-related violence provisions to prevent gang members from being in charge of an animal in a public place if it has been proved that they have engaged in, or encouraged or assisted, gang-related violence.

I think it is a very good thing that there is to be wide-ranging consultation. The debate is timely: it will make not only my hon. Friend’s constituents but the wider public aware that they need to submit their views to the consultation. The problem of dangerous dogs has been escalating, which is why we need to consider how we can reform the legislation and the way in which we deal with it.

I hope I have reassured the House that the Government recognise the seriousness of the problem and that they continue to take it seriously, to monitor it and, in line with the consultation, to consider useful suggestions of ways in which we can manage the situation better.

Question put and agreed to.