Would the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

The business of the House for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 26 JULY—Conclusion of consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Relations Bill.

Supplemental allocation of time motion relating to the Local Government Bill.

Consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government Bill.

TUESDAY 27 JULY—Debate on public expenditure on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.

The provisional business for the first week back after the summer recess will be as follows:

TUESDAY 19 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the first report from the Treasury Committee on the Office for National Statistics, followed by a debate on the reports from the Select Committee on Public Administration on the work of the ombudsman. Both debates will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

WEDNESDAY 20 OCTOBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Opposition Day [20th Allotted Day].

There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.

THURSDAY 21 OCTOBER—Debate on the fourth report from the Procedure Committee on the procedural consequences of devolution.

FRIDAY 22 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.

We are grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us next week's business and an indication of the business for the first week back. Having said that, today's statement is not a happy one with which to conclude before the recess. I very much regret that, at short notice last night, the Government decided to guillotine two Bills, neither of which the Opposition had planned to delay. The right hon. Lady has now announced yet another guillotine for Monday. I will set out the reasons why we feel that the Government have overreacted when we debate the motion later. At this stage, I would say that the Government have played their hand badly and sent the House off on the wrong note.

Can the right hon. Lady assure the House that Members will be able to get here for the next guillotine debate on Monday? I understand that another group of citizens whom the Government have driven to despair are to lobby Parliament—this time, the truckers, following the latest meeting of the road haulage forum on Monday, which demonstrated that the Government are interested only in delay and not in genuine discussion.

I welcome the proposed debate on the Procedure Committee's report on the consequences of devolution, for which I—and you, Madam Speaker—have been calling. We will do our best to help the Government find the right way through the consequences of devolution for this House which, clearly, they have not thought through.

Also in the first week back, we are due to discuss the Office for National Statistics. Should not we use the time to debate the royal commission on long-term care—a debate that has been called for repeatedly in the six months since publication of the report and which the Government seem anxious to avoid?

Finally, I understand that the Government will publish their annual report next week. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the place to hold the Government to account is not before the press and civil servants in the rose garden at No. 10—as last year—but here, before Members of Parliament, in the Chamber of the House of Commons?

I, too, regret the fact that the Government have found it necessary to introduce timetable motions on the debates of which I have given notice today. Conservative Members seem to have got it into their heads that things run all one way in the House and that they are at liberty to play the rules as they choose, without the Government being able to have similar regard to those rules. We will be able to touch on those matters if Conservative Members want to debate them. We, too, regret the fact that it was not possible to reach agreement on the handling of legislation. We have to protect not only Government business but the interests of the House as a whole.

On groups being driven to despair, I am not sure what those who were lobbying the House yesterday were driven to, but they were certainly making the most extraordinary noises, which I presume were supposed to be evocative of some part of their argument; they were certainly interesting, if not illuminating.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the debate on procedure, for which, as he rightly said, both he and Madam Speaker have asked us to find time. I reject the notion that there is something unforeseen about the debate. We need to consider how our procedures can evolve and we will have a useful opportunity to discuss that.

I think that we have been waiting—as the right hon. Gentleman would put it—for the debate on long-term care for closer to four months than six. We will of course have that debate, but we will not be able to have it as early as he suggests.

I listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on the annual report. I am slightly surprised if he is saying that it should be announced in a statement to the House, as I rather had the impression that he thought otherwise in the past, but I will certainly bear his remarks in mind in the future.

Will my right hon. Friend find time in the not-too-distant future for a further debate in a calm atmosphere on the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee on pre-legislative scrutiny? I chaired the Special Select Committee on the Food Standards Bill, which took evidence from two Ministers on two occasions and from 24 organisations and three other individuals. We spent many hours producing a report most of whose recommendations the Government accepted. In view of this week's events, especially as there were more than 20 Opposition amendments on Report, following both Second Reading and the Standing Committee, we need to decide whether this is how the Modernisation Committee wanted us to proceed or whether legislation should go through Parliament in a calmer and more sensible way.

I had thought that the whole House was grateful to my hon. Friend and the Committee for the excellent work that they did on the Food Standards Bill. Until yesterday, those proceedings were thought to have been a model of the way in which we would all want the all-party recommendations of the Modernisation Committee to be implemented. The Special Select Committee did excellent work, as Select Committees always do, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the hope was that the legislation would be handled all the better, and would be better legislation, because of the degree and the kind of scrutiny that it had received. I was especially sorry to hear Conservative Members criticising the work of the Special Select Committee.

I agree that if we are to proceed with proper modernisation, we must bear in mind that it will never happen if, at the last minute, when all the proper procedures for a modernised debate have been carried through, people want to take the opportunity to exploit the use of time and not to debate a Bill properly. The House will have to take that into account.

I urge the Leader of the House to find time for the Government to explain to the House why they have made a material change to the contracts for special advisers. Is she aware that, under the previous Administration, special advisers were specifically warned not to engage in purely party political activities, whereas under the new Labour contract they are specifically encouraged to brief Labour Back Benchers?

Will the Leader of the House find time for the Government to explain why the House has been told that there has been no change in the arrangements, when that is clearly not the case? Why have we been told that no records are kept of briefings given by special advisers, when I have in my hand an example of a Department for Education and Employment briefing that is titled, dated and numbered, gives specific references to other titled, dated and numbered briefings and states where copies of such briefings can be obtained? Can the Leader of the House explain why the House has been told that no records are kept?

Finally, on the first question raised by the shadow Leader of the House, will the right hon. Lady provide time to reflect on the use of guillotine motions? Does she accept that the orderly programming of business by timetable motions agreed by all parties is for the benefit of the House, but that the procedure is being brought into disrepute by the sudden introduction of guillotines of which the Opposition parties have had no notice?

The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions about political advisers. I do not know why the House has been told that no records are kept. Perhaps it is because they are not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Perhaps?"] Well, I do not know. The hon. Gentleman makes several suggestions about changes that he says have taken place in the way in which special advisers are employed under this Government compared with under the previous Government. I am not familiar with the arrangements under which special advisers were employed by the previous Government. On at least one occasion, statements were made purporting to suggest changes in the way in which special advisers are able to operate, which—I am told—were not well founded. Conservative Members suggested, for example, that there were changes in the rules that had operated when they were in government when that was not the case. As for the hon. Gentleman's basic assertion that under the previous Government special advisers held themselves aloof from the impurity of party politics, I can only say that the large number of former special advisers decorating the Opposition Benches suggests that that policy was spectacularly unsuccessful.

The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the orderly progress of business and timetable motions. I entirely share his view. I am not sure whether he was able to be in the House last night. If he was, he will know both that I regretted that we felt we had to introduce these timetable motions and that I made it plain that an agreed timetable was sought and it was only when agreement was not forthcoming that we felt we had to take action to protect not only today's but tomorrow's business.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I for one do not question in any way the right of the Opposition to delay business? That is the legitimate right of the Opposition. Is it not the case that during the 18 years that we were in opposition, when we delayed business, the Government's response was always to introduce a guillotine motion? Therefore, there is absolutely no difference in the responses of the previous and the present Governments. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that on Monday night, when we stayed until two o'clock in the morning—I make no complaints whatever—some Opposition Members voted against every order on the agenda, including one that would have extended the opening hours for the millennium celebrations? They are spoilsports and we should tell the country so.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I am particularly grateful to him for drawing attention to the fact that the Conservative party voted against the licensing extension for the millennium celebrations. Their constituents should all be made aware that the Conservative party wishes them to stay at home without the opportunity of alcoholic refreshment—the new killjoy approach to politics.

In the light of the last remark of the Leader of the House, may I say that I voted against the motion because my constituents do not wish the licensing laws to be extended through the night and Westminster city council contributed to the consultation paper exactly on those lines?

I am even more grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—if that is possible—because I was under the misapprehension that many Conservative Members voted to make a gesture without being fully aware that, as he has made plain, it was a deliberate decision.

That reinforces the argument that it is only right for their constituents to know that they have made that decision, as they are perfectly entitled to do.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that four regions of the United Kingdom have benefited from billions of pounds of aid from Europe under objective 1 status. Is she aware that the deadline for the initial submission is the end of October, just after we return? To meet the deadline, those four regions need to have indications of support from a series of Government Departments. May we have a statement before the House adjourns on the financial support that will be available for objective 1 applications?

I cannot undertake to my right hon. Friend that we will be able to find time for such a statement. However, I understand the point that he makes and I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant Departments and my right hon. and hon. Friends there.

Will the right hon. Lady reflect that I cannot remember when guillotine motions were introduced in the last week of a Parliament, when we could sit on a few extra days to have all the debate that we might want? It really seems a little strange that that is the line that the Government are taking. During next week and the recess, will she consider whether the Government can produce an answer to the important suggestion that has been made by members of the Modernisation Committee that hon. Members might be able to table written questions when the House is not sitting? As we are not sitting for 12 weeks, many hon. Members reasonably feel that they would like to get answers out of Ministers during that time. The answers could be published in Hansard on a weekly basis. That would enhance the way in which Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House could keep the Government up to scratch.

I take on board the strong and powerful request that the right hon. Gentleman makes for the House to sit for longer and not to adjourn next Tuesday. It is not entirely clear to me whether he carries the majority of his party with him in making that request. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Oh, he does. Well, that is interesting, especially in view of the number of occasions on which Opposition Members have pressed me, over such a sustained period, to give the dates of the recess.

I recognise that one characteristic of opposition is that the memory fails a little. I am aware, but the right hon. Gentleman has perhaps overlooked the fact, that the recess dates that I have proposed are shorter than those for four out of the five years of the previous Parliament. Far from proposing a longer recess, as some Opposition Members allege that the Government have done, we are already proposing a shorter one. However, I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about written questions. It is a matter that the Government are considering. He will know that there are implications for the staff of the House as well as for others. The matter is under discussion and I accept that it is a worthwhile point to consider.

Can time be found for a debate on yesterday's Court of Appeal decision on my constituent, Mrs. Carol Glass. To be of help, Madam Speaker, the lady in question has a son of 12 who is disabled. Doctors decided to hasten his death by the injection of diamorphine. The parents objected severely and wanted a court decision. It was refused. The Court of Appeal decision yesterday was not clear and it needs redefining. Only the House could discuss the issue in its own way, to define the matter for the future.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have, of course, as the whole House will have, great sympathy for families and, indeed, clinicians who find themselves in those difficult circumstances. However, with great respect, although the House is a forum in which such matters may be aired, I am wary of seeking to decide such issues within this forum. It is difficult enough for the courts, clinicians and families to make such decisions. I fear that, much though I sympathise with the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised, I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future.

Bearing in mind the new-found fondness of the Leader of the House for finding time on Fridays for private Members' Bills, will she give us an assurance that, before the House considers such Bills in the next Session, she will have found time for consideration of the fifth report of the Procedure Committee? The report notes that, when ministerial statements are made on Fridays on private Members' Bill days, the House should be given extra time to discuss those Bills, so that the time for ministerial statements is not taken out of private Members' time. That might have ensured that my Bus Fuel Duty (Exemptions) Bill, which would have given a rebate to community transport, would have passed through the House instead of being talked out by a Minister. I find the right hon. Lady's new fondness for private Members' Bills somewhat insincere.

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on his desire to assist community transport. It is perhaps unfortunate that he did not manage to do so when he was a Minister at the then Department of Transport, and has been forced to rely on the private Members' Bill mechanism—but there we go; I realise that we all have difficulties from time to time. However, we are giving proper and thorough consideration to the fifth report of the Procedure Committee.

The Leader of the House will be aware of the announcement earlier this week of new improvements to the vaccine for meningitis C. As secretary of the all-party Cuba group, I have been observing progress on the disease for some time, because the Cuban Government have largely eradicated meningitis C; I hope that we can do the same. May we have a debate on the achievements in the NHS? I realise that there has been an Opposition debate on the NHS, but it seemed to be critical of and did not do justice to the staff in the NHS—nurses, doctors, clinicians and support staff. Would it not now be opportune to hold a debate on the achievements of the NHS and its staff?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I share her view that there is much to celebrate in the achievements of the health service; it is a pity that sometimes the focus of debate in this place is on problems rather than on successes. Although I accept the strength of my hon. Friend's case—I am aware of the work that she and her group have carried out in studying the issue—I regret that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that, during the next few days, the Government will make an announcement on those regions in the United Kingdom that may be eligible for objective 2 status under European Union structural funds? Does she acknowledge that such an announcement is vital for many regions represented by Members on both sides of the House? Does she accept that the way in which the decision on regional selective aid was made—at a press conference—did not allow Members the opportunity to cross-examine Ministers on the announcement? Does she also accept that, as there are only a few days left before the summer recess, it is imperative that she finds time, at the appropriate moment, for a statement by Ministers on that matter, so that Members can cross-examine them on the result of the announcement?

Consideration is being given to how we can inform hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that great effort was made by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to give Members of Parliament as much information as possible. I understand that consideration is being given to how that can be followed up and the fullest possible information can be made available.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, since the general election, there has been no debate on the aerospace industry in general, although there have been debates in the context of defence procurement. Given that major changes are due in the European aerospace industry over the next few years, will she be able to find time, after the recess, for a debate on the future of the UK aerospace industry?

I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in these matters; I believe that he is the new chair of the all-party aerospace group—on which I heartily congratulate him. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the aerospace industry in the very near future, although I am aware of the enormous importance of that industry throughout the UK—not least in the north-west—and of its international success. I fear that that success will have to go somewhat unsung—at least 'for a little while. However, we shall soon be at the stage of considering which issues will be discussed in the Queen's Speech. My hon. Friend may find an opportunity to raise the matter in those debates.

When can we have a debate about the massive expenditure of public funds through the common agricultural policy? Is not the need for such a debate all the more urgent in light of the appalling information that I received in a written answer from Ministers last week, which revealed that last year the European Community spent £100 million on destroying a vast amount of food, including 174,000 tonnes of cauliflowers and 240,000 tonnes of tomatoes? As we are spending £100 million on destroying food, is it not time that the House of Commons debated that subject?

The hon. Gentleman will know that I have long shared his view that the common agricultural policy needs significant reform. That view is being shared more widely across Europe and the world. The hon. Gentleman will know also that some reforms have been undertaken—although not as many as we would like. We are all seeking opportunities to continue to pursue the issue of CAP reform, not least through international discussions that may take place in the next year or so.

Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the work of the electoral commission and revitalising democracy? I visited Eddisbury yesterday where voters were clearly motivated by the chance to meet by-election candidates and the Prime Minister but were turned off by the yobbish behaviour of the Conservative party. We need new, radical proposals to revitalise interest, particularly among young people, in the democratic process.

I share my hon. Friend's view about that important issue. I know that some people continue to believe that we should make it difficult for people to register their vote, but I think that we should make it easier. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary presented a full list of proposals on that matter last week. I am aware that the voters of Eddisbury have the opportunity to express their views today, and I am sure that all Labour Members—but perhaps not Opposition Members—hope that, when they do so, they will bear in mind the Government's many achievements, such as the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, low inflation, a successful and stable economy and no more boom and bust.

I am strongly of the view that, in elections of any sort, we should pay some attention to the deficiencies of our system. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time to debate that subject in the near future, but I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's remarks.

The Leader of the House will be aware that we have been pressing for some time for a general debate on Northern Ireland. She will be aware also that the IRA issued a strange statement this morning. May we have a debate in the spill-over period so that we may reflect upon the issues coolly and calmly? Senator Mitchell was invited to travel this road four years ago, but he missed that part of the journey. The decommissioning body then missed its opportunity. Political discussions then led to the Belfast agreement and the decommissioning body was tasked with producing a report. However, the reality is that we have had no decommissioning. What message are three democratic Governments—this Government, the Republic of Ireland Government and the United States Government—sending to terrorists throughout the world when we pander to that sort of behaviour?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, all those Governments are continuing to send the consistent message that we believe in the Good Friday agreement, that we want to see it carried through and that we want the peace process to reach a successful conclusion. I cannot undertake to find time so far in advance for the debate that the hon. Gentleman seeks in the spill-over period. However, I obviously do not rule it out. As we get nearer to the time, it may prove to be the correct thing to do. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request, but I am sure he understands that I cannot give him a date at present.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the war being waged by South Birmingham community health council to prevent the building of a new hospital in south Birmingham? It appears that 14 individuals are prepared to use the health council as a cover for their campaign which is based on information that they know to be false. How is that an acceptable use of public funds? Will my right hon. Friend try to find time in future for a debate on the funding and accountability of community health councils?

I am afraid that I was not aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. I can well understand his concern if he thinks that difficulties are being caused for the provision of health care to his constituents. I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a debate on the specific subject that he raises, but I undertake to draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Does the right hon. Lady not now regret building in the extra, unnecessary week's holiday in February so that Labour Back Benchers can have a few more days off? Will she now reverse the distressing trend of the new Labour Government to give longer and longer recesses so that less and less time is spent in the House and then ruthlessly to curtail debate on every item of substance? [Interruption.] There would be plenty of time to debate matters in the House if the right hon. Lady followed the conventions and traditions of parliamentary debate, rather than guillotining debates.

I could not quite hear all the right hon. Gentleman's final remarks because of the noise that his colleagues were making. I simply say to him that he is living in a fantasy world. He clearly did not take the trouble to conduct even the most cursory scrutiny—which would be in sound parliamentary tradition—of the facts before he made his points. It is totally untrue to say that the Government have given longer recesses than previous Governments, as I have already pointed out to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). This recess is shorter than was the norm under the Government whom the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) served so comparatively recently.

As for the mid-February break, I do not regret that, because, Madam Speaker, you will recall, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly does not, that the all-party Modernisation Committee recommended that break because it believed that it would be conducive to the smoother and more effective working of Parliament. Only a few Conservative Members objected, at least publicly, when I sought to accommodate the expressed wish of the House, which is also consistent with parliamentary tradition.

The right hon. Gentleman needs to get it into his head that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said earlier, it is of course right, proper and consistent with the traditions of the House for the Opposition to seek to exploit the opportunities available to them regarding the use of time. It is also well within the traditions of the House for the Government to have to deal with those attempts from time to time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that we revisited the Modernisation Committee's work on electronic voting? In particular, is it not a great waste of time that we go though the Lobby to vote on motions that have not even been debated in the House? At the very least, could we consider the opportunity to use electronic voting on such motions?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point that, as he will know, is raised from time to time in the context of modernising the House. I fear that I cannot find time for a debate on that in the near future. Everyone understands that there is flexibility within the rules of the House for hon. Members, as individuals or as organised groups, to make their case by causing disruption to the proceedings from time to time. That is well within our parliamentary traditions, but hon. Members must realise that if feeling begins to grow in the House that those traditions are being frivolously misused, that will cause problems.

Will the Leader of the House find time before the end of the Session for a debate on England? We have spent a considerable time debating Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and there has been major constitutional change. It would be useful if hon. Members could express their views on the English question, what should happen and what should be the relationship between English Members of Parliament and other Members of the House. There is no English Question Time or any other opportunity for us to raise those issues, so a debate on England over two or three days would be more than welcome.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He regularly attends business questions, so he will have heard you, Madam Speaker, draw attention a couple of weeks ago to the fact that this is the United Kingdom Parliament and we are elected as United Kingdom MPs. There is wariness about arguments and steps that seem to jeopardise that union.

The hon. Gentleman will also have heard me make the point before that the Government have been minded to use the Standing Order, which is within the control of the House, on the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, so that a further forum for the exploration of some exclusively regional affairs could be established. That proposal has hitherto been blocked by the hon. Gentleman's party, so I say to him with great respect that although I do not question his sincerity in raising the matter, I question the sincerity of the Conservative party in saying that there is a lack of time for such a debate.

Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the need for more rigorous controls at our airports of passports sold for £30,000 apiece by the sleazemaster general of the Tory party, Mr. Michael Ashcroft, and about the great concern that they are now in the hands of some very dubious gentlemen who are not welcome in this country, even if they do bring money to the new sleaze fund of the Tory party?

I am not entirely sure whether the handling of passports of a foreign country falls within our remit. I know that my hon. Friend will have made his points to the relevant Secretaries of State who deal with immigration matters.

May we have a debate on the so-called review of matters relating to Northern Ireland? It really is time, is it not—I hope that the Leader of the House will agree—to cut through the smoke and mirrors of the review, particularly in light of the fact that we now know that the IRA never had any intention of giving up any weapons? [Interruption.] It has now said so; that is now clear. Please, therefore, may we have no more pretence, and certainly no more releases of terrorists and murderers, so long as the IRA has made it clear, as it now has, that it has no intention—and has never had any intention—of giving up any of its weapons?

I am afraid that I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman down that road. He knows that Senator Mitchell has only today begun discussions on his work. As I told the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), the Government remain committed to the Good Friday agreement. I was under the impression that it was also the policy of the Conservative party to be committed to the Good Friday agreement, although, as I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, the request that he has just made would be in danger of jeopardising that agreement. Judging by the noises that were made in support of what he said, I am wondering whether the Conservative party does any longer support the Good Friday agreement. I hope that that is a mistaken impression.

Will the right hon. Lady tell me whether she expects a statement from the Government about their response to the consultation paper on leasehold reform before we rise for the recess? If not, will she assure us that we shall get a debate on the subject in the spill-over period? However, if that is not possible, do we assume that there will be no legislative progress in this Parliament on the reform of leaseholds?

I cannot promise the hon. Lady a debate on the matter before the Session ends. I shall draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing. As to assumptions about whether anything will be done in this Parliament, the hon. Lady will know that it is never wise to make assumptions about future legislative programmes.

In the context of the ensuing statement on consumer protection, might time be found to discuss the scam, which has been revealed by some excellent investigative journalism by the Aberdeen Press and Journal, that a Liverpool-based business man, Mr. Peter Quinn, is offering for sale bogus degree certificates for the university of Aberdeen, the Robert Gordon university and the university of Stirling? That will be a matter of concern not only to those hon. Members who, like me, are graduates or honorary graduates of those universities, but, as it obviously involves criminal fraud, it will be of concern to the House, which I am sure will wish the police, trading standards officers and the courts to deal with the matter as swiftly as possible.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the whole House shares with the concern that he has expressed, and will welcome the moves that the Government are making to strengthen consumer protection in that and other respects.

I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) would give me the relevant address.

Will the Leader of the House see what she can do to provide time in what I know is a packed programme—perhaps this could be arranged for the spill-over period—for the House to have a debate solely on the Territorial Army, so that in the light of events in Kosovo and elsewhere and of the enormous demands for engineers and signallers, many of whom come from the TA, we can question how it was possible for the Prime Minister to say in the House yesterday that the cuts made in the TA by the Labour Government were good for the TA and further for the United Kingdom?

I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a specific debate on the TA. I have no doubt that from time to time there will be opportunities to discuss defence matters. The hon. Gentleman will know that the first phase of the structural reform of the TA is now complete.

The remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday stem from the view that is widely held, not least within the armed forces, that the TA as reformed will be a more relevant, more useful and more integrated part of our defence capability. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will not be converted to that view. I fear that I cannot offer him an early opportunity again to air his view.

May I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider her answer of a few moments ago to the request for a debate on the English question? She referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. When will the Government recognise that England is not merely a collection of regions but a nation? If the Labour party will not speak for England as a nation, others will.

I think, not for the first time, that the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that although the Conservative party may feel that it should speak for England, it is the Labour party that speaks for England. The Labour party has a majority of Members in England. Of course, the Conservative party has no Members in Scotland and Wales.

I will not reconsider my earlier reply. I think that the integrity of the United Kingdom is enormously important and the Government are determined to protect it. The Conservative party is playing a dangerous game in raising such fire. I think also that it must be a matter of some concern to its Scottish and Welsh parties. What will Conservative candidates in Scotland and Wales say in the next general election? Will they say, "Vote for me although my party has rejected me and does not want me to play a part in Westminster"?

Will the right hon. Lady give further thought to the reply that she gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who asked for the opportunity during the recess to table written questions so that the Government could be held to account during that period? The right hon. Lady, in what I hope is not her penultimate appearance as Leader of the House, did not give a terribly satisfactory reply. It would be a lasting memorial to her years as Leader of the House if she were able to give us an assurance that the Government will be held to account during the recess.

Will the right hon. Lady deprecate the way in which certain Members have abused parliamentary privilege? Does she agree with me that accusations about individuals who cannot answer in the House should not be lightly made, and should be made only if there is real substance in the allegations? When we return from the recess, will she arrange for an early debate on the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege that touches on those and other important matters?

I said to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) that I thought that he had made an interesting point and that it was one to which I was prepared to give consideration, although it raises questions for the House authorities as well as for others. I would say to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that the tabling of written questions during a recess would be unprecedented. It is not a practice that the Government are withholding because it is something that no previous Government have been prepared to do or to concede; I am prepared to give the matter consideration but I am not able or prepared simply to say today, "Yes, this is a change that the Government will make." As for a lasting memorial, I am not in a memorial-erecting mood today. I appreciate the thought and I will bear it in mind.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the abuse of parliamentary privilege. He is right to say that matters should not be raised lightly under the cloak of privilege. However, the purpose of privilege is to allow matters to be raised. If privilege were being abused, that would be a matter for the Chair and not only for Members. I feel confident that Madam Speaker would draw us to order were that to be required. The hon. Gentleman has asked for a debate about that and I acknowledge that we will be seeking to find time for it. I cannot tell him now exactly when it will take place.

Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the White Paper published today to promote the interests of consumers. The White Paper forms a key part of our programme to support competition, innovation and enterprise.

Far too many people feel that they live in rip-off Britain, where they pay high prices compared to other countries, where cheats are allowed to prosper and move from one scam to another with ease, and where there are more shoddy goods than high-quality products.

For too long, the attitude in Britain has been that things could be worse, rather than that things should be better. We do not want to create an army of Victor Meldrews, but we do need confident and informed consumers. That is why the Government are publishing a comprehensive consumer strategy today.

Consumers who are knowledgeable and demanding get a good deal. They also promote innovation and improve the competitive position of business, which in turn means better products and keener prices for consumers. The White Paper will create a virtuous circle between knowledgeable consumers and business performance. It will do that in four ways.

First, the Government will work with business and consumer groups to introduce codes of practice that actually mean something, instead of giving false reassurance to consumers. Codes already pepper the Yellow Pages, but many are little more than marketing devices, offering no safeguards to customers.

The White Paper therefore proposes to introduce legislation to give the Office of Fair Trading powers to approve codes of practice that guarantee high standards of customer service, including proper redress if things should go wrong. That approval will not be a one-off. The Office of Fair Trading will withdraw its approval if the code no longer meets these principles. The OFT's seal of approval will provide at-a-glance assurance for the consumer.

We will also develop an e-commerce code, with industry and consumer groups, to be monitored by an independent body. As purchasing over the internet expands, it is vital that people feel that they have security when they make purchases. That is why we will introduce an e-hallmark, which will provide safeguards for the purchaser.

Secondly, we want to strengthen the role of those who protect the public against those who continually cheat consumers. The current law is ineffective. It offers no deterrent to the determined cheat, the perpetual scam merchant, and the exploiter of the weak and vulnerable, and no deterrent against the one-day sale in a hotel that is simply a rip-off, or the car repairer who fails to deliver and threatens those who complain. As constituency Members of Parliament, we all know of many other examples that have been drawn to our attention.

The traders often disappear before action can be taken, then reappear elsewhere to conduct themselves in exactly the same way. The White Paper therefore proposes stronger action against such fraudsters. I want the OFT and trading standards officers in local authorities to have powers to seek injunctions to stop traders carrying out specified practices, and to give the courts the power to ban them from all trading. Cheats who continually rip off their customers should be treated in this tough and responsible way.

We will consider the imposition of criminal sanctions where appropriate. We must also be able to respond quickly to new scams that might develop. We therefore propose a power to make orders by secondary legislation, which will specify that certain practices that have been shown to be harmful should be made illegal.

The third key proposal in the White Paper is better access to advice. People need quick, accurate answers to consumer problems. We will promote the development of a new advice network, building on the existing agencies. People will be able to see easily where they can get good-quality advice. We will also set up a new telephone helpline. Today, I have launched a new consumer gateway on the internet, to provide easy access to consumer advice and information.

Fourthly, we will improve research on consumer issues, so that our policies are based on sound evidence. Many feel that they are paying higher prices for everyday items than people in other countries. We can all understand why rice costs less in China than in Chingford, but why do trainers cost less in New York than in Newcastle, or a CD less in Washington than in Winsford?

I have, therefore, launched a full survey of international price comparisons. That will compare the prices of some 100 products across four countries—the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States. I already have powers to refer prices in a particular sector to the Director General of Fair Trading, and I will use those if the survey shows that the British consumer is being overcharged.

The White Paper contains some 70 measures, which cover a whole range of issues. We will make prices clearer to customers; consult on plans for tougher controls on misdescription of services; make sure that a pint of beer is a pint of beer; and make it easier for people to spot if the mileage reading on a car has been fiddled. We will also support and improve enforcement agencies so that they are better able to meet the expectations of consumers and business.

We do not want to distract business from its focus on serving its customers. We will in addition, therefore, begin a programme of reviewing all consumer protection legislation to find out whether it is still effective in meeting the needs of consumers, or whether it has simply become a burden on business with no apparent benefit to the consumer. To start the review, I have today published a consultation document on the law covering weights and measures.

The programme in the White Paper is ambitious. It reinforces our commitment to modern, open markets. It works with the grain of the knowledge economy. It promotes stronger business performance as well as a better deal for consumers. It rejects endless regulation as the saviour of the consumer in favour of competition, information and effective sanctions against rogue traders. It is forward looking and sets a framework for the future. It charts a new way forward in which consumers and business serve each other's interests—benefiting us all through quality products and improved services.

A fair deal for all our people—that is the vision of this White Paper, and I commend it to the House.

I thank the Secretary of State for making the documentation available to me just over an hour ago; I am most grateful.

There is much that we can welcome in the White Paper because it gives the consumer a fair deal. In particular, we welcome the fact that research into identifying retail price differentials between the United States, Germany, France and the United Kingdom will be improved. It is important that we identify exactly how the pricing structure is achieved before there is any hasty action to name and shame. For example, the strength of the pound, employment costs, land prices and so on will have a different impact in different countries. Therefore we welcome the Government's initiative in that area.

The Secretary of State mentioned enforcement and, in particular, the Office of Fair Trading and trading standards officers, but he did not mention resources. Given existing legislation, never mind any additions that he may intend to make, it is clear that resources, particularly in trading standards departments, are extremely important. It would be helpful if he would say how much new money will be put into backing the White Paper, particularly for trading standards officers.

To give just one example, since the Government took office, trading standards officers have been charged with the task of identifying the GM content of processed foods. The technology developed in the past few years to carry out such tests is still extremely expensive and trading standards officers do not have the resources to carry out that task. We are looking to the Government to endorse the proposals in the White Paper with detail on how they intend to resource the promises.

The Secretary of State's decision to review all consumer legislation is welcome, as long as no additional burden is placed on business. It is not acceptable simply to consider the legislation with a view to adding to the unnecessary burdens on businesses. He says that he does not want us to be a nation of Victor Meldrews; I say to him, "I don't believe it!" because the hallmark of the Government is their introduction of ill-thought-through legislation and their subsequent reliance on endless regulations, which are a burden and a brake on enterprise and on business.

Consumers have more spending power today than ever before, and we support any initiatives to give them best value and to ensure that they are well informed, but may I ask the Secretary of State about a particular part of his statement? He said that the Government have been able to respond quickly to new scams, which is good, and that they therefore propose to introduce a power to make orders by secondary legislation, specifying that certain practices that have been shown to be harmful should be made illegal. Will his suggestion lead to the creation of a criminal offence? If so, is secondary legislation the appropriate means for dealing with such an offence? I should be grateful if he identified in more detail what he means by practices that have been shown to be harmful and exactly how the law will follow his suggestion through to ensure that such practices do not occur.

The Secretary of State also mentioned the important matter of electronic commerce, which is a growing area for consumers and something that we welcome. It will create a lot of changes. He is, of course, aware that there is a global marketplace; people are already buying across national borders. He mentioned an e-hallmark to cover goods sold through electronic commerce. How will that work? Will it apply to goods sold from a base in the United Kingdom? Is he seeking EU standards? How will the e-hallmark work in respect of people who make electronic purchases beyond the shores of the United Kingdom, particularly from the EU and further afield? We should be grateful for more detail on that.

Bearing in mind that this point has been flagged up in the press, so one must assume that it is true, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he intends to release the draft e-commerce Bill in the next 24 hours? Can he also confirm that no statutory licensing provisions will appear in it? We welcome his reference to weights and measures, but the Government failed to push in Europe for an additional moratorium for market traders. They are concerned because the regulations will change at the turn of the year, and traders in loose goods will be required to label goods in metric and imperial weights. Why did not the Government press for the derogation to be extended for another 10 years? This matter will cause those traders and their consumers a great deal of concern.

I must pick the Secretary of State up on one point. At the beginning of his statement, he said that there are more shoddy goods than high-quality products. We want the scams to end, and we want people who produce defective goods and services to be brought to book so that consumers are protected from them, but I caution him: that sort of language talks down the majority of traders and the bulk of the goods in this country. He needs to strike a balance. I shall leave him with a quote from John Ruskin, who died in 1900—the turn of the century. He said:

"It is not cheaper things we want to possess but expensive things that cost less."

Most consumers would agree with that; it is nothing new. If the White Paper can achieve that, it will have the support of Conservative Members.

I am grateful for the support that has been offered by the Opposition to many points in the White Paper. I hope that it is one of those sectors where, in a spirit of partnership, the House can go with the grain of what we seek to achieve. We will wish to pursue the issue in that way.

The hon. Lady raised a number of questions. On retail prices, clearly, a range of issues needs to be taken into account in addressing why products cost more in one country than in another. It is dangerous to look at the matter in a superficial, headline way. We need to get below the figures and to find out exactly what makes them up; I am very keen that we should do so. We should expose all the arguments, even if some may be more difficult to address than others.

With regard to legislation and burdens on business, I hope that, when the hon. Lady has had the chance to look at our document on weights and measures, she will get a clear feel for the direction in which we want to go, which is very much about reviewing the current position.

Most businesses are concerned about the mass of detailed regulations that come from the weights and measures legislation. We are considering ways in which to withdraw some of them to make life much easier for business. That will not compromise the position of consumers, who will still have protection, but it will make life much easier for businesses.

On e-commerce and buying through the internet, in international transactions, there is a real issue about where the contract is actually made and about which legislation would apply if there were a dispute after a contract was not complied with. In the White Paper, we say that we will seek agreement with the company or organisation that is selling through the internet. If it agrees to meet certain standards in complying with our consumer law on guarantees of quality of product, delivery and so on, we will give it our e-hallmark. If businesses do not agree to that, they will not receive the hallmark. That will be a simple way in which consumers can see whether the person with whom they are dealing, whether based in the UK, continental Europe, America or elsewhere, is meeting those standards. It is also an effective way in which businesses can comply with the standards. The pay-off for them is that, on their website, they will be able to demonstrate the e-hallmark to show the consumer that they have guaranteed those standards.

We hope to publish the e-commerce Bill in draft tomorrow. The hon. Lady needs to wait until then to see the detail, although she may have a good idea of what might be included in it.

We need to be able to move quickly on new scams. It is a dramatically fast-moving area: new scams are developing almost daily. We may find that, if we try to put something in stone today, we shall be out of touch by tomorrow, so we need some flexibility, although I take the point that criminal sanctions are a significant step. I said in the statement that we were considering criminal sanctions in certain sectors. We will consult fully before we embark on that road.

The hon. Lady makes an important point on enforcement. If we are to ensure that, day to day, enforcement is effective, we will need to provide trading standard officers with the means to deliver on the ground. Because of the priority that we attach to the White Paper and to consumers, whom we now want to bring centre stage, I will devote from my Department—redirecting resources that are earmarked within the budget to go elsewhere—an extra £30 million to deliver on the White Paper proposals.

rose—

I now call Mr. Dennis Turner.

He has just walked in.

I was sitting here when I listened to the excellent statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

I should like to say without any further interruption how much I appreciate the White Paper, particularly the reference to giving the millions of beer drinkers in this country the protection and consumer support that they deserve. In the previous Session, I tried to introduce the Weights and Measures (Beer and Cider) Bill which sought to do just that. I look at the expressions of Conservative Members. The Conservative party had the opportunity to support earlier legislation in the interests of beer drinkers, but it refused to do so. In 1992, it took similar legislation out of the programme and refused to give that protection—what a contrast with the Labour Government and the Secretary of State, to whom I am extremely grateful. The beer drinkers of Britain will also be extremely grateful. I hope that, as a consequence of the White Paper, before too long we shall see this long-overdue legislation and that every beer drinker in Britain will get the fair measures that they deserve.

I look forward to raising a full measure with my hon. Friend later today to celebrate the full measure contained within the White Paper. I am sure that the White Paper will be welcomed by beer drinkers throughout the country and by millions of other people. I compliment my hon. Friend on raising this matter over a number of years to try to get a fair deal for the British beer drinker. I am delighted that we have been able to find space in the White Paper to take up his best proposals. This is a good example of a Government working for everyone, including beer drinkers, unlike the Conservative Government who worked just for the few.

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for providing me with his statement an hour before he delivered it. Incidentally, it puts excellent flesh on the bones of the summary provided by BBC Online from about 9 o'clock this morning.

I welcome the first proposal and should like to raise a few points on the key principles for consumers: access, choice, information and redress. On codes of practice, it is important that trade associations achieve a change of emphasis from self-interest to consumer interests. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he intends self-regulation to be a universal concept, applied wherever possible, across all sectors of commerce and trading? Codes of practice are one thing, but compliance with them is another. Will he confirm that non-compliance with the code of practice would be an automatic cause for redress by consumers, with prosecution to follow where appropriate? Will he confirm that the breaking of the code of conduct will trigger the process?

Like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I welcome the strengthening of trading standards officers' powers. The Secretary of State mentioned the £30 million in his coffers. He knows that trading standards officers are incredibly overstretched. What discussions has he had with his colleagues in the Cabinet to ensure that more resources are available to strengthen trading standards departments in local authorities, which are at the sharp end?

I welcome the promotion of the advice network for consumers set out in the statement. How will that link in with the CBA network—[HON. MEMBERS: "CAB".] Yes, I beg hon. Members' pardon. Citizens advice bureaux are often the first port of call when consumers seek redress if they have a problem with goods or products. [Interruption.] Although I enjoy the humour of Conservative Back-Bench Members, this is an important issue. What consultation is the Secretary of State carrying out, and what proposals does he have to enable CABs to provide better legal advice, leading to redress in the courts, for people who find themselves in that position?

Consumers have a right to full information about the goods that they purchase and the choice available. What plans does the Secretary of State have to enforce full and clear labelling on food products? I am thinking particularly about products that may contain genetically modified organisms.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton asked about metric weights and measures. Do the Government intend to pursue the opportunities that they still have to preserve imperial weights and measures at the point of sale for goods that are sold in bulk?

We all welcome the strengthening of consumer protection, but will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what assessment he has made of the additional costs that will inevitably be borne by the taxpayer, and by business?

The hon. Gentleman welcomed the broad thrust of my proposals, and I welcome the broad thrust of the support that he has expressed.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the role of trade associations. I think it important to make clear what we mean by the seal of approval from the Office of Fair Trading. The code will be purely voluntary. Members of the public will recognise the seal of approval; they will be able to see it clearly in Yellow Pages. It will meet a standard—

A kitemark?

A kitemark, perhaps; call it what you will.

That is the nature of the seal of approval that we want to introduce for businesses that sign up to the code of practice. However, there will still be businesses that do not sign up, and customers will need to be aware that they are dealing with organisations that have not received the seal of approval. The full range of the law will apply to businesses—as it does to all businesses—that fail to deliver on the contracts into which they have entered, and do not provide proper compensation.

The hon. Gentleman asked about trading standards officers. Yesterday, we had a useful meeting with the group representing trading standards officers' organisations, which has been closely involved in the development of the policies in the White Paper.

There remains the question of how we can target the extra funding to ensure that it is used specifically for consumer-related matters. We shall be considering whether we can find a mechanism enabling us to do that, through local authorities, and we shall be engaging in discussions to that effect.

The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of the role of citizens advice bureaux. No doubt many hon. Members' constituencies contain CABs that play a vital role in the provision of this and other information. We have just allocated an extra £1.3 million to the CABs nationally, so that they can use their computer network to provide advice on consumer matters as well as other issues. The CABs have also been closely involved in the details of the White Paper, along with the Consumers Association. They broadly welcome our approach, and especially welcome the possible opportunity for CABs to get together with other information-providing organisations and to be located in the high street, so that they can give consumers information more readily.

The hon. Gentleman asked about labelling. We insist that any food with GM ingredients in tins and other containers must be clearly labelled: that is the approach that we have taken, and will continue to take.

As for the issue of imperial measures, there is no question of our preventing people from going into a high-street shop in Wallsend and asking for a pound of Cox's apples. We are also ensuring that shops do not suffer an undue burden because of the dual pricing that will be necessary. Consumers will not be affected: they will still be able to ask for a pound of apples, a pint of milk or a pint of beer.

rose—

Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I appeal for short, sharp questions—and, of course, short, sharp replies?

I wholeheartedly welcome the policy of sanctions against rogue traders. I think that this will be the key legislation in the current Parliament, because the public want change. They want an end to rip-off Britain. But what are we going to do about premium phonelines? People telephone a number, and are ripped off. What are we going to do to stop that?

I agree that strong action against rogue traders will make a huge difference to many of those whom we represent. Let me give clear notice that we intend to introduce strong, tough measures, reflecting the wishes of the British people. That will, of course, require legislation. There is nothing worse for a person who works hard all week and then goes out at the weekend to spend some of his own money than to find that he has been ripped off by one of these rogue traders—one of these scam merchants. We will act to stop that.

Premium phonelines are a matter primarily for Oftel, and we are discussing with Oftel how we can improve the present position. As most hon. Members recognise, it needs to be dealt with.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the e-commerce hallmark will include any guarantee of the security of the electronic infrastructure, and what discussions he has had with the industries involved on secure electronic infrastructure? Will he also say whether the better regulation task force has been involved in the White Paper's preparation or will be expected to comment on it? How many deregulation measures does he expect to bring before the Deregulation Committee as a consequence of the White Paper?

I think that the hon. Lady will find that the weights and measures consultation document proposes a number of deregulation measures and that it will be very much welcomed by business. The better regulation task force has been fully consulted on the White Paper's details and it is supportive of our proposals.

The e-commerce hallmark is intended to ensure that people know that if they deal over the internet they retain their normal consumer rights. The e-commerce hallmark will address that issue.

I welcome the White Paper. I also very much welcome my right hon. Friend's emphasis in the White Paper on the need to make markets work properly. If we have a choice between competitive markets and overweening regulation, we should realise that consumers are served best by better-working markets.

In recent months, I have been very much involved in the financial services and markets pre-legislative inquiry, which has highlighted the fact that big financial decisions—such as buying a pension or obtaining a mortgage—can not only change consumers' lives but dog them throughout their lives. I hope that the emphasis will be on providing good information to consumers so that they are able to make a reasonable choice. Communication and information are essential for people who, without them, are lumbered with poor deals, poor pensions and poor mortgages.

Once hon. Members have had the opportunity to examine in detail the philosophy underpinning the White Paper, I think that they will realise that it very much recognises that consumers benefit when markets work well, and that not only businesses benefit from effective markets. We have no doubt that competition must be the driver in ensuring that consumers get a good deal or that competition creates lasting consumer benefit.

On the specific point about financial services, the White Paper is very clear in stating that those who are considering giving a mortgage, for example, will have to state very clearly the rates of interest that will be charged and present that information in a manner that is easily understood by those who are probably about to embark on the biggest financial transaction that any of us undertake. Those people have to have clear and precise information, and the White Paper proposes measures that will ensure that they are properly informed.

In his statement, the Secretary of State raised several e-commerce issues. Will he say more precisely how the independent body that he mentioned will be constituted to address those issues? Will he also be more specific about the "knowledge economy" that he mentioned?

The knowledge economy is a recognition that whereas, in years gone by, the prime responsibility of business and of Government was to encourage investment in capital such as plant, machinery and equipment, if we are to win in the 21st century, investment will have to be in human capital such as skills, learning, knowledge and education. We have to respond to that priority. However, we are not saying that traditional spheres are not part of the knowledge economy. The hon. Gentleman made a good point in saying that if we are to be really successful we shall have to marry the two together. One of my priorities is to ensure that traditional spheres such as manufacturing both embrace and receive the benefits of the knowledge-driven economy of the future.

The independent body on the e-hallmark will have responsibility for judging whether a business qualifies to receive the hallmark. We think that it is far better if businesses themselves are involved in the process, which we shall have to monitor. The Office of Fair Trading, too, will have a role to play. Nevertheless, that is the role that the independent body will play in ensuring that when we award the e-hallmark for internet trading—whether in the United Kingdom or internationally—people will know that consumer law applying in the United Kingdom will apply also to that transaction.

A great deal was said in May by candidates of all parties for the Scottish Parliament on stronger action against fraudsters, the powers of trading standards officers in local authorities, criminal sanctions and scams. How does this measure fit in with legislation that the Scottish Parliament claims as its own?

These are reserved powers, but we will work closely with the devolved Administrations to make sure that our proposals are implemented in a way that is compatible with and supported within them.

Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that one of the products to be the subject of international price comparison will be the pump price of petrol and diesel? Will he give a further assurance that that will include also comparative rates of tax across the international market?

Will e-hallmarking be carried out by the e-envoy? What happened to the two candidates for e-envoy who were submitted by the right hon. Gentleman's Department to the Prime Minister's office in March? Have they both said they are not willing to take on the job? Does the Secretary of State think that giving a decision to job applicants within a reasonable space of time ought to be part of the new consumer standard?

The appointment of e-envoy will be made by the Prime Minister, who will make his decision known in the near future. Petrol and diesel prices are constantly monitored by the European Commission.

Many people in my constituency are fed up to the back teeth with being ripped off by one-day salespeople—for example, table-top salespeople at Cheltenham—and will be encouraged that the Government are at last tackling the problem. Will there be an obligation on one-day salespeople to give prior notification to trading standards officers that they will be in an area? It is all very well talking about criminal sanctions but, by their very nature, those people are literally here today and gone tomorrow. The question of prior notification is central.

The people to whom my hon. Friend has referred are well known to trading standards officers, but their frustration at the moment is that they have no effective powers to deal with them. Our measures, which will require primary legislation, will be able to tackle at source the type of activity to which my hon. Friend refers.

In his welcome statement, the Secretary of State did not mention counterfeiting or whether he intends to take action on it. When he attacked hotel sales and table-top sales, should he not have put greater emphasis on saying to people, "Buyer beware"? People who buy from reputable retailers have protection, but some take a chance and buy cheaper goods from areas without the protection that we would expect from larger retailers. The right hon. Gentleman will be causing great trouble if he gives the impression today that the Government are able to underwrite every one of the millions of transactions that take place in this country. The one thing that disturbs me about his statement is that he is giving a false impression that somehow the Government will stop all these transactions.

If I have given that impression, I now have the opportunity, thanks to the hon. Gentleman, to say clearly that we recognise that the principle of caveat emptor—buyer beware—is important. There is a responsibility on consumers to make sure that they get goods that meet the given description. We believe that we will be able to achieve that only if consumers are informed, knowledgeable and confident, and those principles underpin the White Paper. We are taking action on intellectual property rights and counterfeit, and we are discussing how we can make the provisions in relation to intellectual property more effective.

Can my right hon. Friend offer an assurance to organisations such as Yellow Pages, which employs 900 people in my constituency, that they can boost and maintain public confidence in themselves and that people who find a service or product through them will be safe from rogue traders?

My hon. Friend is a great advocate for the important role that services such as Yellow Pages play; they are a great source of convenience. I am pleased to say that there will be a dedicated part of Yellow Pages for those organisations that have received the Office of Fair Trading seal of approval, which will make life easier for the many consumers who have to find a builder, joiner or engineer in a hurry to do work as a matter of urgency.

We are very grateful for what the Minister said about the proper labelling of foods containing GM products, but is he aware of the widespread abuse of the country of origin labelling of meat products? Meat pies labelled as made in Britain may well contain meat from cows that were grazed and slaughtered in Bolivia and were merely minced in the United Kingdom. Will the White Paper take account of that and put a stop to the abuse? If it does, both consumers and farmers in my constituency will certainly welcome it.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is pursuing that matter and we are raising it in the World Trade Organisation because we think that it must be dealt with internationally. We want the country of origin to be clearly identified.

I want to highlight the weakness of the consumer in respect of ancillary services. The White Paper deals with hotel telephone charges. I want to raise the related matter of the problems of mobile home owners. Once they have purchased their home and pay ground rent, they are ripped off for ancillary services. Will my right hon. Friend take that weakness on board when the legislation is introduced?

There is specific legislation dealing with the position of the mobile home owner. I listened to my hon. Friend and I will certainly reflect on the need to review the law in the light of the White Paper and the consultations surrounding it.

Will the Secretary of State take on board the fact that if, despite his best intentions, he undermines the principle of buyer beware, the message from today will be beware Byers? Will the Bill become law in time for the next general election and apply to the next Labour manifesto, because many voters regret the fact that it did not apply to the fine print of the current manifesto?

We had a raffle about who would be the first to say, "Byers beware" or "Beware Byers"—not a raffle, a guess.

A sweepstake.

Indeed, a sweepstake; thank you so much. I always wondered what role the hon. Gentleman was meant to play on the Front Bench there. He is very helpful and I shall pass a note of thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for so sagely appointing him. I have quite forgotten what the question was now.

I am sure that our manifesto for the next general election will prove as popular and as accurate as the previous one.

Two weeks ago, Volvo was found guilty of pricing malpractice, and yesterday there was a newspaper headline—"£6 billion rip-off"—referring to the Competition Commission's public hearings about car sales in Britain. Can any action be taken against Volvo under existing law, and will the White Paper help to tackle the enormous scandal of thousands of pounds more being charged for a car in Britain than in European markets?

I agree that it is a scandal. It is a matter for regret that the law is ineffective. A whole range of powers will be introduced next year as a result of the Competition Act 1998. Next week we will announce the sanctions that we intend to use under that legislation. They will be significant and will make companies examine carefully their conduct in this important area. I am afraid that the whole Volvo saga shows that the law was deficient and that we need to have new remedies in place. We are providing them in the competition legislation that will come into force next year. The measures in this White Paper will help too.

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on today's statement and the White Paper. In particular I welcome the proposed e-commerce code and e-hallmark. Young people in my constituency increasingly buy CDs over the internet from the United States because they are typically 30 per cent. cheaper. I am sure that many more will do so when they have guaranteed consumer rights. I am sure also that American companies will not be slow to apply for our e-hallmark. What can my right hon. Friend do to encourage British companies so that in future my constituents can buy goods over the internet from Birmingham rather than Boston?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased that the e-hallmark will be an effective way to give reassurance to people who will increasingly trade and buy goods over the internet. It is already happening with books and, in particular, CDs. I have no doubt that when we can get in place a framework with which consumers feel at ease and so want to deal over the internet, companies and businesses in Birmingham as well as Boston will want to be part of the new information age and the way in which transactions will take place in the 21st century.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we already have similar types of controls on people such as solicitors and doctors, and he will know how dissatisfied people often are with these controls which are expensive to put in place. Is it not the case that often well-meaning Ministers add additional costs to the honest trader while the dishonest trader gets away scotfree? Clearly, we are trying to help the honest trader to improve trade rather than to penalise him. How will the Secretary of State's magic bullet get over this real problem?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In drawing up the White Paper we have consulted representatives of the building trade—joiners and so on—to ensure that our proposals go with the grain of what they want. The hon. Gentleman will find that today's proposals have been welcomed. Nevertheless, over the months and years ahead we will continue to work in partnership with legitimate business because in tackling the cowboy builder we do not want to affect the legitimate trader. That is why we will work in partnership with business to make sure that we get it right.

I thank my right hon. Friend for drawing a line in the sand between Arthur Daley Tory rip-off Britain and new Labour consumer empowerment. Does he agree that the combination of internet sales with the single currency and e-hallmarking will give enormous power to the consumer in terms of relative price comparisons—the single currency makes that easy to see—and quality assurance which we should herald as a great success for Britain?

On a separate issue, can my right hon. Friend give any assurances that he will look into the bundling of products such as mortgages and insurance, which often confuses consumers and leads to excess commissions—indeed, unbundling?

On the bundling of financial services, my hon. Friend will be aware that today Mr. Don Cruickshank, who has been heading up the banking review on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is publishing his interim report which will address some of those issues specifically. We welcome the proposals that he is putting in place which will benefit consumers. The British consumer is already beginning to compare prices. That has been one of the drivers behind today's proposals. That is why we are looking at more than 100 products, comparing prices in the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Germany. That will be of real benefit to British consumers.

Does the White Paper deal with the growing problem of unsolicited faxes, which affects thousands of businesses and consumers the length and breadth of the country? Moreover, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this important issue was originally aired earlier this Session in a ten-minute Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), with warm support from both sides of the House? Given that Members of Parliament, among others, regularly receive a stream of faxes, regrettably sometimes from people who appear to be a sandwich short of a picnic, early action to deal with the problem would be greatly appreciated.