Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Friday 3 February 1995

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

Prayers

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Bill Presented

Licensing (Sunday Hours)

Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Dorrell and Mr. Michael Forsyth presented a Bill to amend the provisions of the Licensing Act 1964 relating to permitted hours in licensed premises and clubs on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 6 February, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

Orders Of The Day

Proceeds Of Crime Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

9.34 am

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

This is third time lucky for me in the private Members' ballot. I was also lucky last year in the private motions ballot, so I am not going to buy any more lottery tickets as I am sure that my luck has now run out. However, I am delighted to have the opportunity to present this Bill. Although it may appear a narrow and fairly technical measure—I apologise for its technicalities—it is none the less an ambitious one and I am confident that hon. Members of all parties will support its aims and principles.

The Bill aims to make life much more difficult for those who profit from crime and especially those who make a living out of the proceeds of crime, those whom we call the life-style criminals. It bites on a whole range of serious and acquisitive crimes except drug trafficking and terrorism, which are covered by their own legislation.

The proposals follow recent improvements to the drug trafficking confiscation scheme which, by an apt coincidence, comes into force this very day. Like those recent improvements in the powers of the courts to confiscate the proceeds of drugs offences, the proposals have their origins in a report of the Home Office working group on confiscation which was established in 1990 to monitor and develop the confiscation legislation. They do not alter the fundamental nature of the all-crime confiscation scheme; rather, they are intended to build on and strengthen the existing powers in part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and bring its powers more closely into line with the drug trafficking provisions as they now stand following the entry into force today of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994.

One of the concerns highlighted in the Home Office working group's report, which I draw to the House's attention, is the infrequent use being made of the confiscation powers in the 1988 Act. Home Office statistics show that in the financial year 1993–94 only 13 "non-drugs" confiscation orders were made by the courts to a total value of some £412,000. Of that sum, only £265,600 has been paid over to the Secretary of State. That is disappointing, to say the least, and such sums can only be a drop in the ocean of profits that criminals are making out of their lifestyles of crime. The Bill is designed to make our laws much more effective in removing profits from the criminal fraternity..

I congratulate my hon. Friend on promoting the Bill. Is he aware that the proposals that he is outlining have been warmly welcomed by the police and correspond four square with the evidence given to the Select Committee on Home Affairs during its current inquiry into organised crime and the need to widen the provisions to enable greater confiscation of criminal proceeds?

Yes, I am aware of the support of the police and hon. Members of all parties for the measure, which will extend the available powers and place a duty on the courts.

Clause 1 imposes a duty on the court to make a confiscation order where written notice is tendered by the prosecutor. At present, the court has a discretion, so the clause would bring part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 into line with drug trafficking provisions and ensure that in future the courts make a confiscation order to the full amount of the defendant's financial benefit from crime. In line with the arrangements for drug trafficking, if the prosecutor does not tender a notice, the court may still make an order of its own volition.

Clause 1 also abolishes the £10,000 minimum amount currently applicable to confiscation orders under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which follows the approach taken in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill being considered in another place. It must be wrong, as I am sure that hon. Members would agree, that criminals should know themselves to be safe from confiscation wherever they have—ostensibly—less than £10,000 of benefit or of realisable property. There has never been a lower limit for drug trafficking, and the same should apply for all indictable offences.

Of course, it costs money to pursue a confiscation case through the courts. Prosecutors will no doubt have the likely costs and benefits very much in mind when they consider whether to tender a notice asking the court to confiscate proceeds in a given case. Few cases below the £10,000 threshold may be considered viable and the cost would be greater than the benefit. On the other hand, confiscation orders may still be made and sums realised in cases involving benefit and property below £10,000 without imposing disproportionate costs on the courts. I suspect that the Government will wish to monitor that closely to ensure that public money is used to best effect.

Clause 2 is the cutting edge of the Bill. Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 permits the courts to confiscate only the proceeds of any offences of which the defendant is convicted, plus the benefit from any offences taken into consideration. Unfortunately, as a result, the 1988 Act has had little effect on criminals who amass large profits by repeating similar offences over a period of years. The best example of that is the difficulty illustrated by pornographic videos. A criminal may copy and distribute thousands of videos a month, but the production of each video will constitute a separate offence. For the entire proceeds of that criminal enterprise to be confiscated under the 1988 Act, every offence would have to charged and convicted separately or taken into consideration by the court.

Unfortunately, the courts may take offences into consideration only with the defendant's consent and lifestyle criminals are well aware of the possibility of their ill-gotten gains being confiscated if they allow the court to take too many offences into consideration and will obviously not allow it. Clause 2 addresses those problems.

Under certain circumstances, which I shall describe, clause 2 empowers the courts to assume that all property passed through the defendant's hands in the past six years has come from crime. If the defendant cannot show that assumption to be wrong, in whole or in part, the cout will be able to order the defendant to pay an amount equivalent to that assumed benefit. The Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 has always allowed similar assumptions to be made on the strength of one drug trafficking conviction.

I fully understand that it is essential that the court may make assumptions, but does my hon. Friend agree that it may be possible to go further still, as the Drug Trafficking Offences Act does, and require the court to make those assumptions? Would he consider that sensible?

As I shall describe, the Bill places certain requirements on the court, and the onus to prove otherwise will fall very much on the defendant. Nevertheless, since general crime is distinct from clearly defined drug trafficking offences, the assumptions require a little more latitude. I shall address that point in more detail.

First, the courts have power to make assumptions only when the prosecutor regards the case as suitable and tenders a declaration to that effect. Secondly, assumptions may be made only when there is some indication of a pattern of offending. We are aiming at catching the life-style criminals. Either the defendant must have been convicted of another qualifying offence in the previous six years or he must stand convicted of four or more qualifying offences.

Thirdly, the court has overriding discretion to make assumptions, which is quite different from the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, under which the court is obliged, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) pointed out, to make more far-reaching assumptions in all cases, even when sentencing a first-time offender for a single drug trafficking offence. The Bill enables the courts to confiscate benefits from offenders who have previously been able to keep their profits. However, the Bill also establishes necessary safeguards to ensure that the new powers are not used in undeserving cases.

Clauses 3 and 4 recognise that information is essential in confiscation hearings. They ensure that the court has the opportunity to get the information it needs in a reasonable period. Clause 3 requires the prosecutor to give the court a statement or statements about the defendant's benefit from crime. At present, the production of a statement is discretionary. Conversely, clause 4 allows the court to order the defendant to provide any information that it considers relevant to the making of a confiscation order.

As hon. Members will readily appreciate, the amount and whereabouts of proceeds is very often known only to the defendant. Clause 4 will help the courts to assess the value of the confiscation order. Failure to comply with the court order will, of course, put the defendant in contempt of court. Clauses 3 and 4 echo the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, as do the revaluation powers in clauses 5 to 7. At present, under part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the courts are powerless to confiscate the value of the benefit, which was made from crime but discovered after the original proceedings. The Bill will enable courts to confiscate additional benefit within six years of the defendant's conviction on an application by the prosecutor.

Clause 8 closes a loophole in serious and lucrative crime which is already closed in drug trafficking. Since confiscation orders made under the 1988 Act are enforced like fines in many respects, the service of a term of imprisonment in default of payment expunges the debt for the amount payable under the order. In some cases, that means that the offender can hang on to substantial ill-gotten gains by serving a short term of imprisonment in default of payment—an issue raised in almost every radio interview that I have given regarding the B ill—which is contrary to the spirit of the confiscation legislation.

I am sure that hon. Members will share my view that there should be no question of choice between paying the court's confiscation order and going to prison and keeping the profits. The Bill will prevent that choice from arising in future. Even when a default term has been served, it will still be possible to enforce a confiscation order by other means.

Clause 9 is a further enforcement measure. At present, if they wish, the courts can allow time for the payment of a confiscation order. That may sometimes be necessary when, for instance, a property is to be disposed of because, often, the criminal sinks the proceeds into property as quickly as possible. However, defendants who fail to pay up promptly can benefit from the interest accruing on the unpaid account, which is quite wrong. Clause 9, therefore, allows the courts to add interest on the unpaid amount and treat it as part of the confiscation order. Again, that echoes drug trafficking legislation.

The remaining clauses of the Bill essentially provide more effective asset-tracing powers for use by our enforcement authorities. Clause 11 allows the police and customs officers, who have been heavily involved in the preparation of the Bill, to obtain material for use in an investigation into whether a person has benefited from any criminal conduct or into the extent of any proceeds and their whereabouts. Clause 12 enables a search warrant to be issued for the same purpose.

Those new powers are based on powers in clauses 27 and 28 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act and are designed to enable the enforcement authorities to gain access to confidential banking and other material which could be of substantial use in financial investigations. The powers of drug trafficking legislation have proved an effective tool, especially in the early stages of a drug trafficking investigation. That is operated on an international scale. We can all cite instances of crimes in respect of which the public are fed up and disgusted with the lack of follow-up. As a result of the Bill, the police will be able to carry out the necessary investigations so that ultimately the proceeds can be confiscated.

The House clearly has a duty to ensure that the appropriate authorities have the necessary tools to unearth the true extent of a criminal's benefit from crime. The new measures include all the appropriate safeguards and they are limited to investigations into the proceeds of crime. They do not extend police powers generally.

Clause 13 is modelled on provisions originally in section 30 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. It incorporates the safeguards in the drug trafficking legislation. It allows the High Court to order Government Departments to produce material which is likely to be of use in restraining, charging and realising property under part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Where the High Court permits, material produced may be disclosed to other agencies to assist in the fight against crime.

I believe that I have given a fair and accurate description of the aims, principles and content of the Bill. In my view, it is absolutely essential that the courts and the enforcement authorities should be able to deal effectively with lucrative crime of all kinds. The Bill will go a long way towards achieving that, and I am confident that it will be welcomed by hon. Members and the general public. I commend it to the House.

9.50 am

I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir John Hannam) on his luck in the ballot and on choosing this subject. He has presented his concerns and the concerns of hon. Members and of the general public very clearly. I am a member of the British delegation to the Council of Europe and I serve on the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee. We held meetings in Strasbourg this week in which we had detailed discussions about the problem of drug trading and dealing. The hon. Member for Exeter referred to that point.

It is clear that drug crime and every other form of major crime is now highly organised. Criminals do not simply deal in drugs on a national and international basis. We are aware that very large sums of money are involved in crime.

I am glad to see the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), in the Chamber today. He will be aware that we are not talking about the little groups of villains which, sadly, exist in many parts of the country and elsewhere. Those villains cause trouble, commit robberies, steal and beat up people if they step out of line. We are talking about organised crime which has international links.

The financial rewards of international organised crime are enormous: enormous sums of money are made. The people who run those organisations are very rarely caught. The lower ranks are caught and appear before the courts. Wandsworth prison is in my constituency, and I sometimes get to know inmates and the kind of offences which have caused them to be in prison.

However, the people who are making enormous sums of money and who are building up their empires are rarely caught. I wish the Bill every success, but, with respect, the hon. Member for Exeter omitted to refer to one or two points. I am sure that he would not be opposed to the comments that I propose to make later. I believe that we should confiscate the assets of the people who run the organisations and, if they are convicted by our courts, they should be sent to prison for a very long time.

A few moments ago, I said that we were concerned about drugs and the vast sums of money that can be earned from that form of criminal activity. Hon Members may have listened to this morning's "Today" programme. According to a report on that programme, a large number of police officers in a police station in the Bronx were actively involved with people who were trading in drugs in New York. From that brief report, it appeared that one officer had well over $1 million stuffed in a holdall in his locker in the police station.

That report illustrates the amount of money involved and the extent of the corruption that takes place at all levels. Not only police officers are involved; sadly, corruption occurs in many spheres of day-to-day life and it involves people who have authority to make decisions.

With regard to other aspects of crime and the vast sums of money involved, we must consider the illegal arms trade. We know something about that activity. If our colleagues from Northern Ireland were here today, I am sure that they could speak at length about the illegal arms which found their way into Northern Ireland from far-away countries. Those arms are were not given; they were sold. They were obviously being sold for very large sums of money, and that money had to be filtered through other channels so that it appeared to be clean and not dirty money.

We should also consider the traffic in stolen art. Many pictures are extremely valuable. They sell for very large sums of money. There are professional criminals and thieves operating in the art world.

Although I am a London Member, I am aware that car crime occurs in all parts of the country. I recall that, two or three years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) bought quite a pricey motor car, having regard to the distance that he has to travel from his home to this place. That car was stolen. When he went to the police, they said, "We've got to tell you, your chances of ever seeing your car again are zero. In our view, that car could well be somewhere in Europe today." Car stealing groups in this country and elsewhere in Europe make enormous sums of money. Although we are aware of that crime, it is not easy to contain it or to obtain the information which the hon. Member for Exeter seeks to obtain in his Bill.

The hon. Member for Exeter referred to pornography. Pornography is undoubtedly one of the growth industries. Again, we are talking about very large sums of money. Far be it from me to name people, because they would then say, "He is just taking advantage of parliamentary privilege," but there are extremely wealthy people in London. We often read about them in the daily press. They are proud to say, "I have been associated with the pornography industry for years. That's how I made my money." They own substantial businesses and large properties. We certainly know that the pornography trade is not run by a little group in the United Kingdom; its links are worldwide. It is now easy to move around the world.

There are some who say that, by and large, the single market could be a good thing. The Minister may wish to comment on the problems that the single market has caused.

The next problem to which I refer is not talked about very much, but it certainly exists—Hon. Members who serve in the Council of Europe certainly discuss it with their colleagues there. It occurs in the present central European countries—the old eastern European countries—in which, sadly, life can be very hard for many people. There is now clear evidence of a flourishing trade in women in certain eastern European countries. Because of the hardship that those women and their families suffer, some might think, "Prostitution is not the kind of life that I would like, but if it will give me money to help my family, I might do it for a while." There is evidence of such women being moved around countries in Europe.

How do we tackle the people who indulge in that evil trade? As we know, it is easy for someone to approach women, especially young women, and say, "Look, we are seeking hostesses, dancers and others in the entertainment world." I am sure that the most honourable of women would think, "I would like to do that." They are then moved to a foreign country whose laws they know nothing about and where they know no one. They then become the virtual prisoners of the people who move them from country to country.

There is evidence of that—it does not receive much coverage, but it most certainly happens. I do not say that we should spend much time on that subject today, but perhaps the Minister will comment on it.

The hon. Member for Exeter will be the first to agree that the people whose activities he wants to curb and whose ill-gotten gains he wishes to recover are highly professional. I am sure that he agrees that it will be very hard to do that.

I have a paper that was prepared and presented by a senior official of the Italian law enforcement office. It makes very interesting reading. I suppose that all hon. Members have heard of the Mafia and have seen "The Godfather". Hon. Members possibly enjoyed such films and thought, "Well, perhaps a little bit of it is true, but much of it is typical Hollywood make-believe." That is not the case, according to that official's paper. It shows that there are many other highly organised, professional criminal groups in Italy.

You, Madam Deputy Speaker, might ask me, "What does Italy have to do with the hon. Gentleman's Bill?" The answer is, a great deal. Crime knows no boundaries, nor do those who organise crime. It is easy for people from Italy or from the United Kingdom to be in each other's country in two or three hours. One has a passport, one goes to the appropriate airport, and one is away. Obviously, one can quickly meet somebody abroad.

As the paper shows, we are dealing with organisations. Until I read that paper and talked to people from Italy, I did not fully understand the extent of organised crime. We are talking about family groups who live in Italy, the United States, Argentina and Venezuela—they could live in this country—who have close links. They meet not to talk about the weather but about how they organise their racket. That is of great concern to us.

The Italian official's paper highlights enormous problems for the courts. Sadly, the hon. Gentleman will find out about them as he pilots his Bill through its Committee stage. I shall certainly support him fully. The paper states:

"In the complex investigative field in which we operate, changes in orientations and methods evolve rapidly. In addition, these changes involve not only criminals' new operational schemes, but also the last achievements of technology, such as fax machines, computers, cellular phones and global satellite mobiles and so on."

Through their wealth and their international organisations, people have been able to pursue their criminal activities.

There is no cut in criminals' funding. No criminal organisation ever says, "We should be doing that, but just think of the money." I do not make a party political point, because it could happen under any Government, but hon. Members repeatedly express concern about the lack of sufficient funding for police forces to try to combat crime at whatever level.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the confiscation of assets. No one other than criminals would object to that. However, we are not talking only about bank transactions. Many people often think that criminals put large sums of money in a bank or perhaps in several banks so that there are smaller amounts, but we are not talking about that. Evidence has been submitted to us in the Council of Europe, and I am sure that the Home Office has also received information. We may be talking about property investment, and I do not mean the family house. There is clear evidence that large properties and businesses, such as night clubs or casinos, are being bought.

I am sure that the Minister knows that it is easy to launder money through such businesses. The owners can fill in books and allow inspections, but it can be difficult to charge anyone running those organisations, although the authorities may not believe that all the money the owners are declaring has been paid in the course of gaming transactions in the casino. How do we tackle those people, and the confusion they cause?

Another thing which amazes me—I should no longer be amazed at what criminals get up to—is that there is a lucrative market for criminals in antique furniture. I do not mean anything cheap or tatty, but antique furniture of elegance and great value. It is the easiest thing in the world for someone who has bought furniture quickly to pass it on, and that is a great problem with which the Bill must deal.

I return to the report from the senior Italian officer. A short comment highlights what I am talking about. In June 1993, the leader of a criminal group purchased a boat for 1 billion lire. Some of that money had previously been changed into Dutch guilders and Swiss francs, and eventually the money was transferred to the seller from a Swiss bank. My understanding is that the gentleman sold the boat not long after buying.

I would like to know what checks are being made—or can be made—within the single market. It is easy to move from country to country, and the traffic in women exists because there are few border controls. As an example, I came home last night from the Council of Europe. I was in Strasbourg, and was taken by car across the Swiss border. There were no checks, the car did not stop at customs or immigration and we were just waved through. We were making a perfectly honourable journey, but there could be many people who are not.

A point that we must examine is extradition. Let us think about two recent cases which perhaps did not involve drugs. I suppose that I can name the gentleman in the first case, because he is presently serving a prison sentence. Mr. Ronnie Knight and his friends made life very enjoyable and pleasant for themselves in Spain from the proceeds of crime, and they received massive press coverage. Only Knight knows the reasons he had for coming back, but eventually he did come back. The House will know of the on-going difficulties that we experience in this area, and the Government—to their credit—had tried to get that gentleman back.

I am told that there are a number of people in Spain whom the police authorities here would like to interview—to use the polite jargon—but they cannot get them back. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what kind of discussions are taking place with countries in the European Union, and we must not forget that Spain is a member of the EU. There are a number of people who have, frankly, paid no regard to the laws of this country and, to use a somewhat crude expression, have put two fingers up to authority and said that they could not care less. They know that we can do nothing about them, and they continue to live as pleasantly as they can from their gains from crime.

It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how he thinks the Bill could be strengthened to tackle the issue of extradition. The House will remember also the Brinks-Mat robbery at Heathrow some years ago, when large sums were taken. Some individuals went into hiding abroad, and there was nothing we could do about it.

I shall be careful about the next person to whom I refer, as I realise that there may be criminal proceedings in the pipeline. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) has asked questions in the past couple of weeks to the Attorney-General about Mr. Nadir. We know that he is in northern Cyprus, and we know that there is a great deal of evidence which the police may wish to use in charges against him. It would obviously then be for the courts to decide whether, based on that evidence, Mr. Nadir was guilty.

There was a conference in Cyprus on legal affairs some years ago, and I think that the then Lord Chancellor went there to try to talk to Mr. Denktash in an effort to build relations and in the hope that Mr. Nadir could be sent back to the UK. Nothing happened, and he is still there. That is another example of a person who may have committed offences, yet whom the police cannot question.

I welcome the Bill, but aspects of it could still be tightened. The Bill goes outside the existing legislation regarding drug offences, and I would like to know how much co-operation we are seeking from member states of the EU. That has great relevance. We should know if any have similar legislation at present and, if so, how it is working.

Those of us who have been in this place for a while know that when Bills go into Committee, amendments may be tabled by other Members or by the Government. If there is a general willingness to see the Bill go throughߞI hope that there is such a willingness on this Bill—there is no harm in amendments being tabled in Committee.

I referred to the fact that I serve on the Council of Europe. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on the point that I have just made. I would like him and his officials to find out how many of the other 11 member states have similar legislation; whether it is working; and what weaknesses they have found. I have concentrated my remarks on the 11 members, because we know of the rules that govern the interaction of members of the European Unionߞ

Order. I am sorry to interrupt to hon. Gentleman, but we are looking at a Bill that deals with the recovery of the proceeds of criminal conduct, and it seems to me that, although some background is certainly desirable, he is now dealing with matters that could not possibly relate to the Second Reading of the Bill.

I note what you say, Madam Speaker, and will bear it in mind. I was simply giving examples to show that the European Union suffers from the same kinds of problems that the hon. Member for Exeter seeks to overcome in his Bill. Surely this is an opportunity, before the Bill becomes law—I hope that it goes through all its stages without problems—to say that we have consulted other countries and believe that it is a good thing, because I can think of legislation that was introduced some time ago with regard to the control of firearms, but not long afterwards, we found that there were loopholes in the legislation. That is the point that I was making.

I warmly welcome the Bill and the way in which it was presented by the hon. Gentleman. I have outlined other matters which I believe fit into the overall discussion that we are entitled to have on Second Reading. It is no good simply saying, "It is a wonderful Bill; I am going to support it and I hope that everyone else does," without saying, "Yes, I will support the Bill, but are we really aware of this problem, or that problem?" I hope that, when it is considered in Committee it will not be rushed through, because that is the opportunity to look in detail at the worthwhile proposals that the hon. Gentleman has presented in the Bill and outlined today. I for one offer him my fullest support.

10.22 am

Before any more hon. Members speak, I shall take this early opportunity to express the Government's position on the Bill, which may influence other speeches. I want to set at rest any doubt about whether the Government support it.

The Government are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) for introducing the Bill to deprive criminals of wealth accumulated from crime, and it has our full support. I am delighted, although not surprised, that it has received a warm welcome from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Most hon. Members recognise that tough laws are necessary to ensure that criminals do not enjoy a living from crime, at the cost and suffering of those who live within the law. The Bill tackles the problem head on, and my hon. Friend can be assured that the Government will continue to give him all the support and assistance necessary to ensure that it is enacted.

In the two years since the publication of the Home Office working group's second report, the need to strengthen the courts' powers to confiscate the proceeds of non-drugs crime has become even more acute, as the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) pointed out. The statistics quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter in his opening remarks speak for themselves. Last year, confiscation orders under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 realised the meagre sum of £265,600. Clearly, many criminals—too many—are continuing to benefit from their crimes and are keeping their profits.

My hon. Friend gave a full description of the main contents of the Bill, and I do not think that the House would want me to delay other speeches by repeating ad nauseam what he said or by running through the clauses. With your permission, however, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to say that the Government particularly support the innovative proposals in clause 2. The fact that the law does not deal effectively with criminals who persist in a life style of crime and make a good living from doing so has been of great concern to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and me for some time.

Although, for good reasons, the proposals in clause 2 fall short of the powers available in drug trafficking and terrorism legislation, they are, none the less, hard hitting, and I am confident that once the legislation begins to bite criminals will be far less confident about their ability to hold on to their ill-gotten gains. Safeguards will ensure that the powers are not used unfairly or in unsuitable cases.

The new investigative powers in clauses 11, 12 and 13 are well overdue and will be especially welcomed by the police and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

In short, the Government fully support my hon. Friend's Bill and I welcome the support that I believe it will receive from the Opposition. We are very grateful for the consensus across the House. We wish the measure well during the remainder of its passage through the House and in another place. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing such a sensible Bill—a highly technical and complex measure—and on the excellent way in which he explained it.

10.25 am

I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members who congratulated the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on introducing the Bill, and on his luck in being successful in the private Member's ballot. He is fortunate indeed. I have not yet had such good fortune myself, although I hope to before I eventually leave the House.

It is important to say that the Bill has the full support of Opposition Members, and I am very happy to stand and express that support. It is good, too, to hear of the Government's support, because I presume that it will mean that the Bill will have an easy passage through all its stages in the House. I look forward to the Bill completing its passage during this Session.

Labour Members are tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. The Bill falls, perhaps, into the first category—of being tough on crime. It will have a deterrent effect, particularly on those who are habitual criminals. I hope that it will have a minor effect on the causes of crime too.

For many people, who perhaps are listening to the debate today or will read about it at a later stage, it is important that the Bill satisfies the laws of natural justice. Most people would feel it instinctively right that criminals should not be able to benefit from criminal procedures. I am not particularly familiar with the criminal law, but I was quite shocked to realise that there were such gaps in the law on the recovery of the results of crime.

I recall the case of the great train robbers. Although it occurred a long time ago, I remember the shock with which most people realised that, having served their sentence, the people involved were permitted to come out of prison and live a fairly luxurious life style on the proceeds of the crime that had been committed. I cannot emphasise enough how unfair that will appear to most of the people in this country. I am very happy that the Bill has come before the House, and am happy to give it my full support to ensure that those injustices are put right.

One of the rather sad features of our present criminal justice system is that only one in 50 crimes results in a successful prosecution. The Bill will not redress that or make it easier for the police to bring successful prosecutions. However, I hope that once criminal activity has been uncovered and the criminals have been brought to justice, they will be pursued not only at the time of the trial but later if proceeds from the crime are discovered, and that action will be taken to recover them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred to international crime and cross-border smuggling. I refer to a domestic criminal activity of which a relative of mine has recent experience. A gang of so-called antique dealers made a speciality of preying on the elderly and those living alone. I am glad to say that the criminals were eventually brought to justice, but most of the stolen property was not recovered. It is a source of great anguish to the elderly people involved, who felt defrauded of property that had probably been in their family for many years, that the criminals could serve a short prison sentence and then come out and live on the proceeds of the stolen property.

That nasty crime, which caused much anger among not only the elderly people involved but their relatives, was perpetrated by people calling on homes, possibly during the day when few other people were around, and persuading elderly people to part with family heirlooms and goods of which they may not have realised the intrinsic value. The disappearance of other goods was not noticed until the thieves had departed. As the Minister said, confiscation orders last year totalled only £265,000. I am sure that that group of so-called antique dealers is living off profits that greatly exceed that sum.

I am happy to support the Bill, and congratulate once again the hon. Member for Exeter on introducing it.

10.32 am

I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on what may be his swan-song measure in the House. It is a fitting end to a noble and long career, which will end—I hope that he will begin a well-earned retirement as soon as possible—by putting on the statute book a measure that will act as both a retribution for and a deterrent to crime.

I am delighted that the Government support the Bill and hope that it will send a message to criminals that they should have some regard for the fact that, even if they are caught, condemned and spend time in prison, they will in no way benefit from the crime.

I draw attention to a small caveat: the need to protect criminals' families. The sins and crimes of a father or mother should not be visited upon their children. I assume that some consideration will be given in Committee to ensuring that criminals' families are not deprived of a roof over their heads in order to punish the person who may have bought the house with the proceeds of crime.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said, although the Bill is tough on crime and criminals, Labour Members would prefer the Government, in their remaining months in office, to introduce measures that are tough on the causes of crime. In my constituency of Rotherham in South Yorkshire, since 1979 home burglaries have increased by 483 per cent.; other burglaries have increased by 228 per cent.; motor vehicle thefts have risen by 242 per cent.; and other thefts and handling have increased by 335 per cent.

It is wholly appropriate that the Bill is before the House because hon. Members on both sides have a duty to try to ease the sense of the majority of citizens that they live in a society in which crime pays. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge pointed out, criminals are often not caught or, if they are apprehended, only one in 50 cases results in prosecution.

The Bill may serve as an important deterrent in the growing area of white collar crime. A substantial increase has taken place in what one might call "big money" criminality in new areas such as computers and automatic money transfers, which can take place with great ease thanks to there being no exchange controls. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) should note that, if we want to control criminality in Europe, it should be done not by stepping up border checks or putting road blocks between Switzerland and Europe, which would not solve the problem, but by greater supervision, disclosure and policing of the flow of money between, say, French and Swiss banks and between various gentlemen in this country and trusts in Anstalten in Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

I congratulate The Guardian on successfully resisting a disgraceful gagging writ by Ms Karen Morgan Thomas, who was involved in share dealing in Anglia Television. I shall not go into the case, because Madam Speaker gave a ruling last week when my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised the clear indications of criminal dealings in the buying of Anglia Television shares.

Even the new chairman of the stock exchange, Mr. John Kemp-Welch, is reported as saying that he is extremely concerned about our criminal prosecution system's inability to deal with white collar crime, particularly involving share dealings. I hope that the Bill will give a message to gentlemen of the City that, despite the culture of sleaze and corruption—a culture in which the bacillus of crime has developed so strongly in recent years—the House is now taking this issue seriously, even if it is through a private Member's Bill on a Friday morning.

It would be far better to have measures aimed at prevention rather than prosecution, as discouragement is far better than punishment. None the less, if the Bill results in the message going out through the media, the implied threat will be that, however much money is made and however well it is hidden, crime will not pay, even after a period of imprisonment.

We need far more powerful mechanisms of disclosure. I greatly regret that the Department of Trade and Industry is still not fully publishing all the details of the reports sent to it on insider share dealing. Such action would be a preventive measure—the threat of disclosure may be a greater deterrent even than the stepped-up retribution in the Bill.

I join all hon. Members in welcoming the Bill. An unpleasant court case is taking place in Sheffield Crown court involving a Rotherham company. Many investors lost their money and many people lost jobs. The case involved one of the business expansion schemes scams of the 1980s. If the Bill had been on the statute book, the gentleman involved in that case might have thought twice before setting up a scheme that robbed honest investors and cost many of my constituents their jobs. Once that case is over, I may return to the House with the subject, as it involves a deputy chairman of the Conservative party.

Today, I simply wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter, to record my support for the Bill and to wish it a speedy passage through its remaining stages in this and the other House.

10.40 am

I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on introducing the Bill, which will provide important strengthening and tightening of the law on confiscation.

Those of us who, in 1993, served on the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice Bill, which strengthened the law in respect of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, felt that the law, as it stood under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, also required review. I know that the Home Office working party has worked extremely hard to produce conclusions. The evidence it heard from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the national crime intelligence service and Customs included strong arguments for a move in that direction. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has been able to introduce an excellent measure that will strengthen the courts' hand when dealing with people who create a life style from crime.

I do not intend to go into the Bill's details, but I am glad to have had this opportunity to give my support to my hon. Friend for his pioneering criminal legislation, which runs with the current of present thinking in the courts and, I believe, among hon. Members and lawyers.

10.42 am

I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on winning his place in the ballot and all those hon. Members who have supported the Bill, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who spoke so well today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockportߞ

Rotherham.

I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), who is a sponsor of the Bill. I shall deal with the excellent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) in a little while. Another sponsor of the Bill is the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe). I have to mention him because he is my parliamentary pair, and therefore an extremely important person in my parliamentary life.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter, not only on his success in the ballot, but on the eloquent way in which he presented the Bill which, as the Minister of State said, is a technical Bill. I firmly believe that the Bill, which is long overdue, will make a tremendous contribution to our criminal justice system—to the courts and the police—in combating crime.

There have been a number of excellent contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made an important point about the nature of organised crime. The theme of organised crime was touched on in the interesting and wide-ranging speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham.

Until recently, I had the great honour to be a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. That Select Committee is undertaking an investigation into organised crime, which is no easy subject as it is involved and complicated. A great deal of evidence has been submitted to the Committee. There is no doubt that all hon. Members must take organised crime seriously. Some aspects of it have great ramifications—it is sophisticated, it is organised internationally and it has an effect on the everyday lives of men and women.

Crime is an extremely debilitating feature of our society. It is right that burglars, robbers, fraudsters and other criminals should not profit from their crimes any more than those who traffic in drugs. In London and in my constituency, the levels of home burglary are significantly higher than elsewhere in England and Wales. Victims have to pay three times: through the loss of their property; through the size of their insurance premiums—they are proportionately worse off because of last October's new 3 per cent. tax on home and car insurance—and through their taxes, which are used to fund the huge cost of the criminal justice system.

Businesses are also hard hit by crime. The latest quarterly report of the Forum of Private Business reported that more than 43 per cent. of the businesses that it surveyed in London described crime as a significant burden, leading to serious implications for the numbers of people employed by small businesses.

There is no reason why burglars, those who rob and commit fraud should be treated differently from those who engage in the dreadful traffic in drugs. There is no reason why they should be able to serve short prison terms—costing the taxpayer more than £400 a week, according to the answer to a parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) last November—then come out of prison and live on the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains. Some of them even use the proceeds to fund future criminal activities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge made a pertinent point when she said that the public were very shocked at the thought of people serving relatively short prison sentences, coming out of prison and leading luxurious life styles. There is a sense of revulsion at that, and my hon. Friend spoke for the whole House. There is no reason why a burglar should be able to avoid confiscation if the proceeds of his night's criminal activities amount to £9,999. That is why I so welcome the relevant provision in the Bill.

Various big criminal cases have been discussed this morning. We all know the sort of criminals that we are talking about. The popular television series "Birds of a Feather" almost celebrates the life style of the criminal with a luxurious home. Of course, I make no reference to the constituency of the Minister for Transport in London, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who is sitting on the Treasury Bench. I am sure that the inhabitants of Chigwell in his lovely constituency in the fine county of Essex are law-abiding. That is certainly a part of the world in which the Labour party expects to do extremely well in the next general election, following the results of the last local government elections.

On a serious note, it is correct that the legislation is aimed at those criminals who are popularly depicted. Knowing that Parliament takes the issue seriously will have great resonance for members of the public.

Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is not working as well as it should. The answers which were given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) show that only 13 confiscation orders were made under part VI in 1993–94, realising a mere £265,000. Orders made in the same period under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1983 realised more than £5 million. There is a clear discrepancy between the two figures and Parliament must rectify that anomaly. That is why I welcome the Bill on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench.

I hope that the Minister will intervene again to explain why the Government have taken so long to come to their conclusions and why the provisions in the legislation did not form part of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Reference has already been made to the fact that the Bill will be warmly welcomed by the police, who have said that the lack of investigative powers in the 1988 Act has resulted in that Act having little effect in preventing criminals from benefiting from the proceeds of their crimes. In November 1992, the Home Office working group on confiscation pointed out that the number of confiscation orders made under the Criminal Justice Act was "disappointingly low". It advised:

"the practical advantages of harmonising the provisions [of the Criminal Justice and Drug Trafficking Offences Act] are clear… legislation should be strengthened and clarified".

It is hard to believe that consultation on the working group's proposals has taken more than two years. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the proposals have taken so long to reach this stage.

I would be grateful if the Minister could also assure the House that the proceeds of confiscation will be recycled to fund crime prevention. My hon. Friends referred to the Labour party's policy of being tough on crime and on the causes of crime. This legislation is tough on crime, but we also need to be tough on its causes. Crime prevention is at the heart of that debate. Britain spends a miserly 0.2 per cent. of its criminal justice budget on crime prevention. That is nowhere near the United Nations short-term target of 1 per cent. or its long-term target of 10 per cent. It would constitute some progress if the Minister could assure us that recycling the proceeds of crime might improve our dismal record in some small way.

I welcome the Bill on behalf of the Labour party, because it goes to the root of the problems in our criminal justice system. I know that many police officers feel frustrated that, after long and painstaking investigations, criminal sentences are often inadequate. They also feel that, owing to the nature of the criminal justice process, they have not managed to halt the careers of life-style criminals and stop their activities once and for all.

If the Government are serious about empowering the police and dealing with the proceeds of crime, I urge the Minister to recall the amendment that I tabled to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill—which has now been enacted—which would have allowed the police to apply to the courts to use in their fight against crime the high-tech and expensive computer equipment seized from computer pornographers. The amendment was backed by the police and by the all-party Home Affairs Select Committee, of which I was then a member. It recommended last February that the Government should introduce

"appropriate amendments to the law to allow the police to redirect confiscated equipment against the pornographers".

In a letter to me dated 21 February 1994, the Minister stated that he had "a degree of sympathy" with the new clause and that, if the power were "deemed necessary", it could be enforced by statutory instrument. However, that has not happened. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that measure—which Detective Inspector Bob McLachlan of Scotland Yard's obscene publications branch said would "greatly help in our fight against these appalling crimes"—has not been implemented.

The Home Affairs Select Committee has published its evidence on organised crime and it makes extremely interesting, if worrying, reading. It presents a picture of organised crime in this country and its international links. The national criminal intelligence service, the police unit which is responsible for gathering intelligence information on organised crime, presented a great deal of evidence to the Committee. In examining the background to the Bill, we must look at organised crime.

Ben Jonson once said:

"As crimes do grow, justice should rouse itself".

This Bill is about justice; it is about depriving offenders of what is not rightfully theirs and, for that reason, it has the Labour party's whole-hearted support.

It is in everyone's interest that so-called "life-style criminals" be forced to pay back any money which they have gained illegally. If the measures in the Bill act as a deterrent it may make a small difference to the huge amount of criminal activity, which has more than doubled since 1979 and which blights the lives of too many of our citizens.

10.56 am

I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for not being present for the whole of the debate. Nowadays, television monitors relay the proceedings of the House live to Members' rooms and, while doing other work, I have attempted to follow the debate very closely.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on his luck in the draw and on introducing the Bill. Initially, I was somewhat disappointed that, in view of his background as joint chair of the all-party disablement group, he did not decide to pick up the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which he sponsored last year. However, I realise that he now has a different view about tactics in connection with that measure, so I have picked it up, and we shall consider it next week.

This proposal enjoys the support of both the Government and the Opposition. Parliament does not meet very frequently and it is not overrun with business at the moment, so I think that the Government could have taken the opportunity to introduce their own measure. However, that does not detract from the significance and importance of the proposal or from the fact that the hon. Gentleman has picked it up and run with it.

The deterrent theory espoused by the Bill—which is one that I would not normally adhere to closely—seems to have some relevance in this matter. If criminals believe that, in the end, they will not benefit from the proceeds of their crimes—if there is a change in criminal cultureߞthe Bill will add a deterrent factor. Generally, I advocate—as does my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche)—prevention and higher capture rates as the best forms of deterrent. I acknowledge that there is much ill will in society towards easy sentences. That view is justifiable and not a matter of retribution. Criminals should suffer for their activities, not benefit from the proceeds.

Sometimes, the true value of stolen property is not easy to determine. There may be cases when the figure is exaggerated by the victims for insurance purposes. In such instances, there may be an injustice done, because the proceeds of a crime were said to be greater than they were. The fact that a criminal is the victim of such an injustice is not a ground for ignoring it. The law must be seen to be reasonable and fair. Perhaps the Bill's promoter will clarify that matter.

11.1 am

I am grateful to all hon. Members who spoke in support of the Bill—particularly my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). I listened with care to the points made, and I am left in no doubt that my Bill is of considerable importance to the House. In Committee, we will have ample opportunity to explore the various questions that hon. Members raised—including that of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), which is well covered by the Bill's provisions for re-examination of any assumption made by the court when it decides confiscation amounts. I again thank hon. Members for their support, and I look forward to discussing my Bill further in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

11.2 am

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

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), who has presented three Bills during his time in the House, this is my first in nearly 12 years. Whereas my hon. Friend hoped that he would be third time lucky, I hope to be first time lucky. The subject of my Bill is of importance and concern—the behaviour of newly qualified drivers, most of whom are young. At the stage in their driving careers when they are inexperienced, it is all important that they drive safely and pay attention to traffic regulations and the Highway Code. Even young drivers whose behaviour is blameless will be more at risk of accidents than the experienced driver, simply because situations develop that they have not anticipated or do not know how to handle.

That risk increases greatly if young drivers overestimate their skills, try to impress their passengers or flout the law. My Bill is primarily aimed at that irresponsible element. They are a minority, but the trouble that they cause is disproportionate to their numbers. The Bill is targeted. It does not propose new laws and regulations for all drivers but for a small group of new, principally young drivers who cause a disproportionate number of accidents.

That problem causes concern in my constituency and elsewhere in Essex. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London represents an Essex constituency, and I am delighted that he is in his place to contribute to the debate. Two years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) introduced a ten-minute Bill on newly qualified drivers. Although it was different from mine in detail, it also would have made progress towards improving the driving performance of newly qualified young drivers. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend's Bill did not make progress, but I hope that mine will enjoy better luck. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford for being present to support my Bill.

The problem that I described exists throughout Britain, not just in Essex. Essex man may reign in Essex, but some of his mentality reigns elsewhere in the country. We are increasingly a nation of car drivers and owners. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency issues about 1 million new provisional driving licences every year, which means that that number of new learner drivers or motor cyclists start using our roads. Most of them will eventually pass a driving test and become qualified. About half begin learning at 17, and a quarter of those who pass the driving test do so before their 18th birthday. Many more do so by the age of 21.

Those can be dangerous years for other road users as well as for the young driver. Ten per cent. of all driving licences are held by people under 21, yet they are involved in 25 per cent. of fatal accidents producing 1,000 deaths each year. The figures might be even worse if they drove long distances, as older drivers do. Even driving short distances, young drivers have a disproportionate effect on road accidents and fatalities. Mile for mile, a young man of 17 is seven times more likely to have an accident than a middle-aged man.

In most cases, that is not because young drivers have not learnt basic driving skills. After all, they passed the driving test. However, too often they choose not to apply those skills, thinking that they have become expert drivers overnight. They want the world to know how well they can drive, and to prove to themselves and to their friends how fast they can accelerate, how ably they can corner and how suddenly they can brake—and they may cut up other motorists to prove that to themselves. However, they lack the ability to read the road ahead, anticipate hazards and know when to react—in other words, experience. They may also lack tolerance towards and consideration for other road users whose reactions are slower—so in that sense they lack maturity.

Even among young inexperienced motorists, there is a difference between the accident risk of a responsible driver and a tearaway. The Transport Research Laboratory made a detailed examination of new drivers and found that those who commit offences in the first year after passing their test are more than twice as likely to be involved in accidents as drivers who do not. They remain twice as likely to have accidents even in their second and third years. So there is a clear link between offences and the risk of an accident.

That is why it makes sense to target the offenders and make them pay for extra lessons, take another test, and perhaps come in for a great deal of humiliation as they have to put on their L-plates once more. It is better to do that—to aim the Bill at these drivers—than to make the driving test harder and more lengthy and expensive for everyone.

This Bill is not aimed just at young drivers: it is aimed at all new drivers. All young drivers are new drivers, but not all new drivers are young drivers. So why should we include the older new drivers at all? At any age, inexperienced drivers are at greater risk than experienced ones. Both youth and inexperience are associated with greater risk.

What is more, people can do something about their lack of experience—they can take advanced training, for instance—but there is nothing they can do about their age apart from wait. If the Bill applied only to young drivers, where would the cut-off point be—21, 25 or older? There seems no consensus about that, so it is better to make the Bill comprehensive and apply it to new drivers in general, not young drivers in particular.

My Bill will therefore apply to every new driver for the first two years after he or she passes the test for the first time; but only those who commit offences will be any the worse off. On the whole, they will be younger drivers, and predominantly male.

Clause 1 defines the scope of the Bill. Anyone learning to drive or ride a motor cycle or moped starts with a provisional licence and L-plates. As soon as these drivers pass their tests, in a car or on a two-wheeler, they are entitled to the full licence for that class of vehicle. From that point on they are deemed to be qualified drivers. The two-year probationary period mentioned in the Bill starts from the moment people become qualified drivers. They may go on to pass a test in some other class of vehicle, but that does not make them probationers all over again. It is only on the first occasion that this clause will bite.

The Bill applies to holders of British licences who pass their tests in Great Britain, or who got their Great Britain licences as a result of tests passed in certain other places outside the GB mainland—countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements. When the date of passing the test outside Britain is known, as it usually will be in such cases, it is recorded on the British licence and thus defines the starting point of the probationary period.

Clause 2 contains the meat of the Bill. Its effect is that when a driver in the probationary period gets six or more penalty points on his licence, either by a court conviction or by paying a fixed penalty, the licence must be surrendered and sent to the Secretary of State—in practice, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—to be revoked. The first two subsections cover convictions by a court and the rest cover fixed penalties.

Clause 3 follows on logically. When the Secretary of State receives a licence, he must serve notice on the holder that it is revoked. The person can no longer drive as a fully fledged driver but may apply for a provisional licence and start again as a learner. So the offending person does not lose all ability to drive and does not have his licence completely revoked. He has to revert to being a provisional licence holder and can continue to drive, with L-plates, being accompanied. He must then in due course take the test once more.

Clause 4 goes on to the next stage. Now that a person is a learner again, he or she is not eligible for a full licence until the test has been passed. But to avoid unnecessary harshness, this clause does not require people who had passed more than one class of test before the revocation to pass them all again. Passing just one of them will get back all the lost entitlements. The clause also does not prevent such people from learning to drive a new type of vehicle and passing the test in that—but doing the latter will not win back the old entitlements as well.

Clause 5 deals with special cases when the person affected by the revocation appeals against the conviction that caused it. Provided that the Secretary of State is notified of this, he must issue a temporary licence while the appeal is pending. If the appeal is successful enough to remove the penalty points or to reduce them to fewer than six, the Secretary of State must grant a permanent licence replacing the one that was taken away. Some of the procedural details are to be in regulations.

Clause 6 and schedule 1 cover essentially the same ground as clauses 2 to 5, but apply to the special case of a person who has passed the test but not yet handed in the pass certificate and provisional licence to get a full licence. Current legislation allows a two-year period in which pass certificates and provisional licences can be exchanged for a full licence. Most people exchange there straight away, but there are a few who choose not to CT who forget to. The schedule is necessary to close a loophole which might allow the retesting procedure to be evaded.

Clause 7 has two purposes. First, paragraph (a) prevents a person from being doubly penalised if a court uses its powers to order a retest. The court order takes precedence over anything in this Bill, and once it has been made the person is no longer regarded as being in the probationary period. Often, the re-test ordered by the court will be a double-length test, whereas the test required by the Bill is always of the usual length.

Secondly, paragraphs (b) and (c) prevent a person from being caught in a continual round of retesting, which would be too harsh. Once the person has passed a test, he is no longer subject to the provisions of the Bill. It must be remembered, however, that passing the test and getting back the full licence do not wipe off the six penalty points that caused the retesting in the first place. Those six points are still there, and if the driver gets another six before they are spent, making 12 in all, the court will disqualify him for six months under the existing totting-up procedures and laws.

The other clauses and schedule 2 are supplementary, and I shall not go into detail about them.

I hope that the House will agree that these are tough but fair provisions. They will not make it any harder to qualify as a driver in the first place, but they will make it harder for people to keep their licences if they misbehave. They will therefore act as a powerful deterrent for drivers who are tempted to break the law or who drive without consideration for others.

Research suggests that drivers are more deterred by the threat of losing their licences than they are by fines. At the moment, they need not worry too much until they get close to 12 penalty points, which can mean up to four speeding offences. But this scheme will bite at six points. It will not stop them driving altogether, but it will force them back into the classroom, to the world of L-plates and an experienced driver by their side. There will also be considerable humiliation.

The scheme will also provide an incentive to take further lessons and will give drivers the opportunity to reconsider what it really means to be a responsible adult driver.

I am pleased to have been able to obtain backers for the Bill both from my party and from the Opposition. I am also pleased to have the unstinting support of the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club. I am pleased, too, to have the support of the former roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). I know that he played a major part in putting the subject on the political agenda, and I am grateful for his backing and support.

I hope that I can count on support from all parties to bring this worthy measure to the statute book.

11.20 am

First, I declare my interest as a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. There is considerable concern among police officers about their difficult encounters with young drivers, who often drive fast cars at high speed. It is a problem that needs to be dealt with, and the Bill seeks to do so. Therefore, I give a warm welcome to the Bill. It is necessary and it will do considerable good in resolving many difficulties.

We know that 1,000 people die each year in accidents involving young drivers. They hold only 10 per cent. of driving licences, but they are involved in 20 per cent. of all accidents. New drivers who are convicted of motoring offences are twice as likely to be involved in accidents as drivers who do not break motoring laws.

Over the past two decades there has been a change in public attitudes towards drink-driving. Young men in particular used to regard it as a way of proving their masculinity. They were willing to drive after having consumed far too much alcohol. Fortunately, social attitudes have changed, especially among young people.

Before I came to this place I was a lawyer at the criminal Bar. It is my experience that many of those who have been convicted of drink-driving in recent years have been older people. When they were young it was perhaps acceptable to drink and drive. I found that young people were less and less involved in that behaviour as a result of changed social attitudes and pressures.

The Bill will start the process of changing the social attitudes—perhaps not of the present generation—of the generation to come towards driving cars, especially fast cars. There have been problems on several housing estates in my constituency, where young people drive at high speed. Some young people tend to drive their cars—on occasion, stolen cars—at high speed across traffic-calming road humps. This often happens at night. The humps normally serve a good purpose and it is regrettable that the driving that I have described is exactly the opposite of the objective of the humps. Such driving needs to be clamped down upon with vigour.

Apart from dealing with those who are committing motoring offences by way of penalties and penalty points, we need to bring about a change in social attitudes. The law must take the lead. The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) has introduced a Bill that shows that we in this place take road traffic matters extremely seriously and that we are prepared to support the police in recognising the importance of taking action and dealing with the problem. The Bill shows that we are ready to start the process of changing attitudes.

Young drivers are often less safe than others, especially if they are inexperienced. They should know that if they start to accumulate penalty points by speeding, for example, and arrive at six, they will not have the facility of their "wheels" and all the advantage that they provide, especially at a young age. They should know that they may have to face a second test.

My hon. Friend is talking about young drivers. I accept that the Bill will apply mainly to those drivers, but it applies also to newly qualified drivers, who are not always young people. I accept, of course, that many of the problems with which the Bill seeks to deal involve all people and the accumulation of penalty points. There is a need for these measures.

That is entirely right. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Bill does not apply only to young people. When enacted, it will be much broader in its application. That can only be right.

As I have said, there has been a change in social attitudes in recent years towards drink-driving. I have no doubt that behind the Bill is a wish to change social attitudes towards fast or erratic driving. It may still be thought among the older generation that drivers can get away with breaking the law by occasional speeding. That is regrettable. The Bill is an attempt to deal with the problem. I suspect that it would be extremely difficult to frame clauses to deal only with young drivers. There are advantages in having a Bill that is drafted to deal with all new and inexperienced drivers, and I support it. I offer a warm welcome to the Bill. I hope that it will be given a Second Reading with support from hon. Members on both sides of the House.

11.25 am

I, too, welcome the Bill. It is an important step forward in improving driver safety. That being said, I would like measures to come before us which go further towards improving road safety. The Bill is important, but it is only one step in that direction.

We must consider and try to deal with the behavioural characteristics of the young male driver if we are to achieve general improvements in driver safety. I accept, of course, that the Bill covers all new drivers of both sexes, whether they are young, in their middle years, or elderly. I shall concentrate, however, on the young male driver, who often poses a problem by engaging in hazardous driving.

It is worth reflecting that most criminal offences are committed by young males. When they reach 25 years of age, most of those young offenders cease to offend. It is important to realise that many of the offences that are committed by males in that age group are motoring offences. Young male offenders are prepared to drive recklessly without insurance and without a licence. That being so, we must question whether the effectiveness of the Bill will be sufficient to curb the committing of motoring offences by such people. Will young male drivers who are prepared to drive while uninsured and without a full licence be sufficiently deterred by the proposal to reduce the number of penalty points leading to disqualification to six?

Recent studies have shown that about 15 per cent. of all male drivers have driven illegally before they have gained even a provisional licence. It is interesting that that is twice the percentage of women who have done that.

I welcome the Bill's proposals, especially the two-year probation period for new drivers and the revocation of licences if six or more penalty points are accumulated during the probationary period. I welcome also the requirement that there must be a further test before a licence is reinstated. These and other measures are steps in the right direction but are only a start towards improving driver safety. They must be considered as only part of a more general package to improve driver safety, especially among young males. If we are to deal with that specific problem, we need to look more closely at the life style factors of that group, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) suggested.

We must examine why some 35 per cent. of young male drivers were categorised as unsafe in a study undertaken in 1991 by the university of Southampton near Eastleigh. The work undertaken by the department of psychology is significant in this regard. Its earlier studies found that there were differences in driver behaviour and performance within the 17 to 25-year-old age group. As the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) will know, its more recent work explored the relevance of life-style factors to the differences in driving behaviour.

We must realise that there are indeed different attitudes among male drivers and we cannot assume that all young male drivers should all be labelled as inherently unsafe. Driving behaviour characteristics are far more complex than that. On average, the young male drivers studied by Southampton university rated their driving skills and driving safety as considerably above the average for their own age group. Unsafe drivers rated their driving as more skilled than safe, whereas safe drivers rated their driving as more safe than skilled. The important point is that unsafe drivers tend to test their ability and their car's capacity to a much greater extent than safe drivers, but their so-called skill is of course illusory, as unsafe drivers have a high accident involvement.

Many young drivers fail to recognise how close they have been to having an accident. Furthermore, they seldom recognise that a near miss is feedback to the effect that they are driving badly—it is much easier for drivers to blame their surroundings and other drivers for a near miss. The most obvious feedback in respect of poor driving is involvement in an accident, but, even after an accident, it is easy to find causes other than poor driving.

Young male drivers seem to suffer from the delusion that accidents are chance events and occur at random, but that is not so; poor driving is a significant characteristic of and contributor to accidents. Driving should not be viewed as merely a physical skill. It is all too clear that unsafe drivers are unaware of the risks that they take and, even if they are aware of the risks that they take, because they believe that they are highly skilled they assume that they will not have an accident.

The proposals to improve the skills of young drivers and to impose stiffer penalties on those found guilty of poor or illegal driving are not in themselves sufficient to tackle what I regard as the root of the problem. Pre-licence training in road safety must incorporate things other than the learning of driving skills. The Minister will be aware that the response to the Government's new driver safety consultation paper, which was issued just over a year ago, showed that there was wide support for the retesting of offenders as proposed in the Bill, but the consultation also revealed overwhelming support for a separate mandatory theory test to fulfil the second EC driving licence directive.

I am sure that we are all familiar with the parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety which welcomed the Bill but said that it should be seen alongside other measures to improve the skills of young drivers. In addition to a stick—the removal of a driving licence—we need a carrot, or better training to increase awareness of the difficulties of driving. Like the advisory council, I look forward to hearing proposals from the Department of Transport for the compulsory test involving an element of hazard perception. We could thus ensure that young and new drivers were able to drive competently and less dangerously.

Post-test driver training has been the subject of strong interest by the insurance industry, and the development of road safety and education programmes for the 16-year-olds and above has been supported by colleges and other establishments.

At the time of the consultation exercise the Minister said that a mandatory theory test would be in place by I July 1996 and that the Department was working with the private and voluntary sectors to establish post-test driver training schemes and road safety education programmes. I would welcome confirmation that the Bill is but one part of a comprehensive package to be introduced within the time scale previously set out.

The Liberal Democrats welcome and enthusiastically support the Bill, but we should like an assurance that it is a first step in a package of measures to improve driver safety.

11.35 am

I am sure that nothing could be more harrowing than the anguish of a young mother who has lost her child through the foolishness of an inexperienced driver. The driver will be haunted for the rest of his life by the memory that he was responsible for the death of a child and that it could have been avoided. In some instances, the driver does not have the opportunity to look back on the incident, because he too has been killed by his actions. Therefore, anything that we can do to make the roads safer must be worth while. For that reason, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) on promoting this excellent Bill, the provisions of which I strongly support.

It is often observed that if the number of people killed on the roads were killed in any other way there would be a national scandal. What if a series of jumbo jets crashed every year, leading to the equivalent number of deaths, or a catastrophe occurred regularly in industry? If rail accident deaths reached anything near the number of road deaths, there would be an outcry. Nevertheless, we must take satisfaction from the fact that the number of deaths on the roads is falling, and markedly so. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London and his team on their road safety work, which has helped to achieve that fall.

The number of people killed on the roads has declined steadily, from around 5,000 in 1990 to 3,814 in 1993. The control of drinking and driving has clearly been a major contributory factor and I support any measure that strengthens the law in that respect. Of those road accidents, about 1,000 deaths—20 per cent.—are the responsibility of young drivers. Statistics show that youth and inexperience are major factors in accidents, so it is excellent that the Bill is targeted specifically at that group.

In my borough of Bromley, 205 drivers in the 17-to-24 age group were injured in 1994, bearing out statistics showing that group to be especially vulnerable, usually because of their own inexperience. New drivers are twice as likely to break the law but it is not only the statistics but our personal experience that illustrate the risk attached to young and inexperienced drivers, especially young and inexperienced male drivers.

I remember when I first started driving people in my age group were immediately enthused with their new-found freedom and it was only a matter days after taking off the L-plates that they began to drive fast and tried to acquire more powerful cars. There will probably always be a macho image attached to driving but it must be restrained by the law. I can think of no better way in which to restrain that macho urge than the deterrent of the Bill. The most effective means of deterring that 17-to-24 age group from transgressing is to threaten to remove what they regard as most precious: the new-found right to drive without having to display L-plates. Having to display L-plates and to pass another test would be quite humiliating for that age group.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) is right to suggest that the Bill should be part of an overall package of policy. I support what he said about "Pass Plus", an excellent post-test driving training scheme that will shortly come into force. To go with the stick in the Bill, that scheme will introduce a carrot. The introduction and development of theoretical driving tests would add to the beneficial pressure on the target age group.

The teaching of driving skills at school plays an important part in encouraging and developing the right approach and attitude before would-be drivers get behind the wheel. Indeed, my borough of Bromley, which may be the only London borough that is taking such major strides in this area, runs an innovative pre-driver programme in secondary schools, which has involved more than 800 pupils so far. It is free and it runs for 11 weeks.

It is co-run by the Intercounty driving school, which provides free cars, and pupils have up to three 20-minute sessions behind the wheel as well as supportive work in the classroom aimed at preparing young drivers, influencing their attitudes, calming them down and getting them used to the control and safety needed on roads, rather than allowing the development of the idea that driving is simply a matter of getting behind the wheel.

The programme has already produced excellent results and I hope that it is developed further not only in Bromley but across the country. I know that Scott Pickering, the road safety export in the borough, who has played a leading role in pioneering the project, would support a Bill aimed at people whom he knows are vulnerable and need protecting from themselves. For all those reasons, I strongly support the Bill and I am glad that it is before the House. For the sake of not only the target group but all potential victims on the roads who we may prevent from becoming victims, I wish the Bill speedy progress to the statute book.

11.42 am

I may be no expert on this Bill—I am probably one of the few hon. Members who does not have a car and cannot drive—but I am interested in it because if I decided to try to qualify to drive, I would be subject to its provisions. Therefore, I have a self-interest as well as a wider interest in the Bill.

My constituency is a busy commuter belt between Chesterfield and Sheffield. Regularly each morning, we take our standard spending assessment over the border of Derbyshire into Yorkshire and Sheffield for their benefit. We encounter quite serious transport problems, because the roads are such that a serious accident considerably hinders people getting to work and back.

I always seem to be writing letters to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency about massive problems that people have with their licences. Presumably, the Bill may place further pressure on the DVLA as people lose their licences or have to take another test.

As the Bill is founded on sense and should progress, I want to make a procedural point. I believe that I am correct in saying that, although the Bill was introduced by hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), it was initiated by the Government. When I promoted a private Member's Bill in the 1992–93 Session, I was contacted by the Minister to see if I would bring it forward through the Government like other hon. Members. Debating the Proceeds of Crime Bill earlier revealed that acceptable legislation, which the Government have in mind, is being introduced as private Members' Bills. Private Members' Bills should address the concerns of hon. Members, who may then seek the Government's support and help with technical drafting.

My private Member's Bill, the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, attempted to extend the franchise and provide access to polling stations for the disabled. I met the Minister of the Department concerned and if he had agreed to support my Bill, I would have been very happy indeed for a great deal of the work to be taken on by the Government and developed to ensure that its wording was parliamentary and procedurally acceptable.

Hon. Members are allowed £200 for legal assistance with a private Member's Bill; it would be worth £1,400 today if it had been adjusted since it was introduced. One cannot get any serious legal advice on the drafting of a Bill for £200. One can only, therefore—

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that we are debating the Second Reading of a particular Bill and he is dealing with matters not germane to it. There are plenty of other opportunities for the hon. Member to raise the general issues to which he is addressing his remarks.

I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was about to conclude in any case. I was trying to make a point that seemed relevant to this Bill as well as many other private Members' Bills.

I support the Bill and I do not wish to speak at length, but I want to point out that there are other methods by which such Bills, welcome as they are, could progress. The House does not sit often enough in Government time to debate such matters. The Bill could have progressed differently.

11.47 am

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) on introducing the Bill. For the record, the House should be told that, far from the implications of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that my hon. Friend has picked the Bill up at the urging of the Department of Transport, if there is one Member of the House who is not a poodle of the Department of Transport, it is my hon. Friend, whose exertions on behalf of his constituents about the A 13 I feel on my back as I speak. I know from conversations with my hon. Friend that he has promoted the Bill because he has great interest in the subject. He has the full support of the Government and I strongly endorse all that he said about the Bill's importance.

I also agreed with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who said that driving is not just a physical skill. That is exactly the point. Ironically, young drivers tend to be rather good at the physical skill of moving the metal around the road. Indeed, they are so good that they become over-confident, and that is what the Bill is aimed at. The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the theory test directive.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) said in an excellent intervention, it is right that the Bill should be part of a package of measures. I will refer briefly to each of the elements to which my hon. Friend referred. I also endorse his remarks about the road safety officer in Bromley. He, like many other people in the London boroughs with whom I have a great deal of personal contact, is doing an excellent job.

As a result of that excellent work, there has been a 34 per cent. reduction in road deaths in this country. We should not lose sight of that; our record is excellent. Reducing road deaths by 34 per cent. since 1986 is an extraordinary success. That has been achieved despite 'the growth of traffic in the intervening period. That is an extraordinary performance. It is not a political achievement; it is the achievement of many people working nationally and locally and it involves many bodies, private companies, voluntary organisations and motoring organisations all working together.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham referred graphically, but very accurately, to the number of road deaths being equivalent to losing a jumbo jet every five weeks. There are still 80 deaths a week and that fact underpins everything that we do and it provides us all with the motivation to continue to find ways to eradicate that horrendous total.

Some people might think that the Bill is an unreasonably oppressive measure and that it is aimed at killing the joy of the young. They might think that it is unfair to impose this additional measure on the young. The underlying principle behind the Bill is straightforward. The principle says, "If you manage to accumulate six points, which will mean a minimum of two endorsable offences in the first two years after you have passed your test, the assumption is that you did not actually learn the lessons that you were supposed to have learnt in order to pass the test in the first place. Would you please go back and have another go and this time understand what you are being asked to qualify for?" That principle is not unreasonable.

None of us can put our hands on our hearts and say that we have not driven faster than the legal speed limit on a fairly regular basis because life is like that. The only exception in the Chamber to that rule is the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East. He follows a very important principle in this House which is never to let the arguments be bedevilled by the facts and always to ensure that one speaks on subjects about which one has not the slightest personal experience. He is a pastmaster of that art, and he demonstrated it again today.

As a pedestrian, I have great experience of the matters that we are discussing today. I can barely cross the road in front of my house. I am very concerned that people should drive safely. If new drivers are not driving safely, the measures in the Bill should be applied to them. In addition, probably more people have cars in my constituency than in any other.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman supports the measure and I hope that we can bring its Second Reading to a fairly speedy conclusion.

I will not speak at length, because my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford clearly set out the need for the Bill and how it would work in practice. However, I want to add a piece of information that might not be known to many hon. Members, including those who take a particular interest in this work. A study was published today that follows on from the Transport Research Laboratory programme involving new drivers and a major research programme, which examined the reasons for new driver behaviour.

The study published today showed that 18 per cent. of drivers are involved in at least one accident in their first year after passing the test. However, 42 per cent. of drivers who received fixed penalty notices or a summons in their first year were involved in car accidents. The risk is more than doubled. I am afraid that that emphasises why the measure is necessary, and why I believe that it will do a great deal to reduce the hazard that young people cause on the roads. It is worth recalling the statistic advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford: that 10 per cent. of licence holders are under 21 and are responsible for 20 per cent. of accidents and 25 per cent. of fatalities. That is a very sad statistic.

Although this point is not included in the terms of the Bill, has my hon. Friend the Minister considered probationary licence plates?

We have considered probationary licence plates and the Northern Ireland Office has supervised the use of such plates. It produced results on the project only very recently, showing that probationary licence plates are popular in the community and that people support the idea. Sadly, the results also show that plates do not have a discernible effect on accident reduction. The principle is very attractive, but I am not minded to press forward with measures that cannot show—as I believe the Bill can—a demonstrable link with accidents.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham referred to the need for a package of measures. The post-test driver training scheme called "Pass Plus" will be launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on Monday. A substantial number of insurance companies are involved in the scheme and it will make a major contribution. It is, of course, training after the licence has been acquired, but it offers a genuine discount to the motorist for having bothered to take on the additional training and it will allow insurance companies to lower their premiums. There is gain for each of the parties involved. The greatest gainer is the person who is not now likely to be the victim of an accident.

We have also prepared an educational resource designed to make over-16s aware of their responsibilities when they drive a car. That is a very important part of the package. We intend to introduce the enlarged theory element by July 1996. We are working on the practical details of the package at the moment. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh that it will be a useful addition and it might even allow us to test some of the skills that the existing driving test does not allow us to test.

Even in its present form, our driving test in Britain is among the most demanding in the world. We should not ignore the principle behind the Bill: that some newly qualified drivers do not maintain the high standards that they have learnt in preparing for and taking the test. The Bill will encourage safe and considerate driving and it will allow new drivers to build up the essential experience of traffic and road conditions and the skills of hazard perception that they need to make them safer drivers.

The deterrent effect of having to use L-plates again and to be accompanied by an experienced driver should be sufficient to prevent newly qualified drivers from behaving irresponsibly and foolishly. It should thus result in a reduction in road accidents and injuries to those drivers and to other road users.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford has done the nation a service by introducing his Bill. I congratulate him on the way in which he introduced it today and I am delighted that hon. Members on both sides of the House have seen its wisdom, and I wish it every success.

11.58 am

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) on his success in the ballot and on introducing his Bill. The Bill will clearly have great importance for the public and it is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It certainly has the very full support of those on the Opposition Front Bench.

We have had an interesting debate this morning. It is quite appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) should take part in it. He follows in an honourable tradition of people who have made great contributions to transport issues but who have not been drivers. I am thinking, of course, of my own political heroine, Baroness Castle, who was a distinguished Secretary of State for Transport but who was a non-driver. She certainly made a considerable impact on driving and transport issues.

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind comments. The Minister has great expertise in these matters. On this occasion it works, but on many occasions it is counter-productive.

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) made an interesting speech and drew a welcome contrast between male and female drivers. The machismo that is often shown by male drivers, who sometimes have poor regard for road safety and poor car control and display anti-social behaviour, is not shared by their female counterparts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) made an interesting point about the police view. There is no doubt that the police are concerned about accidents involving new drivers. It is good to have my hon. Friend's expertise as we consider the matter.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) made a graphic point about road fatalities and the tremendous grief that they cause. Although I welcome the reduced figures that the Minister recited, I feel that there are too many fatal accidents. One occurred in my constituency this week. When I speak to some of the families concerned, I see their grief at having a loved one—husband, wife, son or daughter—suddenly and tragically taken away. That will always stay with me. I am sure that all hon. Members have had the same experience. It is important to take the issue very seriously.

Southampton university has found that a significant minority of young drivers—about 35 per cent.—could be categorised as unsafe. As has been said, when we talk about driving, we talk not only about driving skills but about judgment, maturity and courtesy. We need much more common courtesy on our roads. It would have a tremendous impact not only on tragic fatalities but on day-to-day road incidents.

Although I warmly support the Bill, may I pose a couple of questions? The Bill does not take into account newly qualified drivers of heavy goods vehicles or public service vehicles. Will the hon. Member for Rochford clarify that point? Also, if newly qualified drivers of heavy goods vehicles or public service vehicles accrue six penalty points, will they automatically lose their licences? Obviously, that is a small part of our anxiety about newly qualified drivers, but it is valid to draw it to the hon. Gentleman's attention, and I shall be interested to hear his response.

The House will be aware of the great concern about road safety and drivers' conduct. In my constituency, there is a tremendous problem with drivers who, particularly early in the morning, think that they have a straight run and speed with complete disregard for members of the public. Last week, I took my six-year-old daughter to school. We were just about to cross at the zebra crossing, when, without any regard for pedestrians, a car sped by. That is a daily occurrence for many people, and we should be aware of it.

I welcome the Minister's honesty and candour in saying that not one of us can say that he or she has not regularly exceeded the reasonable speed limit—

The legal speed limit.

The Minister says, "The legal speed limit." With the greatest respect, we should not encourage that attitude. Speed limits are to be obeyed, and we must do everything we can to encourage drivers to abide by them.

Of course, the only hon. Member who has never exceeded the speed limit is the hon. Lady. I am quite happy to put that on the record if that is what she would like me to do.

I am grateful to the Minister. Although I hold a full driving licence, I am an extremely reluctant driver, as my husband will testify, and I therefore hardly drive at all. I am afraid I am one of those drivers with whom the Minister obviously becomes very irritated. I drive very slowly—far too slowly. I am grateful for the Minister's approval. I shall have great pleasure, this weekend, in passing on that approval to my family.

I cannot resist the temptation, with the Minister present, to raise a matter of great concern in London in relation to speeding, road safety, and newly qualified and existing drivers. I refer to red routes. The Minister will be aware of points that colleagues and I have made about the Government's accident figures on those routes, which have been shown to be inaccurate. On a serious point, he will be aware also about road fatalities. They cause us great concern.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochford on introducing the Bill. It has our support. I hope that the public, who have closely followed our proceedings, will know that the whole House is concerned about this important issue.

12.7 pm

I apologise to the House for not being present earlier.

Disgraceful.

The hon. Gentleman says that it was disgraceful. I was doing some work on road deaths—a matter to which I drew attention on Friday. I listened intently to this debate upstairs. A couple of weeks ago our road safety debate, regrettably, was poorly attended by hon. Members. This Bill neatly follows that debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochford (I)r. Clark) on bringing the Bill to the House. I sincerely hope that it is supported by all hon. Members. The way in which the Bill fits in with the discussions to which I referred is clear.

Young drivers who speed are dangerous, and the young are statistically among the group most likely to cause death on the roads. The issue of handling death on the roads is extremely tortuous. I am having detailed discussions with a number of people in the legal profession, such as the Law Commission, and I made arrangements to go to the Crown Prosecution Service to discuss the way in which the courts deal with such cases.

It is, of course, a process which takes place after the event, and the important thing about the approach adopted by the hon. Member for Rochford is that it is part of a process of deterrence of the crime of causing death on the roads. The jigsaw puzzle must be put together in that way, and the Bill is an important part of that.

In my discussions with eminent people in the legal profession, the thrust of the debate has been how on earth we can stop the crimes taking place in the first place. The hon. Member for Rochford has hit upon an important aspect of that. We know that the drink-driving laws changed attitudes, and there is an extraordinary difference in the attitudes of people in their 40s and 50s, and of young people, towards the drink-driving laws. It is not unusual to see a group of 18 to 20-year-olds, out for an enjoyable evening, deliberately making arrangements that one of them will not drink. The cult of having to have the macho six pints before one drives a car has gone. It is perfectly accepted that one person in a group, or a number of people, should have soft drinks or low-alcohol drinks.

That positive change followed a lead from the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said, the lead given by Baroness Castle had an important impact. I hope that education will create a climate that will bring sense to some road users. As my hon. Friend said, some road users are totally oblivious to the rights of others. A measure such as this will help in that regard.

I urge the House to think that the Bill, while important, is not a panacea. It will not in itself stop the huge number of deaths which occur on the roads each year. Last year, 510 deaths were caused by drinking and driving. We must carry on working hard as a Parliament to find the right set of rules and regulations which will bring that figure down to zero.

The police and the motoring organisations welcome the Bill which, I am sure, will receive widespread support. There is a recognition of the stark difference in accident statistics between young drivers and more mature and experienced drivers. I admit openly to the House that the first accident I had while driving was in the early 1960s. I have driven 20,000 miles every year of my adult life, and I know full well that—given the same situation 30 years later—I could have driven out of the circumstances which caused that accident. It was somebody else's fault, but experience does help in driving.

We must instil in young people the firm belief and understanding that one does not simply pass the test and become an expert driver. If that were true, the figures would look healthier. It is important that the House gives the Bill an unopposed passage, but let me emphasise that this must be a part of a series of approaches aimed at tackling all the causes of death on the roads. We may need to think positively about the design of vehicles, and about whether, for example, heavy vehicles have adequate vision.

We must also consider the way in which some companies impose schedules upon drivers which make it impossible for them to drive safely. We know about that in the context of coaches, and the Minister has taken positive steps recently in that respect. There are a host of issues and the House must address them in its efforts to tackle the huge numbers of unnecessary deaths. The Bill forms an important part of the strategy, and I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Rochford on promoting the Bill. I wish it a speedy passage through its remaining stages.

12.26 pm

With the leave of the House; I should like to thank all of those hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for the support that they have given without reservation. I would particularly like to thank the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), the advisor to the Police Federation, for conveying to the House the support that the police give to the Bill. He pointed out that drink-driving was a problem of past generations, while macho driving may be a problem of this one, and welcomed the Bill in that regard.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) pointed out that young males offend under the age of 25, but that the rate of offending tends to fall once people are over 25. The Bill might help them to get through that period. I was pleased with the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I thank him for them. He also pointed out that young drivers have skills, but generally choose not to use them. We must persuade them to use those skills, and I am grateful for the work done by the university of Southampton in that respect.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh described the Bill as being one measure in a series of steps, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) wenton to outline what those steps are. They include "Pass Plus", a driving test on theory and driving teaching in schools.

The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) pointed out that he is a non-driver and, were the Bill to come into law, he—a man of mature years—would be caught within its provisions if he were to apply for a licence. Despite that, he welcomed the Bill.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his support, and I am also grateful that he pointed out that I am not a poodle of the Department of Transport. We both know that that is true. He mentioned that road deaths have reduced by 34 per cent. since 1987, despite more miles having been covered by drivers.

I was pleased that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. She will know that my constituency takes its name from the principal river—the Roche—so it was appropriate that she responded this morning. I thank her for her support.

She asked about HGVs and public service vehicles. Those are not included in the provisions of the Bill, principally because drivers of those vehicles must be 21 years of age at least before they can hold a licence. They must also hold a car licence before they can apply for those licences. It is thought, because of their age and the fact that they must have a car licence first, that they will be caught within the provisions of the Bill in those stages rather than later when they have a more advanced licence.

I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) for his support. I know that he was busy this morning on road safety matters in the privacy of his office. I am grateful that he could break away to come here to support the Bill. He, too, pointed out that young people are more responsible with regard to drink-driving. Let us hope that the Bill will make them more responsible in other ways, too.

I am pleased to see you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank you for the time that you have given me. I thank all hon. Members for the support that they have given the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Olympic Symbol Etc (Protection) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

12.20 pm

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

The Bill seeks simply to protect the Olympic symbol and the Olympic words from unauthorised commercial exploitation. It has all-party support. Perhaps it would be appropriate to spell out the names of those who are supporting me in the Bill. They include my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who, of course, is respected and renowned for his sporting ability in the past and for his on-going interest in sport; my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe)—I need not describe his exploits, ability and the achievements that he has notched up, not only on his own behalf but on behalf of the United Kingdom, and his tally of medals, including Olympic medals, is something of which everybody can be proud; my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel); the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who has been a distinguished Minister and Opposition spokesman and currently heads the Select Committee on National Heritage; the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who has established a fine reputation for his interest in sport, who supports a wide range of sport and speaks with considerable knowledge; the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), an outspoken and robust advocate of sport who has done great credit to himself, his constituency and the sports for which he speaks: the hon Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton); the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), who has held the position of Opposition spokesman for sport and is highly respected and regarded; the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who represents the Liberal Democrats, has given the Bill his warm support and acts as a sponsor; and our hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who brings a genuine all-party image to and support for the Bill.

In short, the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to grant the British Olympic Association an exclusive licence to exploit the Olympic symbols commercially, thus giving statutory force to the common law rights of the BOA. As our national Olympic committee, the BOA is responsible, as most hon. Members will be aware, for all aspects of the British team at the Olympic games, such as organising transport and providing accommodation, the necessary kit and back-up support. That in itself is an increasingly expensive exercise.

Its role now, however, is much wider, as it also provides extensive services to potential British competitors of all Olympic sports. Those services are aimed at ensuring that the team—we all want this—is as well prepared as possible for international competition, and are acknowledged by the governing bodies of the sport in question to be vital for our top competitors.

As the BOA receives no Government funds, its ability to provide and maintain the existing levels of service to competitors depends, as we are clearly aware, on its ability to raise sponsorship. If we are to maintain and improve British international performances through expenditure of the commercial income available through Olympic sponsorship, statutory protection from unauthorised commercial exploitation is vital.

Such protection would give sponsors—who will, I believe, provide a great deal of money—the comfort of knowing that they have a legally protected right. Thus, control of any authorised use would be very much easier. It is an unfortunate fact that such unauthorised use has become increasingly prevalent and poses a serious threat to the BOA's fund-raising ability and so to the future of British sport.

At this point it may be worth quoting a sentence from a letter that I have received from Craig Reedie, the chairman of the BOA. He says:

"The Bill has the unanimous backing of the sporting community and I hope that, given its uncontentious nature, it will receive your support."

I have also received a letter from Gavin Stewart, chairman of the BOA's Competitors' Council. He is a well-respected and renowned international rower. In his letter, copies of which may have gone to many hon. Members, he says:

"The ability to maintain existing levels of service to top British competitors depends increasingly on the ability to generate income through commercial exploitation of the Olympic Symbols. The protection which this Bill would offer is vital in order to ensure that Britain's top competitors are not deprived of the benefits of the revenue which this commercial exploitation can produce."

It is interesting that Mr. Stewart sends out with his letter a list. It was written on behalf of the governing bodies of Olympic sports, all of which are listed and all of which support the Bill. I am almost tempted to read out all of them, because it is so comprehensive, and it shows the wide support for the Bill. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] I will succumb to the temptation. The list comprises the Grand National Archery Society; the British Athletic Federation; the British Badminton Olympic Committee, the British Baseball Federation; the British and Irish Basketball Federation; the British Bobsleigh Association: the British Amateur Boxing Association; the British Canoe Union; the British Curling Association; the British Cycling Federation; the British Equestrian Federation; the Amateur Fencing Association; the Football Association; the British Amateur Gymnastics Association; the British Handball Association; the Great Britain Olympic Hockey Board; the British Ice Hockey Association; the National Ice Skating Association of the United Kingdom; the British Judo Association; the Lawn Tennis Association; the Great Britain Luge Association; the Modern Pentathlon Association of Great Britain; the Amateur Rowing Association; the British Ski Federation; the National Softball Federation; the Amateur Swimming Federation of Great Britain; the British Olympic Table Tennis Committee; the Great Britain Target Shooting Federation; the British Volleyball Federation; the British Amateur Weightlifters' Association; the British Amateur Wrestling Association; and the Royal Yachting Association. That is an extremely comprehensive list.

The hon. Gentleman has not read out the name of the British Amateur Rugby League Association. Does that mean that it is opposed to the Bill?

I am happy to say that I do not believe that it is. I received the list from the British Olympic Association and, although I confess it does not include the British Amateur Rugby League Association, I am confident that, although that organisation is not directly affected by the legislation, its members would unanimously support the Bill.

The United Kingdom is one of the few countries that do not give statutory protection to the olympic symbol. As the BOA is one of the few national Olympic committees that does not receive Government funds, British sportsmen and women operate at a significant disadvantage compared with their counterparts from the countries against which they compete.

The Bill has no negative revenue implications for the Treasury and I hope that the House agrees that it is neither complicated nor controversial. As I emphasised, it has total cross-party support, as is evidenced by my 11 co-sponsors. It has the support of the Department of National Heritage, Her Majesty's Opposition and the Labour party spokesman on sport, and the minority parties. As I sought to show, it also has the unanimous backing of the sporting community. I am delighted to introduce the Bill.

I strongly support the measure but may I ask my hon. Friend about clause 4—[interruption.] It may cause a little trouble, as that clause often does. Clause 4 provides an exemption to the infringement provision and suggests that certain kinds of work should not be covered. It says that, if

"a dramatic work, a musical work, an artistic work, a sound recording, a film, a broadcast and a cable programme"

infringes the association right, the infringement would not be actionable. What is the thinking behind that? A film that uses the Olympic symbol would probably be a big-money production from which the association could get some useful revenue, so what is the point of the exemption?

I have always been told that it is unwise to give way. I suspect that I may be unable to give my hon. Friend the full answer that he requires. When my hon. Friend the Minister makes the Government's contribution, he may wish to comment on the matter. The widespread legal advice on which the Bill has been framed may marginally limit its scope. Clauses 2 to 4 specify the rights conferred by the Olympic association's rights and what amounts to infringement, and deal with the limits of those rights. There was a danger that, if the Bill went too wide, it risked hybridity. I hope that that is a satisfactory answer.

I simply wish to offer my hon. Friend some help in answering the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald). My hon. Friend referred to the apparent anomaly in clause 4(2), which mentions

"descriptions of work referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are a literary work, a dramatic work, a musical work, an artistic work, a sound recording, a film, a broadcast and a cable programme".

Could it be that the sound reason for excluding such activities is that there may often be an incidental reference to or pointing to the Olympic symbol in a sound recording or broadcast? Surely it would be unjust to include such references, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish injustice to occur. It would not be fair for such incidental reproduction to be caught by the provisions of this otherwise highly sensible Bill.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his extremely supportive and helpful comments on the Bill. Clearly, I do not want the Bill to range so far that it will be difficult to implement and monitor it. My hon. Friend's point is correct. Clearly, there may be many occasions when incidental references will be made and it could create a legal minefield were the Bill's scope to be as wide as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) wanted.

I am delighted to be introducing the Bill. It is always a pleasure to introduce a Bill that has support across the House.

Before my hon. Friend finishes his speech, could he deal with two issues that arise from my reading of the Bill, which I broadly support? I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend is introducing the Bill, but does it apply to Northern Ireland? If not, why not?

Secondly, what is the Bill's single market dimension? What is the efficacy of legislating on a purely national basis now that we have a single market in this area? What is to prevent goods with the Olympic logo from being produced elsewhere in the single market, imported into this country and sold on the principle that anything that can be legally sold anywhere in the single market can be legally sold everywhere in the single market? Can my hon. Friend reassure me on that point?

In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question I refer him to clauses 10 and 11, which deal with forfeiture in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Bill relates to all parts of the United Kingdom.

And clause 18(3).

As my hon. Friend says, the matter is also covered in another part of the Bill.

On the issue of the European Community, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), I can only say, as I did earlier, that the British Olympic Association is one of the few national Olympic committees that does not receive Government funds and does not have exclusive use of the Olympic logo within its country. It is my understanding that legislation on the subject is already in place in other countries of the European Community.

I stress the point that I made earlier—I have taken lengthy and good legal advice. Clearly, the Bill's draftsmen have been considering such matters, and I believe that we are covered. I do not want to introduce into the debate any matters relating to subsidiarity, because I would be unnecessarily widening the scope of the debate.

I am delighted to be introducing the Bill. It will support the BOA and our athletes, improve our potential Olympic competitors and ensure that money raised from Olympic sponsorship is spent in the way that it should be—on sport and in nurturing the next generation of sportsmen and sportswomen.

I emphasise that, if we are to be at the top of the league in international sport, we need resources with which to train our athletes from a very young age. That is a major objective of the British Olympic Association. Clearly, the more resources it has and the more extensive training it can provide, the better the results achieved by the nation in international events.

Such a development can only assist in restoring our sporting fortunes and in returning our nation's competitors to the pinnacle of sporting excellence for which we are renowned. I am happy to commend the Second Reading of the Bill to the House.

12.40 pm

I congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on his success in the ballot and on the excellent way in which he has presented the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Bill. As he said, the Bill commands the full support of the Opposition as well as the wide-ranging support of hon. Members. He named many hon. Members on both sides of the House who support the Bill, but I will mention just two of them.

The whole House will recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry)—the Opposition shadow spokesman in this area—has played a prominent role in our country's sporting life. I know that the Bill is very dear to his heart, and it is fitting that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to him.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), to whore I referred earlier in today's proceedings. In addition to the national and international honours that he has gained on behalf of this country, he is also my parliamentary pair, and I know that he appreciates the importance of that assignment.

In discussing the Olympic symbol, we are also examining the importance of sport. On the day that we are discussing the future of sport under the terms of the Bill, it is appropriate that we remember the life of the late Fred Perry. He made an important contribution to sport in this century and he was the last British winner of the Wimbledon men's singles final. It is appropriate to his memory that we discuss this subject today.

This long overdue Bill is designed to protect the commercial rights of the British Olympic Association. It is correct to point out that similar legislation exists in most other countries, including the United States of America and Australia. The British Olympic Association, which has primary responsibility for funding our Olympic teams, receives no direct Government funding and it cannot bid for lottery money because of its particular revenue status. Therefore, it is important that the Bill enjoys a speedy passage through Parliament.

Clause 10 almost goes back to our earlier debate on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The Bill makes provision for

"the forfeiture of certain goods, material or articles which come into the possession of any person … in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a relevant offence".

It is absolutely right to include such a clause. Far too many spivs are making money from sport, taking money that is rightly the preserve of the BOA and that should be returned to sport.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde has written to the Prime Minister about matters contained in the Bill, pressing him to introduce appropriate legislation in Government time. Nevertheless, we are delighted that the hon. Member for Macclesfield has introduced a Bill that will have wide-ranging effects on investment in sport. We warmly welcome it.

12.45 pm

I welcome the Bill and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for introducing it. It could have no more doughty fighter on its behalf. My hon. Friend has assembled a huge team of all-party supporters, and the welcome that his Bill received from the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) proves how well he did his behind-the-scenes homework on preparing the Bill for its Second Reading.

The Olympic games are special to Britain because of our national achievements but they are also special also internationally. They have a proud history and are a sign of the comity of nations and of international co-operation of a unique kind. For that reason, I particularly agree that the signs, mottos and words associated with the games should enjoy unique dignity and protection. That might be called censorship by some people, but to the extent that censorship is involved, it is right that those items should receive special protection. It is important also that their commercial exploitation benefits athletes and others connected with the games rather than only commercial interests.

That is particularly true given the history of the games. I make no apology for referring to that history briefly. Although the games are of ancient origin, it is not entirely clear where they were first held. By the end of the 6th century BC, at least four Greek sporting festivals known as the classical games had achieved major importance. The most significant were the games held at Olympia. The others were the Pythian, Nemean and Isthmian games held at Delphi, Nemea and Corinth respectively.

Similar festivals developed to the point where the Olympic games in particular became famous throughout the Greek world. There are records of champions at Olympia going back as far as 726 BC, when it was recorded that there was just one event—the stade. [Interruption.] I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) of a different pronunciation from an older generation—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—or a newer one. I would never suggest that my hon. Friend is from anything but the newest and latest generation. He is definitely with it.

Subsequently, other races were added. Of most importance and interest to the House perhaps is the 1,500 metres, which developed by the year 724 BC—the race in which, in modern times, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) excelled and Britain, as the middle-distance running centre of the world, has made such a reputation.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the event of most relevance to the House was the pankration—a form of no-holds-barred wrestling?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I recall that, although the fighting was no holds barred, and kicking and hitting were allowed, biting and gouging of eyes were strictly forbidden. So a certain discipline did prevail, even though Madam Speaker might not have approved of it.

On a slightly more serious note, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems emerging in the Olympic games at that time—regrettably, all too familiar to us—resulted in the Olympic committee having to meet on a number of occasions to discuss the use of drugs by certain athletes? In particular, the Spartan team was accused of including drugs in its diet. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is highly regrettable that the problem has persisted in the games to the present day? Our hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) has long been associated with attempts to combat drugs through his association with the games.

I was coming to some of the more serious issues surrounding the games. I certainly agree that there is nothing new under the sun, and that there were problems with drugs even in those early years. It is a cause of sadness that those who wish to excel will sometimes let down themselves and others by resorting to drugs.

I too pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne, who has taken a clear view on this subject—that there should be no excuses, and that people found after tests to have taken drugs should not be allowed to get away with it by using some of the excuses that we so often hear. They should incur a lengthy ban.

It was in the Roman period that the games effectively came to an end, because the Romans regarded athletics with contempt and were not prepared to allow the Olympics to continue. Nevertheless, by the year 200 AD the games had had a proud continuous history from 776 BC. It was that history which, in the Victorian period, inspired Baron Pierre de Coubertin, who was the father of the modern Olympics. In a moving speech made in Paris in 1892, he said:

"Let us export our oarsmen, our runners, our fencers into other lands. That is the true Free Trade of the future; and the day it is introduced into Europe the cause of Peace will have received a new and strong ally. It inspires me to touch upon another step I now propose, and in it I shall ask that the help you have given me hitherto you will extend again, so that together we may attempt to realise, upon a basis suitable to the conditions of our modern life, the splendid and beneficent task of reviving the Olympic games."

From that moment in 1892, the baron fought hard at conference after conference to establish the Olympic games. In 1894 a meeting of Sports Ministers in Paris voted unanimously in favour of revival, and the congress was then able to set up the first modern Olympic games in April 1896.

It is perhaps worth remembering that the games have been held ever since then, through periods of immense international difficulty, wars and the worst threats to civilisation that we have known. The Olympic movement continued and brought together peoples of all countries.

Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on the poignancy of the fact that Baron de Coubertin made that speech just 22 years after the seige of Paris during the Franco-Prussian war? When he described sport as the

"free trade of the future",

he seemed to have a vision that the Olympic movement might be the precursor of the European Union of today.

I note that some colleagues are surprised at that idea. The baron certainly believed that Europe need not be divided and that its future should have co-operation at its centre. I do not think that he would have gone as far as to suggest a federal destiny for Europe, although I am sure that he would have welcomed the co-operation between nation states that we now have.

The baron was extremely eager that there should be agreement. He was convinced—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) and many of his hon. Friends are reading from a prepared text. Bearing in mind the importance of ensuing Bills, we are clearly facing a filibuster. I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Conservative Members send a copy of their prepared text upstairs to Hansard and that we then get on with a proper Bill.

I assure the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) that so far there has been nothing out of order. Anything out of order would have been ruled out of order.

Without lingering too long on the point made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), which you ruled out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I make it clear that my notes are hand written. I accept that I have been reading, but it is a passage from the history of the Olympics with which I am anxious to deal. I do not have a prepared text. I have only an extract from the "Encyclopedia Britannica". It is relevant, I think, to what we are discussing. I am glad to have your support, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The baron was convinced that the downfall of the ancient Olympic games had been caused by outside influences that undermined the spirit of the games. For that reason he was anxious that the International Olympic Committee and its members should be regarded as ambassadors of their national sports organisations, not delegates to the committee, and that they might not accept from the Government of each country or any organisation or individual instructions that in any way affected their independence.

It is a fact that the Olympic movement has that independence, which has been its strength. The Bill seeks to protect the symbols, the motto and the words associated with the Olympic games, which means that we are considering a measure that will help the British Olympic movement and the international movement. That context is important.

In moving from the history—

Before my hon. Friend moves on from the history of the new Olympic games, and for that matter the ancient games, will he take up what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was saying about the Olympic symbol, the interlinked rings? When did the rings become an integral part of the Olympic movement? Was the symbol used in Greek and Roman times? I ask these questions out of interest and curiosity.

rose—

Order. The history lesson is interesting, and it could probably be said to be relevant to the Bill. However, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North is rather stretching it. It would be advantageous to the debate if we dealt with the Bill.

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not going to take the route suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). I merely say that the answer is 1914.

The scheme of the Bill is that the British Olympic Association will have a right to the symbols, the motto and the words associated with the Olympic movement. That right will be in statutory form. It would be an infringement of that right without the consent of the proprietor—the association—to use these representations for all purposes except those set out in clause 4, which provides that the

"right is not infringed by use of a controlled representation where—

(a) the use"—

is in a work as described in subsection (2), and the work is not one whose purpose is, or whose purposes include, the "advertising or other promotion" of goods or services.

The descriptions of works referred to are

"a literary work, a dramatic work, a musical work, an artistic work, a sound recording, a film, a broadcast and a cable programme, within the meaning of the"

1988 Act. All those forms of work are likely to be produced by commercial concerns. For example, a literary work is published for reward and a dramatic or musical work is presented to the public for reward.

Given that the Bill has two main purposes—to uphold the dignity of the symbols and signs of the movement and to ensure that their commercial exploitation is in the interests of athletes and those connected with the games—it is difficult to understand the justification for excluding a literary work that relies on the movements motto or symbols or the word "Olympic". The use of the motto, symbol or word should be the subject of a payment to the British Olympic Association to enable it to capitalise on its valuable intellectual property.

The same is true of a dramatic or musical work if the symbol is to be used. If Andrew Lloyd Webber produces a show, possibly something along the lines of "Chariots of Fire" with music, why should he not pay our athletes through the association a sum to reflect the commercial advantages that he is gaining from using the association's symbol?

It is important that we should uphold the dignity of the games. As a barrister who prosecuted in obscenity cases—the hon. Member for St. Helens, South may have had similar experiences—I saw many works that were alleged to be obscene but which were often described as "artistic", and artistic works are among those exempted in clause 4. Although such works might be "artistic", I do not believe that they are the sort of material that the Olympic movement would wish to be using its symbol, motto or the words "Olympic" or "Olympian". There should be an element of censorship, even in the case of an artistic work.

I am following my hon. Friend's comments with great interest. He will be aware that one of the sponsors of the Bill is the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on National Heritage. I note that five members of that Committee are sponsoring the Bill.

My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, at th:is very moment, the Committee is looking into the future of the British film industry. He mentioned "Chariots of Fire" which was a huge success. It was, however, a low-budget movie. If my hon. Friend's suggestion that fees should be paid for the use of the symbol—whether it were used as an integral or incidental part of a film—were adopted, would it not inhibit still further the production of British films?

My hon. Friend raises an interesting issue, but I am not sure that I should follow it up. If the symbol is to be used, a payment, however small, should be made. In the case of low-budget films, the association might feel that it was able to levy only a small charge, but there is no reason why it should not exploit part of its commercial heritage. It is a question not only of commercial advantage but of censorship that the Olympic symbol should not be used willy-nilly in any production in a way that the founders of the movement and those who carry the torch today would not wish. I support the Bill, but I believe that that issue gives rise to legitimate concern.

I intervene to assist the House and—I hope—my hon. Friend, who is making a most interesting speech. The British Olympic Association has been closely involved with the drafting of the Bill. I appreciate that my hon. Friend is seeking to increase the amount of available sponsorship, but the British Olympic Association is very happy with the Bill, believing that to extend it further would create grave problems in policing and in other ways.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps he wants to consider his point with the Olympic movement, but I do not see it as a bar to supporting the Bill. However, I hope that my hon. Friend is willing to look into the matter.

I am concerned that my hon. Friend is falling into error. If he looks at clause 4, sub-section 2, about which he has been expounding, and applies his mind to, for example, films which incidentally catch in the background an advertisement or a copyright symbol of a well-known household product, drink or foodstuff, is it right and just that the Olympic movement, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield referred, should be more favoured, especially when it does not advocate such practice, than the makers of household products, which would not be able to claim damages for breaches of copyright were their logos or other copyright property to appear incidentally in a dramatic or musical work and the like?

I obviously understand my hon. Friend's point and his concern, but the Olympics are rather different from other products advertised on hoardings and elsewhere. The Olympics has a special place in Britain and internationally, so the association should have that special right to consent, if it wishes, to films which display its banner in the background, but only if it feels that the film suits the Olympic movement and its dignity and if it receives a commercial reward.

The costs of sending an athletics team abroad to contest the Olympics are huge and the costs of staging the Olympics run into hundreds of millions of pounds. There should be special provision in this unique case.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no comparison between the use of the Olympic symbol and the word and the placement, if one may call it that, of certain product names? Is it not the case that certain manufacturers pay film companies and television production companies to place their product names in the viewer's line of sight?

My hon. Friend makes a telling point. Indeed, the method that he describes is one of the ways in which the Olympics is financed. Certainly, I know that in America the Olympic symbol was marketed to great effect before the Los Angeles Olympics.

Schools show films which depict the Olympics and the successes of athletes such as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne and CD-roms are coming on stream which contain the entire history of the Olympics, so it would be wrong if the costs of producing such films, videos and CD-roms were so high that schools could not afford them. I do not think that the British Olympic Association would want to make a profit, but it would want proper recognition in films and other artistic representations and some payment, however small, for being a unique body with unique interests. I hope that I have not detained the House for too long.

1.8 pm

I will not detain the House for long, but I want to refer to one or two of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) in relation to the history of the Olympic games. Although the Olympic games are a very ancient institution, the current games are a relatively recent revival. As we have heard, the Olympic symbol was not invented until 1914. It is a relatively modern occurrence.

I do not want to strike a discordant note. However, we are proposing to give a Second Reading to a Bill which will give something unique to the British Olympic Association—a right of property to the Olympic symbol, "Olympiad", "Olympic" and the other words covered in the Bill. Those words are common currency, but the Bill proposes to give them a special status, to the possible disadvantage of people who already use them.

I am not a lawyer and, as I am surrounded by hon. and learned Members, I tread carefully in these matters. I am concerned about clause 2(4) and whether it protects people who have used in their company names the words covered in the Bill. Clause 2(4) states:

"This section shall not have effect to permit the doing of anything which would otherwise be liable to be prevented by virtue of a right".

I am concerned about that, because I do not know what "a right" is in that respect.

Will the Bill affect commerce and the people who have used the words covered in the Bill for many years? In that respect, I think of Olympic Airways. The Bill could cause that airline problems because I am not sure whether, according to the definitions in the Bill, Olympic Airways has a right to its name. Clauses 5 and 6 refer to the Trade Marks Act 1994, but I am not certain whether the airline would gain any comfort from that.

The London business telephone directory reveals that the use of words like "Olympic" and "Olympiad" is widespread. I am concerned that the Bill will affect many of the people who trade under those names. The London business telephone directory has entries for Olympia Cars and Olympia Butchers of Blythe road. I am sure that it is an excellent establishment.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One could go through the telephone directory until the cows come home, but that will not stop people exporting veal calves. That is what the next Bill is all about and that is what the hon. Gentleman is trying to stop.

We are not debating the next Bill: we are debating the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Bill, as the hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware. His point of order is an abuse of the House.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I have abused the House, I apologise.

I have already ruled on that point of order.

I simply wanted to apologise.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) may think that I am abusing the House, but he does not trade as the Olympia Butchers of Blythe road, W14. The Bill could have a serious impact on the ability of that company to trade properly. I stand to be corrected by my hon. and learned Friends who know much more about the law than I do, but I wonder whether such companies will be exempt under the terms of the Bill. As I understand the Bill, I do not think that those firms can claim to have a right to continue to use those names.

Olympic Airways may have its name as a registered trade mark. However, would smaller companies like Olympia Delicacies, doner kebab manufacturer, have bothered to register official trade names? Would such company names be "a right", as set out in the Bill? What about Olympia Flowers, a west London florist, and Olympia Pizza? Surely those companies have not registered their names as a trade mark. Would they be put out of business as a result of the Bill?

Earlier, we debated the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill which may put young pizza delivery drivers at risk of losing their licences and having to resit the driving test. Will the Bill remove the right of Olympia Pizza to trade? I should welcome some assurances from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that little businesses such as Olympic Bloodstock Ltd., Olympic Bus, Olympic Cars, Olympic Cash and Carry, Olympic Electronics, Olympic Estates and so on will not be prejudiced in their ability to earn a living by anything that he does this day.

Will my hon. Friend address clauses 15 and 16? He will find that the margin notes refer to:

"Remedy for groundless threats of infringement proceedings."

Clause 14 refers to

"Power to give directions to proprietor."

That power is given to the Secretary of State. Will my hon. Friend address those clauses and then consider 'whether his points about such shops are as good as he originally thought that they were?

Giving way to lawyers is always a dangerous pastime. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's points. I read clauses 14 and 15. I was not certain whether they posed a greater threat to the ability of Olympia Butchers of Blythe road to continue, to be honest. That is why we need assurances from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. If we get around to discussing it in Committee, we shall be able to examine the Bill more carefully to ensure that it does not prejudice anybody by giving the British Olympic Association a unique advantage.

I have looked at the scope of the Bill, and I note that it 'covers the five interlocking rings, the words "Citius, altius, fortius" and other words. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is relieved that it does not cover the Olympic torch. I am not sure how that would affect the Conservative party's symbol.

My hon. Friend is very astute. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield would not wish to do anything to prejudice the use of the Olympic torch on Conservative party literature. Again, there might be concern from Smith square at some import of the Bill.

I now refer in more detail to the Trade Marks Act 1994. In looking for some comfort in it, I wondered whether the definitions of trade marks do not already cover the Olympic sign.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me how important he regards the Bill to be. Perhaps he would compare it with the fact that, in my area of Warwickshire and in Coventry, six people have died as a result of the veal export trade. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will compare the importance of some hon. Members wanting to make points on that matter with his views on talking out the Bill and reading the telephone directory.

Order. That intervention has nothing to do with the Bill. The Chair will decide what is in order. So far, what I have heard has been in order—otherwise, it would have been ruled out of order.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill is important because it raises important points of principle. The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. 0' Brien) might not be interested in the livelihood of businesses, but I happen to be so. It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to accuse me of speaking on the Bill without caring about other matters. It is nonsense to suggest that.

Methinks the hon. Gentleman doth protest too much.

I heard what the hon. Gentleman said from a sedentary position. I shall continue my speech, so that we can examine some clauses in detail.

In relation to the Trade Marks Act, I was about to mention international protection of the Olympic sign. Surely that is covered by the Paris convention of 1883. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield talked about international protection, but as this country is a signatory to the Paris convention of 1883, there might be no need for the Bill because we are already covered.

In making this intervention, I shall make a plea to the House. The debate so far has been constructive and extremely helpful. It has dealit exclusively with the matters before the House. The Bill has support right across the House, and is widely supported outside. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) is looking at the nitty-gritty of the Bill, and he is quite right that the 1883 legislation covers the matter internationally. However, it does not cover the matter within the United Kingdom.

We have been extremely careful in drafting the Bill, and we have been in consultation with the Department of National Heritage and, naturally, with the Treasury. We have taken the best possible advice, and the scope of the Bill is as it is because we do not want to do some of the: things which my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has implied in his remarks. Commercial interests have been consulted, and they are happy with the Bill. The British Olympic Association is happy with the scope of the Bill.

I hope that, in his probing of the Bill—he has an absolute right to do that—my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham will not perhaps destroy the Bill by being rather too negative in his approach.

I assure my hon. Friend that I would not wish to impede the process of the Bill, because it deserves further, and more detailed, discussions.

The inquiry which I was making on the matter was that it would be fine for a company such as Olympic Airways, which has established that as its title. Small shops and businesses, however, may not be taken account of in the provisions. Often a company trades under a different name from the sign on its board, and such companies could well be caught in this legislation.

Has my hon. Friend made an analysis of the number of Greek restaurants in the United Kingdom with a title including the name Olympic?

I assure my hon. Friend that there must be thousands of such restaurants. My hon. Friend has put his finger on a main point. The words "Olympic", "Olympius" and "Olympus" belong to the Greek people. They are not the exclusive property of the British Olympic Association. When the Olympic games were revived during the 19th century, those words and the symbol were adopted.

From the moment that the Bill becomes law, a Greek restaurant owner wishing to name his restaurant the Olympic would—I dare say—be unable to do so. He could then be said to be infringing the copyright of one of the names covered in the Bill. The words form part of the heritage and culture of the Greeks. Many Greek Cypriots in this country run businesses and have affection for those words. "Olympic Pizza" gives the idea of speed, fitness and people delivering pizzas on motorbikes.

I take my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire's point absolutely. The words are common currency. If the Bill were in any way to stop people using that title—as a Greek or Greek Cypriot person should be entitled to do—when opening up a business, it would require amendment. It is as simple as that.

If it is properly examined, the Bill can be made to work. We must talk it through carefully, and I am sorry if Opposition Members do not think that we should do that. I believe that it is right to get legislation in the House correct, and not to put into law matters which are incorrect. There are many issues today of national and international importance, but the House is perfectly entitled to discuss things of smaller importance. We should be reminded of shopkeepers and restaurateurs and consider the Bill carefully. Therefore, we must have further detailed discussions about the Bill before it becomes law.

1.24 pm

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) not only on gaining a well-placed position in the ballot for private Member's Bills but on the subject that he selected as his Bill. It is important, as I will explain, both for positive and negative reasons.

The House will be familiar with the magnificent equestrian figure of my hon. Friend, who tried to tempt me into the sporting field on a visit to the west Falklands some years ago, where we set out one morning to try to improve our equestrian skills—he sitting magnificently on a horse, and me clinging to it in a way I had never done for a quarter of a century previously.

The same horse?

I assure my hon. Friend that it was a different horse. Perhaps if it had been the same horse, I would not have suffered the fall I did—my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield knew how to check a horse's girth and to ensure that the horse was not puffed up. I did not make that check and in due course took quite a tumble for my lack of sporting experience. I know that my hon. Friend is highly qualified to speak on sporting measures.

The Bill is welcome for negative as well as positive reasons. I believe that it will improve the quality of the goods to which the Olympic symbol is attached. We all know that, at great international events, great sporting events and events of varying descriptions, for example, relating to the royal family, a vast array of some pretty tacky goods are circulated for the tourists, visitors and the public to purchase.

As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), the Opposition spokesman, said in her usual elegant way, they are produced by spivs. Be they produced by spivs or wide boys, it is a diversion of the resources of the sportsgoing public that profits made from the sale of such hallmarked items goes to spivs and wide-boys rather than to the sporting endeavours. For that reason, I think that the Bill will be a valuable addition to the statute book, when it reaches it.

On the positive side, the Bill is of great value to formalise and to protect the symbol properly in its uses. If in the process it raises money for the development of sporting activities, it is only too valuable. In the past, I have been involved in the organising of contingents to international scout jamborees. That does not compare in expertise and skills to the preparation of contingents to the Olympics. They are immensely expensive, particularly if one thinks about the vast costs involved in sending not only the teams but the supporting teams, which are ever-more complex in this modern day and age. The equipment that needs to be sent must be kept to a very high standard and be at the point of absolute perfection when our sportsmen and women take part. It costs a vast amount.

One of the principal advantages of the Bill is that that money can be properly applied to support a good British team to go to the Olympics. If it can additionally cause funds to be gained and filtered down to the training of our young people in sports, across the wide range of sports involved in the Olympics, it must be an advantage, because I think that we do not do better in international sports because we do not catch our young at an early enough age to get them skilled in the various sports involved in the Olympics.

The Bill is particularly relevant to Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) referred to other countries in Europe and to the international scene. We are not discussing legislation that goes beyond the borders of the United Kingdom. We are discussing what happens here. When we send teams abroad to the Olympics, as we have since 1948, we deal with goods produced in this country to commemorate the Olympics being held far from these shores.

London, this great capital city of ours, hosted the Olympics in the early days of 1908 and came to the Olympic movement's rescue in 1948 in staging the revival Olympics. We are all too familiar with the agonies of the bid to bring the next Olympics to Manchester. I hope that Manchester, London and other cities will work towards bringing the Olympics here in the future. So doing will require vast sums of money, which is why the Bill is highly relevant in gathering together the money necessary to present an Olympic games of the standard required by the Olympics movement and expected by the House.

The Bill is particularly relevant to the House because a small, select band of hon. Members have played a great part in previous Olympics. Between 1931 and 1943, the hon. Member for Peterborough was Lord Burghley, who won a gold medal in the 400 metre hurdles at the 1928 Olympics in Amsterdam. After 1943, he moved up the Corridor, where he succeeded as the sixth Marquess of Exeter. Also along the Corridor is another Olympic participant, in rifle shooting—Lord Swansea. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may recall from your early days in the House the then hon. Member for Chichester, Chris Chataway, who had an excellent record in the 5,000 metre race many years ago. We are honoured to have with us the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who has many Olympic records to his credit.

I hope that we shall shortly consider the Bill's detailed clauses and requirements. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) raised a valid concern. The names mentioned in the Bill, such as "Olympics" and "Olympian", are, by their nature, not exclusive to that magnificent sporting contest but are used by many organisations, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, a pizza parlour and the Greek airline.

In reading through the Bill, I was interested to note that clause 15 provides a remedy for groundless threats of infringement proceedings. If the House gives organisations certain rights and responsibilities to control the use of the Olympic symbol, it is incumbent on the House to ensure that such rights are not abused.

I strongly support the Bill because it will be of immense value in adding further fire power to this country's sporting excellence. Let us hope that, in future years, as a result of resources brought forth by the Bill, British teams will give even better performances at the Olympics than they have in the past.

rose

1.33 pm

I shall be brief, because I have no motive other than to strongly support the Bill. Before the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has apoplexy, I assure him that I, too, want the House to put an end to the live export of animals, which I strongly deprecate. Nevertheless, we are now here to discuss the important Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Bill, which has been presented not before time.

Few ideals have enthused the whole world so consistently throughout this century as that of the Olympics. The Olympics sum up some of the highest human ideals and deserve special protection. Those ideals are of excellence, competition, team spirit, brotherhood of man and international co-operation on a peaceful and positive basis. That is why it is so important that we should, to the best of our ability, protect the Olympic games and the Olympic movement from commercial exploitation in a world where the pressures are increasingly intense.

Therefore, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on introducing the Bill and, I hope, on enabling measures to be passed that will protect the games from commercial exploitation and take us back to the original spirit of the games alluded to earlier. It was not mentioned that, apart from the commercial pressures, another major difference between the games then and now was that all the competitors were naked and only one female was allowed to participate—the high priestess Demeter, who seems to have been absent from more recent Olympic games.

The United Kingdom is rare in not already giving proper protection to Olympic trademarks. The Bill puts right a long-standing anomaly and provides protection, not just to the symbols, but to other elements associated with the Olympic movement. The Bill has a positive as well as a negative—protective—side. It will enable sponsorship for athletes to be collected by the British Olympic Committee by the licensing and use of symbols related to the Olympic games. That is particularly important in this country, where there is no Government support, which is, in itself, quite unusual in the international context.

Trademarks are an important part of commerce; they are an important symbol of human activity in the modern world. They are more than just symbols, they represent ideals and, in the popular imagination, they are linked to whatever they represent. I can give no better example than that of Cartier. People often buy a product exclusively because it bears the symbol and trademark of a specific manufacturer or trader equated with high quality.

I mentioned the name of Cartier because, throughout the world, many people attempt to copy the symbol illicitly in order to sell the product at more than its value would otherwise be. That will apply to the Olympics if the symbol remains unprotected. I do not want that to happen—I want the Olympic games to be properly protected in this country as they are elsewhere. I want the British Olympic Committee to use the facility to raise sponsorship to support our athletes and our contributions to future Olympics. For those reasons, I strongly support and welcome the Bill, and hope that it passes through the House swiftly.

1.37 pm

I shall be brief, as was the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), unlike his colleagues, who made extremely lengthy, verbose and pointless speeches.

I do not mean to be unkind—I can easily read the Bill. We do not pass retrospective legislation, so anyone called Olympic or Olympia is protected and will not be hurt by the legislation. If clauses 17 and 18 mean what they say, a person who makes a frivolous objection because someone has chosen to use Olympic or Olympia as his or her name will be caught by the law. Therefore, anyone with such a name does not need to worry.

As for the history lesson from the Government, a parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), gave us some wonderful information which was totally useless and pointless. I should be grateful if he would give me the briefing document so that I can read it to see what bits were missed out.

The Bill is long overdue and I congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on introducing it. The Bill will do a lot of good and it will help many people in the future. It may even create jobs; indeed, if we move on to the next Bill, we may create still more jobs. I welcome the Bill.

1.40 pm

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on his good fortune in winning the ballot and introducing the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Bill. Like the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I wish to move on to the next Bill on the Order Paper, the Protection of Calves (Export) Bill, on which I shall speak in support. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not view it as a discourtesy to him or to his Bill if my contribution to this debate is shorter than I would have liked it to be.

I put on record my support for sport. It is immensely important not just for our young people but for all of us—particularly parliamentarians, who have so little opportunity for physical exercise. It is important that our young people should be taught from the very earliest age how to look after their physical as well as their mental health. Those who are at the pinnacle of sporting achievement—our Olympic sportsmen and sportswomen—set a fine example in that regard.

I pay tribute to the work of the Sports Council and I am very grateful that, even in times of financial stringency, the Government have been able to support it with public funds. However, the level of funding is not enough. As the economy continues to improve, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will find more money for the Sports Council.

In the interim, I see no reason why additional funds should not be found for the British Olympic Association from commercial sources. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield on his ingenuity in discovering a source from which the British Olympic Association may derive funding—the commercial use of the Olympic symbol and name.

Sport is important not only in terms of our physical health and well-being but as a source of national pride. We are justifiably proud of the achievements of our Olympic sportsmen and women. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins)—whose constituency my own surrounds—who was a very distinguished Olympic athlete.

I conclude by illustrating to the House the importance of sport as a source of national pride. That fact was summed up only a few days ago by the headline in one of our newspapers which read, "Strewth! We beat the Aussies."

1.42 pm

Like the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), I shall be brief. I support the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Bill totally, and I wish to raise two points to which reference has not been made in the debate so far.

First, the Bill is very welcome, but I fear that it may also be too late. The British Olympic Association has pressed for legislation of this nature for some years. When it first requested such legislation, there was a reasonable chance that the action it sought—a trademark infringement action in order to protect its use and exploitation of the Olympic symbol—would work.

In the past few years, however, there have been some attacks on that legal principle. I believe that the American organisers of the soccer World cup had great difficulty protecting the World cup symbol and sponsorships from deliberate, and often massive, infringements by international companies. Although this legislation is welcome, I hope that its promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), will review with the Minister, the Government's Law Officers and the British Olympic Association the extent to which it can be made watertight. I fear that there are very strong and highly lucrative reasons for people to try to upset the Bill as soon as it passes into law.

Secondly, the Bill is one leg of a two-legged animal. As my hon. Friend said in introducing it, the Bill parallels powers that are already available in many other countries. Equally, many other countries have the power to claim tax relief for expenditure by sponsors and by Olympic associations in raising money for their teams. Such a power is not available in the United Kingdom.

For years, in Finance Bill and other debates, the Government have been pressed to give the tax relief that other countries find essential. Together with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), on an all-party basis I sought a meeting with a Treasury Minister on that concession. In view of what I am about to say, I shall not name him because he might immediately be sacked from the Cabinet, of which he is now a member. He said, "I am in favour in principle, but what chance do I have when the entire Cabinet pays obeisance to only one sport—cricket?"

We did not manage to secure that tax relief, but I hope that the interest generated by my hon. Friend's Bill will provide another chance. My hon. Friend, whose reputation for not entirely toeing the Government line is well known, may consider pursuing the issue in debates on future Finance Bills, as many others and I have done in the past. I wish the Bill well. I just wish that it had come earlier.

1.45 pm

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned that his Bill has all-party support. The signatories to it range from senior parliamentarians, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey)—who is my Member of Parliament in London, and who, until not long ago, was shadow junior Minister for sport. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) competed in the Olympics, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe).

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield on his good fortune in winning a high place in the ballot. He presented his Bill well, and it has the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The article in The House Magazine dated 23 January succinctly describes the purposes of his Bill, so I shall not detain the House by repeating his words.

My hon. Friend's Bill is supported by not only Back Benchers but the Government. On 12 December 1994, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage welcomed the announcement by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield of his intention to introduce a Bill to protect the commercial use of Olympic symbols. The Department acknowledged that it would allow the British Olympic Association exclusive rights to market the use of the Olympic rings and emblem, the motto "Citius, altius, fortius" and the words "Olympic", "Olympian" and "Olympiad".

My hon. Friend the Minister said:

"I fully support these measures to be introduced by Nicholas Winterton to protect the Olympic symbols. They will be of significant benefit to British athletes, and have been widely backed by sporting organisations and commercial businesses.

The proposed legislation will give the British Olympic Association exclusive rights to market the Olympic symbols. This will enable them to raise extra money through commercial royalties, which will be used to help elite sport. Athletes hoping to attend the next Olympic Games in Atlanta will be among the first to benefit."

The Bill has been given the overwhelming support of the House, and I am happy to count myself among those who have risen to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. I should like to allay some of the fears raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald).

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham was worried about shops and businesses that used the words "Olympic" or "Olympiad" in their logos. I hope that I an not trespassing here on territory that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield intends to cover. Clause 4(4) states:

"In the case of a representation of a protected word, the Olympics association right is not infringed by use which is not such as ordinarily to create an association with—
(a) the Olympic games or the Olympic movement, or
(b) a quality ordinarily associated with the Olympic games or the Olympic movement."

I can fully appreciate that, on first reading that clause, members of the public might be confused, but careful study of the Bill puts it beyond doubt that pizza shops, butchers shops and even Olympic Airways would not be caught by it—so I draw that to their attention.

I hope that my hon. Friend's Bill will be given a fair wind and will soon pass into law.

1.51 pm

I shall try to be brief, so that we can get on. I congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on his Bill. My party is delighted to have among its members a well-known Olympian, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who, in his day, led the British Olympic team to some effect.

Perhaps many hon. Members share my view that sport has generally been rather poorly treated, so any attempts, such as the one in the Bill, to improve its status and to give it a leg up are most welcome. It needs investment particularly. The Bill is likely to benefit sport in that respect.

I understand that we are trying to protect the Olympic symbol and words from unauthorised commercial exploitation, and that the Bill gives the Secretary of State the right to grant the British Olympic Association the exclusive licence to exploit the symbols in question—an important step forward.

The United Kingdom is one of the few nations not to give statutory protection to the Olympic symbols. The BOA is one of the few Olympic committees not to receive Government funds. On both these fronts, I believe that the Bill will prove beneficial.

I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield that the Bill will give British sportsmen and women great encouragement, in the knowledge that Parliament wants them to go out and compete successfully on behalf of their country.

We must remove anything that disadvantages our Olympic movement, and that is why I welcome the Bill. The BOA does not benefit from Government funds; its ability to sustain the service that it gives to competitors depends chiefly on private sponsorship. It is, therefore, very important that we give the association the chance to use these protected symbols to generate sponsorship funds that will enable it to continue its important role. That role is to promote sport in our country.

On behalf of the Liberal Democrat party, I welcome the Bill, and wish it every success in its remaining stages.

1.54 pm

I shall briefly speak in support of the Bill, which was so ably and robustly introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I shall not speak for long, primarily because it is important that we debate the Protection of Calves (Export) Bill. I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has to say. My second reason for not speaking at length is that I am suffering from a pretty bad cold. I would riot be able to speak for very long, even if I wanted to do so.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield has, among his supporters, five members of the Select Committee on the National Heritage. Although my name does not appear in the list of supporters, as a member of that Select Committee I wish very much to give my support to the Bill, which on the whole is an excellent measure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) talked about the Olympic spirit. I agree that that spirit or ideal is to be admired. It would be fallacious, however, if we were to say that it has always been achieved. I remind hon. Members of the nadir that it reached in 1936, with the racist Berlin Olympics. We spoke earlier of the use of the Olympic symbol in films. What could have been more perverse than the Leni Riefenstahl film, "Triumph of the Will", which purported to suggest that the Olympic games somehow supported the Nazi idea of racism? I remind hon. Members of the various boycotts, including of the Los Angeles and Moscow games. We all remember, of course, the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich games.

Last Friday, I attended a Cambridge Union debate. It had nothing to do with sport, but I met an historian from Cambridge university who proposed an interesting thesis. He suggested that, in 100, 200 or 300 years' time, Britain would be remembered for two great achievements. He discounted the British empire and scientific achievements, but thought that Britain would be remembered for the spread of the English language and the creation of so many sports that are played throughout the world.

Although we have invented international games such as football and tennis, we have not shown an ability to win them. It is primarily for that reason that I support the Bill. I am aware that in my constituency there are inadequate sums available for the training and travel of athletes who could reach international status.

An athlete called Spencer Duval recently won the British cross-country championships. I hope that he will be taking part in the Olympic games in 1996. I know his family well because, apart from any other reason, his father, Derrick Duval, is the chairman of my local Conservative association. Spencer has had to train in the United States and the United Kingdom. He needs sponsorship, which he is given to some extent. It is clear that the difficulties that he faces are shared by other athletes in the United Kingdom.

Relatively small countries such as the former East Germany experienced success in capturing Olympic awards. That tells us that it is possible, when money is available and there is sufficient will, to become a world leader in international sports. At present, apart perhaps from athletics, Britain is far from a world leader in sports, despite the fact that many sports that are played at the Olympic games were first developed in the United Kingdom.

I support the Bill. I believe that it will help to create additional moneys for the training of British athletes. I hope that the moneys will be used wisely and I should be interested to know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield has had any information from the British Olympic Association as to how they will be used. Are we going to set up training camps—if that is the correct term—for British athletes to enable them to start winning the gold, silver and bronze medals that Britain deserves to win at the Olympic games? I wish the Bill well and commend it to the House.

1.59 pm

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on his tremendous hard work, diligence and persistence. The impressive list of right hon. and hon. Members who are supporting him is a tribute to his hard work and the contents of this important Bill.

I shall first give a few background details of the Bill, with which the House should be familiar and which it is important to place on the record, and then deal with some of the points that have been made.

Parliament will be aware of the historic significance and resonance of the Olympic symbols, the five interlocking Olympic rings, the motto of the Olympic movement, citius, altius, fortius, and the terms "Olympic", "Olympian" and "Olympiad" in world sport. No property exists in the Olympic symbol and its associated terms which, used on their own, are in the public domain and no persons have any copyright or other tangible or intangible commercial property in the symbols per se, although they may have property in an original work, design or trade mark incorporating the symbols.

It is thus possible for anyone to use the unadorned symbols on their own. Applications to register a trademark or design containing the symbols are accepted if they are part of a wider design and not passed off as goods or services that might be used in or associated with the Olympic games.

The British Olympic Association is responsible for promoting the Olympic movement in the United Kingdom. It is a company limited by guarantee, established in accordance with the principles of the Olympic charter and its constitution is approved by the International Olympic Committee. The BOA owns and licenses trademarks that incorporate the Olympic rings together with the representation of the Union Jack. Companies sponsoring the British Olympic team, for example, are given the right to use the trademark for marketing purposes. None of the marks, however, has the same impact or marketability as the instantly recognisable five-ring symbol and associated terms.

The properties associated with the five-ring symbol and associated terms derive entirely from their association with the Olympic movement. The Government support the Bill, which would ensure that the benefit of the commercial use of the properties should be restricted to businesses responsible for supporting the Olympic movement and the British Olympic team.

The extra funding derived from the marketing rights to the Olympic symbols in the United Kingdom will enable the BOA, which depends entirely on the private sector for funding, to develop further sporting excellence in Britain and help ensure the continuing success of British participants in the Olympic games.

The debate about protecting the Olympic symbols in the United Kingdom dates back to 1981 when the Nairobi treaty, under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organisation—a United Nations agency—vested the rights of the Olympic symbols in the International Olympic Committee. The Government have not signed the treaty and are reluctant to do so, as they consider it more appropriate for United Kingdom legislation to vest the rights in a United Kingdom body.

That is accepted by the International Olympic Committee and, in addition to conferring the benefits already described, the proposed legislation would honour a commitment made by the Government to the international Olympic Committee in the course of the unsuccessful Manchester Olympic bid to regulate the use of Olympic symbols in the United Kingdom. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, because, if the Bill is passed, he will have enabled the British Government to fulfil their pledge.

I am sure that we would all agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield that the British Olympic team should be as well prepared as possible. He also said, quite accurately, that the British Olympic Association does not receive any Government funding. Indeed, it does not even receive resources such as free accommodation. Other bodies associated with elite athletes, such as the Sports Aid Foundation, receive accommodation free from the Sports Council.

It is worth reminding the House that although, as I think the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said, it is not possible for the BOA to claim lottery funding for individual athletes, which would breach the revenue regulations of the lottery, the BOA is perfectly able to apply for lottery funding for a project, which could be mainly capital in nature, but have a revenue tail that may, in some way, be used to help our athletes. Therefore, although the form of words used my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield was entirely accurate, it is perhaps useful to remind the BOA and other organisations interested in the Olympics that, in certain circumstances, they may gain access to lottery funds.

The main point of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield explained so well, is that the BOA will receive funds for the licensing of the Olympic symbols and associated words, which it will be able to use to support our athletes. It is absolutely vital to support, protect and guarantee the protection of the symbols to enable the BOA to help athletes.

I am sure that, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be interested to hear that the British Amateur Rugby League Association had not been asked whether it would support the Bill. I am also sure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said, that it would have supported the Bill had it been asked. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may also like to know that last night I was told that rugby league may figure in the Sydney Olympics in 2000. If it were true, I am sure that both of us would look to forward rugby league, the most popular form of football in Sydney, being played there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said in his able speech that the Bill had the strong support of the Department of National Heritage, which is true. We very much hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

My hon. Friend was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) whether the Bill applied to Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said, it does indeed apply to Northern Ireland. Incidentally, the Government are about to set up a United Kingdom Sports Council that covers the whole of the United Kingdom and, for the first. time, Northern Ireland will be part of such a body.

Rather curiously—I know not for what reason—Northern Ireland is not part of the current Sports Council in Great Britain. Northern Ireland will not only be covered by my hon. Friend's Bill, but will be part of what I hope will be an extremely important body for the promotion of sport in this country.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green paid a generous tribute, which we would all wish to join, to the late Fred Perry. I believe that Mr. Perry's father was a Labour Member of Parliament, which the hon. Lady refrained from mentioning. Fred Perry was a great British sportsman and it is fitting that the House of Commons should pay tribute to him. The hon. Lady asked whether the British Olympic Association could claim lottery funding for individual athletes, and no doubt she will read Hansard for the answer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) gave an extremely interesting history of the Olympic movement, which I will read later to catch up on any of the historical details that I might have missed. He said that some might claim—although he would not—that the Bill might be regarded as censorship because it stopped others from using the Olympic symbol. However, as my hon. Friend said, it is important to emphasise that it should not be regarded as censorship. It involves the protection of a legitimate symbol and it is akin to trade marks. No one would suggest that trade marks legislation was censorship. It is important to understand that the strong purpose of the Bill is to provide funds for our athletes.

Like everyone, I am in favour of the Bill. I have just returned to the Chamber having checked the definition of infringement. The Minister will be aware that there is often great controversy about the Olympics. For example, I seem to recall that campaigners against the Moscow Olympics wore printed tee-shirts that carried the Olympic symbol and the words, "Don't go to Moscow." Would such a genuine expression of political opinion or the use of the Olympic symbol in a controversial cartoon leave people open to prosecution?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. No doubt it is a matter that lawyers would like to consider. However, as neither the hon. Gentleman nor I am a lawyer, I share the expression on his face. That point can be answered in more detail in Committee. I would have thought that there would be a case to answer although frivolous cases, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware from his study of the Bill, have a remedy.

I want to intervene quickly to help the House, and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in particular. The legislation seeks to stop commercial exploitation. As the promoter of the Bill, I believe that where people produce something for a specific campaign, they would continue to have the right to do so, but if they sought to make lots of money, that would be a complication. Knowing the hon. Member for Brent, East as I do, I suspect that he is involved more in campaigns than in commercial exploitation.

I dare say that that is roughly right. However, we have all known good campaigns that have fallen into the hands of people who wanted to make money out of them. In those circumstances, the use of tee-shirts referred to by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) could fall foul of the Bill. However, we can pursue that matter at greater length on another occasion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), in another scholarly intervention on the already scholarly speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, referred to the Spartans using drugs at one of the early Olympics. I was not aware of that. I would be very interested to learn—although not now—exactly what drugs were used in those days.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West raised an extremely important point about drugs, and to few sports are they more important than to the Olympic games. Government agencies, through the Sports Council and the sports councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, spend more than £900,000 a year on combating drugs. The British Government are absolutely determined to stamp out cheating through the use of drugs in international sport. The methods we use are respected around the world. When I was in Australia last week, I visited the Australian sports drugs agency, where people told me how much they admired our attempt to stamp out drugs in the Olympics and other sports.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) made a point that exercised several hon. Members. He asked whether the use of the words "Olympic" and "Olympian" or the use of the symbol in matters of general trade is banned by the Bill? He referred very fairly to several businesses, including pizza parlours, butchers, garages and restaurants which have called themselves "Olympic". It is not the intention of the Bill to ban such genuine commercial use of the word "Olympic". Those who have been using the word "Olympic" or the symbol for years past will not be banned by the Bill. It is important that the point that my hon. Friend rightly made is answered authoritatively.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) made the important point that one consequence of the Bill will be not only to raise money for the British Olympic Association that can be used to fund British athletes at the Olympic Games—that is clearly the main point of the Bill, and hon. Members have supported it—but, as a by-blow, to help to guarantee that goods associated with the Olympics and that have the Olympic symbol on them will be of reasonably high quality.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green used the word "spivs". We do not want the Olympic games to be associated with such a trade, nor do we want tacky goods. The BOA will have to license the use of symbols to those who wish to use them to promote their goods. The BOA will ensure that its goods or services are of a suitably high standard. That is another extremely important benefit of the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) referred to Cartier watches and having the name "Cartier" put on other watches, and how that defrauded Cartier of money. I am sure that that is correct. The Bill would prevent exactly such cheating.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), in his brief intervention, talked about the great importance of support for sport in general for young people. He will know that we have recently restructured sports councils. As I mentioned in passing, we are about to set up a United Kingdom Sports Council, and we are about to set up an English sports council. It is an oddity—we have never before had an English or United Kingdom sports council.

The particularly relevant point is that we have specifically said that a place will be specifically reserved on the United Kingdom and English sports councils for somebody representing Olympic sport. We will obviously reserve places for non-Olympic amateur sport—for professional sport. I hope that the House will agree that that shows the importance that we place on Olympic sport and that it supports and complements the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham also said that he approved any method by which a legitimate increase in funding by commercial methods could be brought about. The Bill is clearly such a method. The national lottery allows us to add further support to our Olympic challenges—if we can find ways to obtain lottery funds for capital projects to help our Olympic athletes, I am sure that it will be possible to do just that.

Such lottery funding will be able to work hand in hand with the money that will arise from use of the Olympic symbols. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham rightly pointed to the tremendous surge in national pride when our athletes do well, whether at cricket, as my hon. Friend mentioned, or in the Olympic Games. To achieve those victories, of course, we must ensure that our athletes are properly supported, and the Bill certainly makes an important start in providing that support.

I note that the Minister has now spoken for 20 minutes, and that a number of his colleagues—including the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), the parliamentary private secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—spoke at length. Will the Minister tell us whether he also intends to talk out this Bill?

What an extraordinary intervention. Of course I have no intention of doing so. I have made it clear that I support the Bill. Many hon. Members have sat through the entire debate on the Bill, and to be respectful to them and to the House I shall answer every speech that has been made. There were a number of speeches to which, although I will not take too long, I intend to reply courteously.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West said that, although he supported the Bill, it was a Bill too late. I hope that he is wrong. I take his point that, during the World cup, there were a number of what might seem to the layman as alleged abuses of the copyright of World cup symbols. Companies will have learnt from the way in which they felt cheated when, having paid good fees to become sponsors of the World cup, they found that competitors in their own market sector were finding a way of muscling their way in. I very much hope that the Bill will help to make matters better, and that we will not see that sort of thing in the forthcoming Olympic games.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) quoted my press release of 12 December, which correctly stated that I was strongly in favour of the measure. The Department of National Heritage and the Government are strongly in favour of the Bill. My hon. Friend also confirmed—in a more legalistic way—the entire accuracy of the fact that shops, butchers, pizza parlours and restaurants should not be worried by the measure.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) spoke for the Liberal Democrats in the regrettable absence of the former great Olympic athlete, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). The hon. Gentleman gave his support to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), speaking as a member of the National Heritage Select Committee, also gave his support.

I do not think that anybody in the House felt that the Bill should not be supported, although one or two hon. Members felt that points might arise later in Committee that will be worth going into. With those few brief words of general support for the Bill, I commend it to the House.

2.22 pm

With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond briefly to the debate. I thank all those, on both sides of the House, who have spoken in favour of the Bill. I do not want to name those hon. Members, because it would take too long.

I hope that the concerns that my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) expressed were dealt with, not only by the ministerial response and one of my interventions but by the helpful advice given by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).

I welcome the House's support, especially that of the hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). It is tremendous to have such positive support, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House:—

The House proceeded to a Division:

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on whether there is any way in which time can be found today for hon. Members who wish to support the Protection of Calves (Export) Bill to speak.

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members who participated in the debate, but did not express their opposition to the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Bill, to call a vote to waste time and interfere with other hon. Members when the whole House is anxious to deal with the next Bill in the time remaining?

It may not be desirable, but it is perfectly in order.

(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will note that a Minister said that the Government support the Bill, yet a parliamentary private secretary has gone through the Noes Lobby. I think that that should be noted.

That is a not a point of order for the Chair.

The House having divided: Ayes 48, Noes 0.

Division No. 63]	[2.24 pm
AYES
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Livingstone, Ken
Barnes, Harry	McAllion, John
Barron, Kevin	Mackinlay, Andrew
Bermingham, Gerald	MacShane, Denis
Boateng, Paul	Maddock, Diana
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Maginnis, Ken
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Martlew, Eric
Chidgey, David	Miller, Andrew
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Morley, Elliot
Cohen, Harry	O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Cox, Tom	O'Hara, Edward
Dowd, Jim	Robathan, Andrew
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Roche, Mrs Barbara
Foster, Don (Bath)	Sedgemore, Brian
Gapes, Mike	Skinner, Dennis
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Spearing, Nigel
Harvey, Nick	Stephen, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence	Stern, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Hoey, Kate	Tyler, Paul
Janner, Greville	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Keen, Alan
Kirkwood, Archy	Tellers for the Ayes:
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Mr. Nicholas Winterton and
Leigh, Edward	Mr. Piers Merchant.
NOES
Nil
	Tellers for the Noes:
	Mr. Peter Atkinson and
	Mr. Michael Fabricant

Question accordingly agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.— [Mr. Nicholas Winterton.]

Object.

Objection taken. Committee what day?

Friday 10 February, Sir.

Protection Of Calves (Export) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 February.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Cabinet Minister—the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—to send his parliamentary private secretary to the House to organise a filibuster to block my private Member's Bill? Is that not contempt of the House?

It is quite in order; otherwise I should have ruled it out of order.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just witnessed what many hon. Members, irrespective of their party, believe to be a shambles. There was clearly a great deal of support for the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Bill. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, bring the matter to Madam Speaker's attention on Monday? She, like you, looks after the interests of Back Benchers and should be made aware of what has happened.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that Madam Speaker will not have to wait until Monday.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Bill has just been carried with no votes against it and it was well noted yesterday that it had the support of every party in the House and was likely to be nodded through in a few seconds, is it not disgraceful that the Tory Government—the Whips and all the rest—have put a gag on our people who wanted to talk about the export of calves? They did so when millions of people in Britain are protesting about it. That shows up the Government for what they are—it stinks to high heaven—

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make a totally unsubstantiated allegation—

Order. I have finished with bogus points of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am sorry—I call Mrs. Clwyd.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to ask your guidance on a matter of great concern to many people in south Wales. I should normally have made my point of order under Standing Order No. 20 but, as you know, I am precluded from doing so on a Friday.

The reason for my point of order is the casualty department in the Prince Charles hospital in Merthyr, which is a matter of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and me. Its patients have been told not to go to the casualty department because of a shortage of doctors. The casualty rota for the next few days has blank spaces, which means that there are no doctors on duty. May we have a statement on the subject next week?

That is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that the those sitting on the Front Bench will have taken notice.

Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 February.

Insurance Companies (Reserves) Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 10 February.

Charities (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 February.

Water Charges (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 March.

Business Of The House

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 8th February, the Speaker shall—
(1) put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Redwood relating to Local Government Finance (Wales) not later than Seven o'clock; and
(2) put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Children (Northern Ireland) and Children (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Orders not later than Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Wells.]

Contemporary Leisure Plc

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Wells.]

2.40 pm

I wish to raise today a serious issue which has implications for local government nationally and for standards of behaviour—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is on his feet. I call Mr. Gapes.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate also has implications for standards of behaviour in public life. In 1988, the Conservative Government introduced the Local Government Act 1988 which forced local authorities to put out their contracts for leisure services to competitive tender by 1 January 1993. That move is now being followed by steps to force white collar and professional jobs out to compulsory competitive tender.

A number of companies were set up—many of them by former or serving local authority staff—explicitly to compete for those leisure management contracts. One such company was Contemporary Leisure, which was originally incorporated on 4 December 1989 as Leicester Ltd., a shelf company. Its directors were David James Bryant, the former director of leisure of Westminster city council and director of leisure of Leicester city council, and Thomas Kiernan, who was the area manager of recreation services for the London borough of Camden until early 1990.

On 26 February 1990, Leicester Ltd. changed its name to Contemporary Leisure. In September 1990, Bryant and Kiernan were joined as directors by Douglas Stewart, the director of leisure at Hackney council. As the BBC "File on Four" programme revealed on 31 January 1995, while Stewart was still the director of leisure at Hackney and a director of Contemporary Leisure, Contemporary Leisure did paid consultancy work for a company called Whitewater—Britain's own Whitewater scandal—and Hackney council gave Whitewater a contract for the refurbishment of the Kings Hall leisure centre. Publicity material released by Contemporary Leisure in an attempt to gain local government contracts mentioned that Whitewater Leisure Ltd. was one of its clients.

On 18 June 1990, the shareholders of Contemporary Leisure were listed as Douglas Stewart, with 94 ordinary and 3,900 preference shares; Tom Kiernan, with 94 ordinary and 3,900 preference shares; and Robert Hulbert with 95 ordinary and 3,900 preference shares. At that time, Mr. David Bryant had 15 ordinary shares which by 1992 had increased to 110 ordinary shares, with 3,900 non-preference shares and 34,000 preference shares.

The "File on Four" programme revealed this week that Robert Hulbert was deputy director of leisure at Glasgow city council at the same time as he was a shareholder of Contemporary Leisure, but he did not declare that interest. It was also revealed how in 1991 Contemporary Leisure had attempted to get contracts from Bolton council by deception and had falsely claimed to have contracts with Erewash council and Glasgow council. Mr. Hulbert was subsequently sacked by Glasgow city council for gross misconduct over the matter.

Within three months, Mr. Hulbert was working for Contemporary Leisure under the false name of John Smith. However, Mr. Hulbert's association with Contemporary Leisure was to prove embarrassing for the company, because it raised concerns among other local authorities with which the company hoped to win contracts, and Mr. Hulbert was later bought out. The 1993 accounts of Contemporary Leisure reveal that the profit of the group before exceptional items of taxation was £77,519. The footnote revealed a payment of £95,000 as an exceptional item, giving an overall loss of £17,481. That exceptional item was an

"ex gratia settlement agreed to be paid to a former employee and related professional expenses."

That employee was Robert Hulbert.

The accounts revealed also a net cash inflow of £428,000 and a net cash outflow of £685,000, leaving a £235,000 deficit that had to be financed by issuing £102,000 in shares and a new £100,000 bank loan. Mr. Hulbert's departure and the earlier departure of Douglas Stewart, the three directors in 1994 were David Bryant, Thomas Christopher Kiernan and Charles Michael Bartholomew, who was appointed on 24 June 1992.

In 1994, a fourth director listed was Moneytime Ltd.—an investment company with 15 shareholders that owned 41,000 shares in Contemporary Leisure in 1994.

The company, using its network of contacts, worked hard to win local government leisure contracts. By 1993, it had won contracts to manage leisure facilities for Three Rivers district council, the London borough of Redbridge and for Croydon, Bournemouth and Kingston upon Thames. It also won contracts for ground maintenance with Bromley and Elmbridge, and a catering contract in Bath. It expanded into managing the Harlow theatre and the Tropicana swimming baths in Weston super Mare owned by Woodspring council. It even set its eyes on growth in Canada, where it won a contract.

The company had big plans to diversify into activities in which it claimed "expertise"—ground maintenance, theatre management, leisure developments and management of leisure facilities overseas. In the company's 1993 annual report, its chairman, David Bryant, stated:

"Within three years the company has made remarkable progress. It has gone from four employees to over 1,000, moved from a loss of £20,000 to an operating profit in leisure management in the UK of £122,000, achieved an annualised turnover of over £15 million, is a significant investor in leisure facilities, has great financial stability and is probably the largest unlisted leisure management company in Great Britain. The company is now medium sized and international. The achievement was marked by Contemporary Leisure becoming a plc."

Within a few months, the company was in serious trouble.

Cash flow problems mounted. There were discussions with a number of councils to reschedule payments over the winter of 1993–94. Mr. Hulbert's association with the company was ended. Complaints started about high chlorine levels and algae in Redbridge swimming baths, smelly changing rooms, the pools being too cold, run-down supplies and lack of cleaning materials. Staff in Croydon had to use a cash-and-carry to buy in bulk because they could not obtain items from the company. Redbridge council had to step in twice to force the company to bring the pool up to scratch following complaints from local swimming clubs.

The company's association with the London borough of Redbridge—my local authority—began in 1991. The then ruling Conservative group agreed to put the management of the council's three swimming pools out to competition for a six-year contract. Contractors were invited to tender on 18 March 1991. Four companies, including the council's direct services organisation, registered an interest.

Under the relevant legislation, Redbridge was required to allow all tenders, even if they were considered unsuitable. In the event, only two bids were received. City Centre Leisure and Saxon Moore Leisure did not submit tenders. An internal tender evaluation was carried out by council officers. The lower tender, of £654,000, was received from Contemporary Leisure. The other tender was from the council's own direct services organisation—involving no redundancies—and was £142,000 more expensive, coming in at £796,000.

Contemporary Leisure was, according to the evaluation exercise, a newly established company with only two weeks' experience of running leisure facilities. When it was inspected by council officers, it had no track record. The official report entered a great many caveats and warnings, yet the Conservative group on Redbridge council voted to give the tender to Contemporary Leisure. The minutes record the Labour group's opposition to the decision.

The council hoped to save a great deal of money, but it recognised in its documents that the exercise would cost it £101,000 in redundancy payments in the first year. In the long term, however, it thought that there would be savings. Because of the subsequent problems, those savings have turned to dust.

The following year, Contemporary Leisure won the contract in Redbridge for the management of the golf course, again pipping the direct services organisation, whose bid came in second of the many that were received. Redundancy notices were issued to local employees, as was a six-year contract.

In Redbridge, things seemed fine for a few months, but by January 1994 the company was getting behind with its payments. Redbridge was owed a considerable amount of money, and the company was calling for a rescheduling of payments through the winter to try to deal with its cash flow problems.

It was agreed at the initiative of the then chair of the recreation committee, Councillor Hyams, that that could be done; but by September 1994 it had become clear to many people in Redbridge council that the losses being made on the golf contract were undermining the company and that there were still problems with the swimming pools. Urgent discussions were held, and by November it was clear to Redbridge council—it had already become clear to a number of other councils, including Croydon, which had already made representations as early as August 1994 to the Department of the Environment—that things with Contemporary Leisure were going very badly wrong.

When Redbridge contacted the Department of the Environment for advice on what to do, the council hoped that the Department would move quickly. Regrettably, at that stage it did not, although DOE officials have been helpful in this matter to a number of councils in recent weeks. I wish, however, to register my concern that there was no early action before the company collapsed and was put in the hands of the administrator.

These councils were concerned about protecting their staff, their services and their facilities—swimming baths, golf courses, and so on—but under the 1988 Act it appeared that they would have to shut down those operations and cut their services. That is why they urged the Department to take action before Contemporary Leisure went under. That did not happen. On 5 December, the High Court placed an order on the company, and an administrator was appointed. The company's employees in Redbridge and elsewhere were written to and told that they were being made redundant.

This traumatic event caused enormous anguish for people in the run-up to Christmas. Then, my local authority and others had to try to see what could be done to resolve this problem. My council found the situation worse than it had feared. Redbridge council expects to have to pay up to £200,000 this financial year to sort out the mess. It had to pay unpaid wages to many of the workers of Contemporary Leisure. It faced possible liability for bills to utilities which had not been paid by Contemporary Leisure. It has discovered that stocks of cleaning materials, toilet rolls and other items had been run down by the company throughout the period that it had been in control.

Redbridge, like other authorities, had a bond, but it is not clear whether the bond will be sufficient to meet the costs that the authority faces. At a time when it faces cuts in its standard spending assessment and a potential £8 million to £10 million deficit over the next year necessitating cuts in services and an increased council tax, the authority is being hit by a company set up by the former director of leisure of Westminster council, which, ironically, is benefiting from its SSA, while Redbridge is being punished.

Councils thought about withdrawing from contracts. However, if they had withdrawn early, they would have lost their bonds. Many councils got together as early as the autumn of 1993. A Contemporary Leisure users' group was set up to co-ordinate the position of councils that had problems with the company.

Contemporary Leisure thought that it could escape from the problem. It started to approach local authorities to propose an alternative. Mr. Bryant had been the director of leisure at Westminster council in the mid-1980s. The assistant director at that time was Roger Bottomley. Both men were intimately involved in the affairs of Westminster council in the 1980s. Bottomley, like Bryant and some others in local government, had seen the opportunities open to councils through compulsory competitive tendering. With a number of Westminster colleagues and others, they set up a company called City Centre Leisure to launch an in-house bid for Westminster's leisure contracts. They were successful in getting one of them and the other was won by a small company called Civic Leisure.

City Centre Leisure subsequently lost its Westminster contract, which meant that it was looking for new work. To meet the problems of the ex-Westminster director of leisure, David Bryant, and his company Contemporary Leisure, and given the potential of City Centre Leisure, being run by his deputy, Mr. Roger Bottomley, Mr. Bryant proposed that City Centre Leisure should take over the contracts of a number of local authorities that had been previously won by Contemporary Leisure.

As Leisure Week revealed in its issue of 18 November to 1 December 1994, City Centre Leisure eventually decided to pull the plug on the arrangement. It was not able to deal with the possible start-up costs that would be incurred; in any event, many local authorities were extremely unhappy at the proposal.

Difficulties are being faced throughout the country. Thirteen local authorities and thousands of employees have faced difficulties, insecurity and financial loss. There are some people who face the prospect of losing a great deal of money. That is all because of legislation that enables CCT to apply to leisure services. Is it a one-off problem or is the Minister going to tell us that the difficulties are due to over-stretch and bad management within a particular company?

We need some assurances from the Government. Will the Minister recognise the need to change their position on companies that default on their contracts? Will he assist councils that are left to pick up the pieces? There is no provision for default by notice, but companies can default by termination of a contract, leaving terrible problems.

When are the Government going to table the exemption orders for Redbridge, Croydon and the other authorities which they need legally to do what they have had to do to pick up the pieces? Under the present legislation, the authorities have to re-tender the contracts, presumably next year. Will the Minister allow Redbridge the time needed for the negotiations between the political groups about the re-tendering process in an authority with no overall control? What plans does he have to prevent this happening in other forms of CCT?

Above all, will the Minister refer the issue of CCT in local government to the Nolan committee? There are serious questions to be asked about the role of people working for private companies while still serving, or immediately after having served, as local government officers. Does he agree that there should be no provision to allow shareholding or the acceptance of directorships or consultancies by senior local government officers in or with any company in a related sphere subjected to CCT? What is good for the ministerial goose is good for the local government gander. Many of us are concerned about the way in which CCT has developed. There is a whiff of corruption and some form of local government mafia. I should be grateful for some ministerial reassurance.

3 pm

The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) has raised a number of issues and put me under some pressure of time to reply, but I shall do my best. He has anticipated at least part of what I was going to say, in that the collapse of Contemporary Leisure or any private contractor does not discredit compulsory competitive tendering any more than it would discredit the competition process generally.

It is a fact of commercial life that companies come and go. In this instance, the failure of Contemporary Leisure seems to have occurred because of the particular management of the company. It had entered into unfavourable contracts and over-stretched its resources. I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about the company's circumstances and, if he has reason to believe that there has been any improper behaviour or fraud, he should refer the evidence to the police.

As for the general temptations of local government officers, there are already adequate safeguards against corrupt dealings between them and private contractors. It is illegal for officers not to declare a pecuniary interest in contracts, and the safeguards would be necessary whether or not tendering was compulsory.

Of course, other companies, those which are competent and competitive, remain active in local government CCT. Most CCT contractors, whether private sector or in-house, operate without serious problems, providing quality services and value for money.

It is extremely important to keep the collapse of Contemporary Leisure in perspective. First, only a handful of local authority contractors have folded or withdrawn since CCT began. Secondly, council in-house teams are themselves not immune from commercial pressures and the consequences of mismanagement; nor should they be. They operate under financial constraints and have to meet a statutory financial objective.

They sometimes fail to do so, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, if an authority does not deal promptly with the financial problems of a direct organisation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can use, and has used, his powers to intervene. Intervention can take the form of a direction requiring work to be re-tendered or even for the authority to cease carrying out the activity.

There are certainly lessons to be drawn from Contemporary Leisure's demise about how authorities should go about putting work out to tender. They should not be going blindly into arrangements with contractors but should, as a matter of course, be protecting themselves against possible failures by assessing the financial health of tenderers. They should also investigate the resourcing of contractors' bids, and contractors in turn should be open to reasonable requests to justify the details of their proposals.

It is a misconception that CCT requires authorities to accept the lowest bid, regardless of whether it would deliver the service described in the specification. It is true to say that authorities need specific and well-founded reasons if they are going to reject the lowest bid. Quality is an important consideration, especially in the management of sports and leisure facilities, and I accept that authorities will want to have regard to that factor in assessing bids. Any authority may wish to reject a bid that fails to meet the specification or is from a company in an unsustainable financial position.

If, despite those precautions, a service provider collapses, it can, of course, lead to difficulties, especially when the service is high profile, provided directly to the public. Some authorities affected by Contemporary Leisure's collapse have been able to assign the work to other private contractors. Others have had to bring the work in-house while the contracts are being re-tendered.

My Department has co-operated with those authorities to legitimise their position by arranging an order exempting them from the CCT regime. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the co-operation of officials. We are proposing to exempt nine authorities affected by the collapse, until the end of March next year, which is ample time for re-tendering.

My officials were in touch with the affected authorities when Contemporary Leisure's difficulties were first apparent. They made clear to them that if the company withdrew from contracts any application for a temporary exemption from CCT, pending re-tendering, would be treated sympathetically. Within a matter of days of the Department's being told that contracts with Contemporary Leisure had been terminated, we wrote to the authorities telling them that Ministers were minded to make an order in their favour—the so-called letter of comfort. Procedures are now in motion for making the formal exemption order.

Under present legislation, an authority would be acting ultra vires if it undertook work without first having exposed it to competition, even if it takes the work on temporarily while re-running the tender exercise. A specific exemption order is needed from the Secretary of State to legitimise a council's position. Further legislation would be needed if authorities were to bring services back in-house temporarily without the Secretary of State's sanction in circumstances such as the financial collapse of a contractor or his total failure to perform to specification. I would certainly be prepared to consider such a change, but I would need to be satisfied that any new provision would not be misused so that, for example, an authority overlooked satisfactory arrangements with an alternative private sector provider in their haste to bring the work back in-house.

Councils in any case should routinely make plans for dealing with contingencies. Also, if appropriate, they should ensure that they are safeguarded against any possible financial loss by arranging for the contractor to enter into a performance bond. Authorities adopt those safeguards as a matter of course.

The authorities who have brought Contemporary Leisure's work back in-house can do so only for a short time because the CCT legislation requires them to put the work out to tender again. The authorities should seize the opportunity for advantages in that process. There are some 15 or so private sector companies known to be in the field who may be keen to bid—indeed, there may be more. My Department has commissioned an analysis of potential markets in certain service areas and its main conclusion is that firms bidding for local authority contracts are only a small proportion of firms that are capable of bidding. Authorities can only gain from taking steps to maximise competition.

The authorities have an opportunity to review and update specifications and to encourage imaginative approaches. They should not let their experience with Contemporary Leisure deter them from looking closely at what the private sector can offer. It is open to authorities to make arrangements direct with private contractors and there are examples of authorities doing so. On the other hand, there is nothing in the present legislation preventing authorities from inviting bids from the private sector which involve some investment in facilities as well as the provision of a management service. If private contractors want a longer contract period in which to recoup their investment than is available under the contract in the legislation, a variation can be offered to them once a contract has been made.

In the latter half of last year, my Department issued several consultation papers dealing with various aspects of the guidance on competition procedure, including the length of contract periods and the use of performance bonds. I am aware that some sports and leisure contractors are particularly keen to have extended contract periods for their activity.

I am pleased to say that we received a very good level of response to our consultation exercise and my Department will be making amended regulations and revising the guidance currently included in circular 10/93.

Where necessary, proposals will be subject to further consultation. The intention will be to consolidate the guidance available on CCT services by autumn 1995 and, wherever it makes sense, to bring into line the guidance on blue and white collar services.

I hope that the matter has been set in context for the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will contribute his thoughts to the consultation process being undertaken. Meanwhile, I hope that my comments will be helpful to him and his council.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Three o'clock.

Volume 253: debated on Friday 3 February 1995

House Of Commons

Prayers

Bill Presented

Licensing (Sunday Hours)

Orders Of The Day

Proceeds Of Crime Bill

Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill

Olympic Symbol Etc (Protection) Bill

Protection Of Calves (Export) Bill

Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill

Insurance Companies (Reserves) Bill

Charities (Amendment) Bill

Water Charges (Amendment) Bill

Business Of The House

Contemporary Leisure Plc