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

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in clause 3, page 3, line 35, leave out clause 3.

I am grateful that so many Members have chosen to be present this morning hopefully to complete the House of Commons stages of the Bill—I emphasise the word "hopefully".

"at any time, whether or not",

My hon. Friend is over-optimistic in his remarks about the Welsh rugby team.

I am advised that these relatively minor amendments will help us to achieve a sensible modernisation of the industrial and provident society legal form, Some aspects of the I and P legal form differ from the company model. None of the changes is especially radical; they have been included in company law and friendly society and building society law for a long time. Sensible reform has not been possible in a number of areas thus far, so the sum of those parts means that when people have to decide which legal form is most appropriate for their community business they are put off using the industrial and provident society legal form. The new clause offers the possibility of achieving modernisation further down the line through those sensible changes, if the House is so minded.

I shall briefly express the Government's support for new clause 1 and amendment No. 4. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on his excellent, detailed explanation of the provisions. The Government are keen that industrial and provident societies should benefit from a measure that would make it possible to update their legislation in line with company law. The Building Societies Act 1986 and the Friendly Societies Act 1992 contained similar powers and we welcome the opportunity to create the means of levelling the playing field among these different types of mutual organisation in this regard.

I am grateful to the Paymaster General for those comments. As I said in Committee, I can see no logical reason to oppose giving the Treasury additional powers, given the quality of its performance since May 1997. However, I have been advised that such an ambitious provision might offend against the constitution

A trifle.

In reality, it is not such a trifle. It is important that we seek to achieve modernisation of industrial and provident society law in the appropriate constitutional way. As I said, there is the possibility of company law reform. Fairly soon, the prospect of change to company law through the Enterprise Bill holds out genuine prospects for further change to industrial and provident society law. I am delighted that the Government feel able to support new clause 1 and I again commend it formally to the House.

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

Given that we have just had a debate about whether powers should be wider than is necessary, could my hon. Friend clarify the meaning of the word "supplementary" in the context of subsection (2)?

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman will presumably deal with that point when he sums up, rather than in an intervention.

The Government support the new clause, which will allow the provisions in the Bill, or any order made under it, to be extended to the Channel Islands. In practice, no such extension would be made unless the relevant authorities wished it to occur. Existing industrial and provident societies legislation either applies to the Channel Islands with modification, or can be applied by Order in Council. It is therefore right that the Bill should enable the provisions to be extended to the Channel Islands, and I can confirm to the House that we have consulted the relevant Channel Islands authorities, which are content for this provision to be included in the Bill. I therefore urge the House to support it.

I am once again grateful to my hon. Friend the Paymaster General for her remarks. Given the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) in the new clause, perhaps I should set out what it will achieve in a tad more detail than I had intended.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Financial Services Authority: fees to be charged in respect of industrial and provident societies—

'Paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended by inserting after sub-paragraph (2)—

"(2A) Any fee charged in respect of functions carried out by the Authority under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1965 to 1978 shall be fixed in a manner which has regard to the financial circumstances of the society or proposed society which is to pay it including their turnover, profitability and scale of operation and in no circumstances will the fee charged where an existing society's turnover was less than £1,000,000 in its last year of account or where a new society is applying for registration exceed the fee chargeable in respect of the equivalent function by the Registrar of Companies.'.

As the Order Paper reveals, I have registered an interest, although I should tell the House that I am erring on the side of caution as I may not actually have an interest to declare. I have no idea whether Bridlington Conservative club, of which I am a paid-up member, is registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. From time to time, I also give advice—usually on entertainment matters—to various working men's clubs, some of which may well be registered under the Acts. Moreover, I am joint chairman of the all-party group on non-profit making members' clubs. Those facts may or may not amount to an "interest" in the parliamentary meaning of the word, but I feel it proper that I place them on the record at the outset.

"Working men's clubs—one of the largest sources of work for British light entertainers—are closing at the rate of 85 a year, it has been revealed.

Kevin Smyth, general secretary of the powerful Club & Institute Union, told The Stage that a total of 425 member venues have shut during the last five years. And since its high point in 1974, the CIU has seen its total number of affiliates"—

"drop by nearly one third—from 4,000 to 2,700.

The scale of the problem could be even larger because CIU sites account for fewer than half those listed by the 5,500-strong Committee of Registered Clubs Association—whose members also include political or Service clubs such as the Royal British Legion."

I very much support what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) has said in moving new clause 3. Indeed, I also supported it by putting my name to it on the amendment paper. New clause 3 very much supports points that I made on Second Reading. To save me from restating all the interests that I declared then, I formally put on record the fact that I still have those same interests.

I should say at the outset that I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but those at the Financial Services Authority say that the charges simply reflect the costs that arise from that section of their organisation. How do we respond to that?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but I submit that we should ask ourselves why the costs to the FSA of regulating clubs should be 10 times as high as the costs to Companies House of regulating companies. There must be something very odd about the FSA's fee structure or about the way in which those at the FSA allocate their costs across their organisation if they can come up with the conclusion that it costs 10 times as much to obtain an annual renewal for a club compared with the annual renewal for a company. That is the point.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that figure was probably plucked out of thin air?

I am sorry, but I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's reference to a figure plucked out of thin air.

My hon. Friend is referring to the increased fees.

It is a fact that there is a threat of increased fees of £200. There is no doubt that that is the reality of the FSA's proposal. If the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) is suggesting that the FSA perhaps reached that conclusion on the back of an envelope and produced a nice round figure, I am unable dispute the point.

I did not understand the hon. Gentleman's intervention either. I am not sure whether he was seeking to be supportive and helpful to my case in suggesting that the FSA had plucked the figure out of thin air, or whether he was accusing me of having plucked it out of thin air.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head and I am delighted that he corrects that last point. On Tuesday this week, I spoke to an FSA employee, who confirmed that the fee is likely to be about £200 a year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that that fee will not be charged for changing the rules, but simply for the annual renewal of registration.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that clear. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) has arranged a meeting with the FSA on Monday next, but my fear is that if we do not take the opportunity presented to us today to control the fees that the FSA can charge, it will deploy the same arguments as those that it has used in correspondence—it will say that it needs to impose those costs to meet its own internal charges.

I am sure that many of my hon. Friends are sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I wonder whether he can clarify a technical point. Off the top of my head, I can think of four types of limited companies: public limited companies, companies limited by guarantee, private limited companies and a different type of private limited company, such as C&A was, that does not have to disclose as much information. However, the new clause seems not to differentiate in that way. Perhaps he can explain how it would operate if it were included in the Bill.

I understand that the fee to register a small company is £15 a year and that the fee to register a new company is £20. My right hon. Friend's new clause would limit the annual renewal fee to £15 for small clubs and industrial and provident societies in the same way as it is limited to £15 for small companies. Obviously, if the fee for the renewal of company registrations were to rise from £15 to £20, the fee that the FSA charges for the renewal of industrial and provident societies' registration could also rise.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the FSA, but surely it will argue that, because industrial and provident societies are more complex than companies and because there are not as many such societies as companies, we cannot make a direct comparison between the fees charged for the two groups. How do we respond to that criticism?

I am not sure that the FSA has made that criticism. There are large numbers of industrial and provident societies, but that does not mean that they should face their current cost structure. For example, there is no reason why the FSA should not set up a subsidiary in a part of the country where the costs of staff and premises are much lower. It could have a regulatory regime that is funded at a level of expenditure that is more consistent with those whom it seeks to regulate.

Will the hon. Gentleman extend his thesis a little further and recognise that, although London is a relatively high-cost area, the FSA is also profligate? That forms most of the problem. If the FSA were to set itself up in the west midlands—in Birmingham or Wolverhampton—it would find that people work efficiently, effectively and economically. It would not be as profligate as it is in London. He may agree that there is a total disconnection between what happens in London where the high rollers pay whatever they want for whatever they want and other areas of the country where reality has to break out from time to time.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I would not limit the areas to the ones that he specified. I would certainly include Christchurch, Ferndown and Verwood and other parts of Dorset. Ministers have referred to costs elsewhere, but the costs of employing people in Dorset are significantly lower than the costs of employing people in London. The wages and salaries that secretaries command in Christchurch, which is just under 100 miles from London, are significantly lower than the salaries that can be commanded in London. However, there is no reason to suppose that the efficiency of secretaries in Christchurch is any less than that of those in the City of London. In fact, I suspect that it is much higher, partly because they enjoy a much better quality of life.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, just as there is great variety in the type of societies that are the subject of the Bill, there is much greater variety in the type of company? Small companies that perform local community functions can be set up as limited companies and the range extends through to medium-sized companies and huge corporations. Complexity is not an issue. There is much greater variation between types of company than there can possibly be between the societies that are the subject of the Bill.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are talking about the simple process of registration. It costs the same to register a child irrespective of the complications of the parentage, and it should cost the same to register a company or an industrial and provident society. It is a straightforward issue of equity and getting control over the costs of the regulatory authorities.

I wish to speak to new clause 4, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase). However, consistent with the declaration that I made on Second Reading, I must make it clear that I have a long association with the co-operative movement. It employed me for many years before I came into the House. I am also proud to declare that I am a member of the Labour and Co-operative group.

Although I do not have a direct interest to declare, I am a vice-chairman of the all-party group on building societies and financial mutuals, and I have a long history of supporting mutual activity in this country. Unless we include measures such as the new clause, we are in danger of putting obstacles in the way of mutuality, which the Government would not intend and which would compound the already difficult position in which mutuality finds itself in the United Kingdom.

I have always been associated with the co-operative cause, but, for the avoidance of doubt, may I once again declare an interest in that the co-operative movement supports my constituency party financially each year.

I have considerable sympathy for the comments made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and by my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) and for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), and for the broad thrust of the comments made by the hon. Members for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).

The hon. Gentleman is right that the fees were higher, but those organisations paid an annual fee of £25. Most right hon. and hon. Members would regard that as a reasonable amount. To go from £25 to £200 in one leap is surely most unreasonable.

I strongly share the right hon. Gentleman's view. He is right to make that point and I have profound sympathy with it. I think that we both want the same outcome. Unlike him, however, I do not think that the Bill is the appropriate vehicle for that change, which is why I have set up the meeting with the FSA to press the case.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill is not the right mechanism to resolve the problem. May I draw his attention to the long title of the Bill of which he is the promoter? It refers to

"the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 to be amended so as to bring it into conformity with certain aspects of the law relating to companies".

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. The fact that the Speaker has allowed the new clause to be discussed suggests that it is relevant. However, a system of financing is in place for the FSA, and it is in that context that it is appropriate to consider the sums that are charged for the registration of industrial and provident societies.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the FSA is circumscribed by the legislation that established it? The worry is that unless we use the Bill to change the way in which the charges are made and give the Government a basis on which they can vary the charges, they may find that although they are sympathetic to the case, they have no mechanism to make that change short of introducing primary legislation.

I do not accept that legislation constrains the FSA from changing its fees. That is why it is appropriate for us to address the problem by holding direct discussions with it.

Surely the annual return that is sent to the FSA to continue an existing registration does not require monitoring. All that is needed is a tick in the box and continuation of the registration.

I have considerable sympathy for the concern about the huge hike in the cost of the annual return. Nevertheless, the direct comparison with companies is unfortunate. Perhaps a more flexible wording of the new clause would have been more appropriate, and I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West attempted to introduce that greater flexibility in new clause 4. We need to remember that because industrial and provident societies hold assets for the community, the regulator has to take a greater interest in them, so a more appropriate regulatory structure needs to be in place. That inevitably costs more than the regulatory regime for companies.

I congratulate all hon. Members who have participated in this important debate on putting before the House some of the clear issues that relate to the fees charged. Although I will explain why the Government do not think that the Bill is the appropriate way to address the problem, we do not want to undermine the important points made about some sections of industrial and provident society legislation.

Of course it is right that mutual societies dealing with the funds of their members should be properly regulated, but does the Paymaster General agree that it is equally right that companies that can hide behind the benefits of limited liability, leaving behind creditors littered all over the place, require an even greater degree of regulation?

It is somewhat unusual to hear a Conservative Member, even one as knowledgeable as the hon. Gentleman, pressing the Government on the need for greater regulation of companies, but I shall take his point in good faith and resist any further jibes. I promise never to quote his suggestion. [Interruption.] No, perhaps I will not make that promise.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

In a moment, when I have finished this point. There has been a great deal of discussion about reviewing company law and how to modernise it, and I understand that a report is due soon. We have to strike a balance between appropriate safeguards and allowing these organisations, which have different structures and fulfil different obligations, to develop and expand. The Bill is about mutuality, the industrial and provident societies and how to assist their growth and development.

Although my hon. Friend says that a direct comparison cannot be drawn, does she accept that there is considerable evidence, especially from the worker co-operative sector, that some small organisations are choosing to register as companies rather than industrial societies because of the differential, and will she bear that in mind when considering the matter in the future?

That is indeed an issue of which we must be aware, as we must be aware of the differences between companies that choose to be incorporated and unincorporated and of the different structures that are available to companies, societies and clubs in providing safeguards for their members or shareholders while allowing the development of their organisations.

Does the hon. Lady accept that under the proposed fee structure, small organisations that do not change their rules each year will be subsidising and cross-subsidising those that choose to change them because they did not get them right in the first place? How can that be equitable?

I am trying to explain to the House the complexities of the issues involved, the diversity of the sector, and the importance of striking the right balance and considering the necessary scope of work. The number of industrial and provident societies has been broadly stable between 1996 and 2000, but the amount of their assets has increased, from approximately £41 billion in 1996, to £61 billion in 2000.

I welcome the Minister's remarks. She understands the dilemma that clubs are facing. The immense frustration felt has been echoed around the Chamber. My hon. Friend has met the FSA, and is meeting it again on Monday. Would she be prepared, if it is felt necessary, to meet the Working Mens Club and Institute Union to discuss some of the anomalies that we talked about this morning, in the hope of getting justice for the clubs of this country?

Normally this subject area would fall within the remit of the Economic Secretary. However, both the Economic Secretary and I are always pleased to receive representations and see delegations. I am sure that, if my hon. Friend thought it appropriate, either one of us would do our best, as we try to do for all Members, to accommodate those representations.

We have had a very interesting debate, and I am grateful for the support expressed for my new clause by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am particularly grateful for the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who made a very powerful case for the new clause.

I do have some independence of mind, which does not al ways accord with Government policy.

I applaud the hon. Gentleman's independence on this matter: may we see much more of it.

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 7, leave out "subsections (2) and" and insert "subsection".

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, line 8, leave out subsection (2).

'save with the written consent of the Financial Services Authority'.

'(6) In exercising its discretion as to whether to give its consent under paragraph (c) of subsection (1), the Financial Services Authority shall have regard to the following matters:

(a) the purpose or intention of the society's members evidenced by the rules of the society and, in particular, by the inclusion of the provisions referred to in subsection (1);

(b) the interests of the community for whose benefit the society was registered and its successors;

(c) whether the whole or any part of the value represented by the assets of the society should be dedicated to the continued benefit of the community; and

(d) whether the transfer of engagements, amalgamation or conversion referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) is necessary in the interests of the viability of the industry business or trade carried on by the society.'.

I introduce the amendments in my name with some reluctance. I believe that the debates on clause 2 on Second Reading and in Committee have established the importance of ensuring that assets originally dedicated to a community, not to a society's members, should remain dedicated to that purpose. Following the discussions I have had, I believe that there is now strong sympathy for that position.

I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which are probing amendments designed to increase the flexibility of clause 2. I shall try to set out their context.

Does my hon. Friend agree that people who set up a community benefit organisation often do not think about what might happen subsequently? The danger is that they might not be clear about how the rules will apply if the organisation changes in a particular way? As he graphically illustrated with the RAC, unintended consequences might result. There is a genuine need to provide protection for organisations that seek to benefit the community and are not established to provide benefits, profits or surpluses for individual members.

That is exactly the case that I am trying to make. Societies are often established with proper constitutions, but without thought about what will happen. I know that it is not possible, but if we interviewed people who originally set up many mutual organisations that have since been demutualised, we would discover that that eventuality was the last thing on their minds. Assets that have been built up over generations for mutual benefit should not be given to a limited number of shareholders who benefit from demutualisation. My amendments therefore seek to provide long-term protection.

How does the hon. Gentleman envisage the FSA assessing the interests of the community under amendment No. 7? For example, does he envisage the FSA conducting a poll or seeking to take evidence from all members of the organisation to see whether a certain view is held by the whole membership? Or does he see the FSA going beyond the members of the organisation to ascertain the answer?

I was going to come on to the issues that the FSA will need to take into account but, of course, the community interest is an extremely important consideration for community benefit societies. The FSA will have to have a way of taking the temperature of a community that may be badly affected. If the FSA had taken the temperature of RAC members when the RAC was demutualised, I strongly suspect that there would not have been support for the cause espoused by the limited number of members who benefited from demutualisation. However, it will be for the FSA to make the final decision to sanction demutualisation. We accept that there will be problematic cases, such as those involving declining memberships.

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with everything that he has been saying. Does he agree that where assets have been built up over many years, there is an intergenerational responsibility, and that in principle it is wrong that, for financial gain, one group of people, at one snapshot in time, should enrich themselves at the expense of the continuation of activities? Only where there are circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has been describing, when such activities can no longer reasonably be continued, should the FSA agree.

That point is included in my amendments. The FSA will need to take into account what will happen to the assets of the society in such circumstances. Intergenerational issues will indeed be important; also important will be whether assets are distributed on the widest possible basis to the community or are restricted to only a few people. We know that although the community benefits from the activities of community benefit societies, their membership is normally restricted. There may be only a few people. All these issues need to be taken into account.

The discretion that is provided in amendment No. 7, which is given to the FSA, is not absolute. The authority will have to take into account certain factors, which the hon. Gentleman has explained. As there is not absolute discretion, is there not a risk that we might see a plethora of court cases, with aggrieved parties challenging whether the FSA had acted properly and whether it had given due weight to certain matters? Would not absolute discretion have been a better way forward?

There is considerable discussion about public interest companies that will be formed under Companies Acts procedures. The only means of challenge will be through the courts, with all the delay and expense that that involves. One of the great advantages of the process that I am advocating is that it will, in most instances, preclude recourse to the courts. There will be streamlining and it will be possible to use procedures with ease. In extremis, however, the courts may have to be used—for example, where it is felt that the FSA has not reflected properly the legislation that is on the statute book. We cannot have it all ways.

The Government support amendments Nos. 2, 3, 1 and 5. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said that amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are probing amendments. I shall explain why the Government want to resist his amendments. I hope that, on that basis, he will feel able to withdraw them. If not, he must know that the Government do not support them.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No, I am about to conclude my remarks.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for her comments in support of my amendments. I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and the amendment tabled by him and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith). It is an ingenious device that would provide additional flexibility and improve clause 2 as it emerged from the Standing Committee. Nevertheless, as the Minister says, there are still issues that need to be resolved, and it is appropriate that that should be done in the context of the performance and innovation unit report and considered across Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton will withdraw his two amendments and instead support mine.

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

I rise briefly to support my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). Before being elected to the House, I practised as a chartered surveyor and know that the principle of injurious affection has been long established in British legislation. Under that principle, if someone's property is expropriated or diminished in value in some way for community purposes—for example, if a propriety's value is affected by a new road—that member of the public can be compensated for his or her loss.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) for introducing the new clause, although I invite the House to resist it if he feels that he cannot withdraw the motion. So far as I can understand his objectives, I think that they are two separate things. Before I consider those, I should say that I think that the new clause is technically outside the scope of the Bill, and I shall briefly try to explain why.

rose

Order. It may be for the convenience of the House if the Minister winds up the debate. I call the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply want to put the mind of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) at rest that I am very relaxed about his new clause. I congratulate him on his drafting ability in that respect, but, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) so eloquently explained, although I welcome this opportunity to discuss the issues raised, I have great difficulty in envisaging circumstances in which these conditions would arise. I am firmly of the view that the new clause falls without the scope of the Bill, and, regrettably, we shall not therefore support it.

I also congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) on his ingenuity. After all, if we consider the wording of the new clause, ancient monuments are scheduled under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, and there are no provisions in the Bill relating to such scheduling.

I welcome the Minister's remarks. I am reassured to hear that consultation takes place with all those who may be affected, including representatives of fishermen. The fishing industry has suffered a lot over the past decade and it could do well without a further attack on it. I am pleased to hear that the industry is properly consulted, so I am reassured by the Minister's remarks.

I certainly did not mean to suggest what my right hon Friend has imputed. If I made a slight mistake in my choice of words, he must make allowances for the fact that I come from landlocked Chipping Barnet. We very much appreciate the probity of the fishermen who supply us with a basic need.

In the light of the tone of my hon. Friend's intervention, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 11, after "waters", insert "and continental shelf'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in page 1, line 14, after "waters", insert "and continental shelf'.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Minister that it is not my intention to talk out the Bill, and I have had to pass on that message a few times. I also give that reassurance to my neighbour, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). He is an old hand at these matters and understands how the House works on a Friday. Indeed, he is such an old hand that I cannot resist the ungentlemanly comment of saying that he lays claim to being a scheduled monument in his own right.

But not a wreck.

No, not a wreck.

"Estimates suggest there could be anything up to a million wreck sites in international waters around the British Isles. Most of these would be wooden vessels, difficult to detect with current technology."

Has the hon. Gentleman estimated the size of the continental shelf around the British isles, especially the coast of England?

The usual assumption is a limit of 200 miles for economic activity purposes except when we neighbour another country and the continental shelf is shared. I recall that from my days of studying international law at university.

Affording protection will work only if the sites are policed. How would that process be carried out?

I was going to deal with that when we discuss the next group of amendments. There is a provision in the 1986 Act which has yet to come into force. Protection is afforded at the moment through a voluntary code of practice that the diving communities operate among themselves. To an extent, they form an underwater neighbourhood watch that looks after such sites. My concern is that those wrecks would not be covered even under the existing legislation designed to protect them. I do not suggest for one moment that in the next few days people might go diving on wrecks that are further out, but the reserve powers that the amendment would provide should be available so that an important wreck found, say, 13 miles out could be protected.

I am grateful for the contribution made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), whom I know well and who is a near neighbour. I am aware of his great knowledge of matters archaeological and of the fact that he is a lawyer, so I am hesitant about quarrelling with him about his amendment.

"in, on or under the seabed within the United Kingdom territorial waters adjacent to England."

My hon. Friend raises a serious point. Will he enlighten us about what would happen if the amendment were accepted and the Bill was subsequently employed to try to affect areas that are beyond the jurisdiction of our courts? Would that make the whole Bill void or liable to a challenge before the European Court? If the amendment could have either of those consequences, those of us who initially had some sympathy with the hon. Member for Hendon might conclude that he should be prevailed upon to withdraw it.

I have done a considerable amount of research on the provisions of the Bill, but I am not a lawyer—still less an expert international lawyer—nor would I pretend to be. I could go so far as to say that when I was deciding what profession to take up, I was advised to start at the top of the alphabetical list and work down. I knew that I did not want to be an accountant or an actuary, and I was in danger of not being able to spell the word "archaeology", so I moved on to the next one down, which was architecture. That is why I am an architect.

The scope of the Bill, as I understand it, is restricted to allowing English Heritage to become involved in underwater archaeology in territorial waters adjacent to England. I would say, in the friendliest spirit, to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that the amendments are unnecessary. There is very little continental shelf within England's territorial waters, and continental shelf beyond that is not part of English Heritage's remit.

Extending English Heritage's powers to allow it to operate on the continental shelf outside the 12-mile territorial limit would require careful consideration and could affect interests beyond those of English Heritage—perhaps even international interests. It is a big issue for us to consider at this late stage of the Bill's consideration.

The amendments were designed to draw attention to a risk that is not immediate, but may emerge in the future. Economic activity such as oil platforms may pose a threat to wrecks that are not currently accessible, but may be in the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 1, line 19, at end insert—

'(4) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act shall permit any activity on or near any wreck prohibited by the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986.'.

The hon. Gentleman is probably aware of the recent media programme that speculated about the cause of death of Glenn Miller, the wartime band leader, in which it was argued that his plane might well have been hit by unused bombs dropped by RAF planes on their return from raids on Germany. At the time of his death, Glenn Miller was serving in the armed forces, but my understanding is that the plane on which he was travelling was a civilian flight. Are the remains of Major Glenn Miller covered by the 1986 Act?

My understanding is that they are not, first, because if the hon. Gentleman is correct the aircraft was a civilian aircraft and, secondly, because aircraft are not covered by the Act, which covers only vessels. In connection with previous amendments and just now, I made the point that aircraft are not protected. Perhaps we should at some stage—not today—consider extending the legislation in that respect.

I am sure that, like me, the House is extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for raising this important issue. I hope to be able to reassure him beyond any doubt.

In his discussions with the Ministry of Defence, did the hon. Gentleman get the impression that we are trying to close the gate after the horse has bolted in thinking about protecting the Repulse and the Prince of Wales through designation?

The hon. Gentleman may be in a better position to do that than I am, as he sits on the Government side of the Chamber. All I can do is to pass the message on to the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps he and I could question the appropriate Minister.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on having tabled some far-sighted amendments. However, it is important that we try to see the matter in a broad perspective. The sites that he has referred to are important, but we believe that his amendments to this Bill are not necessary.

I am grateful for the explanations by my hon. Friend the Minister and by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). The purpose of tabling the amendments was to air the issue, and I accept that it would not be appropriate for them to be pressed now—but I hope that the Ministry of Defence will at least take note of the debate and think what amendments should be made to other legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 3, line 36, at end insert—

'(lA) The Commission shall, before exercising its powers under subsections (1)(d) and (e) above, consult and thereafter take account of any representations made by the Government, or any equivalent body to the Commission, of the country concerned.'.

"I assure the House that English Heritage should not and will not operate in competition with existing commercial concerns. It will complement and not conflict with the services already offered by commercial concerns for operations outwith the UK. By developing relations with overseas bodies English Heritage will look to stimulate the market for UK commercial companies. Overseas agencies look to English Heritage for training and advice."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2001; Vol. 627, c. 1493.]

The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is a powerful advocate. He has moved a number of amendments today, and has taken me with him on some of his arguments. However, he has needed all his powers of advocacy for amendment No. 22 because his case is weak. I am against what he is trying to achieve; he has not explained why we should put the commission under that duty.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for introducing the amendment. It gives us a chance to discuss a serious issue. We are discussing it in the context of the Bill being able to allow English Heritage to

"produce and publish, or sell, books, films or other informative material relating to foreign ancient monuments or foreign historic buildings",

"produce or sell souvenirs relating to such monuments or buildings".

Is there not another consideration? If the amendment were accepted, the process would prove so cumbersome for the commission that it would wipe out any profit that it made from selling items.

I would not claim to be an expert in commercial processes, but I tend to agree with my right hon. Friend.

I do not wish to disagree with anything that my right hon. and hon. Friends have said.

As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) made clear, English Heritage always takes great care to understand and respect the cultural sensitivities that apply to any ancient monument, historic building or artefact. I have every confidence in asserting that it will continue to do so. We shall have something to say if it does not. It will not he in competition with the heritage authorities in any other country. I am confident that English Heritage would automatically extend the care that it already shows to any foreign monument or historic building on which it was working. However, it would be an unacceptable burden to expect English Heritage to consult, for example, with the Egyptian Government before publishing a book in England about the pyramids.

I have two short points to make. First, in response to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), this is the first opportunity that I have had to table amendments, as I did not have the good fortune to serve on the Standing Committee, so I cannot be criticised for that.

Although I served on the Standing Committee, I had not intended to speak in the debate, as I hoped that the Bill would go through without hindrance. When the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) was fortunate enough to see the Parthenon, was he subjected to the admission charges? I gather that they have just been raised by 50 per cent., making a visit to the Parthenon a rather more expensive exercise than going to see the Elgin marbles in the British museum for free.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. On more than one occasion I have stressed to the Greek Government and all those involved with the Parthenon that when the Parthenon sculptures return to Athens, people must have access to them free, so that they can see them on the same basis as they can see them in their temporary home in the British museum.

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

I congratulate my noble friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns on introducing the Bill as long ago as 18 July 2001, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), whom I regularly describe as our national treasure, on so successfully bringing the Bill through all its stages in the House.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on the Bill. I know that it is a difficult job to pilot a private Member's Bill through the House, having had his support for the Bill that I brought forward last week. Despite my comments and criticisms of his Bill, I think that it is worth while. I was grateful for the opportunity that he has given me to research in the highways and byways of obscure legislation, and perhaps get some ideas for future law reform of my own in the next Session.

Like the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), I rise briefly to put on record Liberal Democrat support for this measure, and to congratulate the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). He has piloted the Bill through the House with his usual professional skill and eloquence. Many people will welcome this legislation.

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on the way in which he has navigated this excellent Bill through the House—I am fed up hearing references to "piloting". It was my privilege to serve with him right the way through it, including in Committee. His Bill gives valuable new powers to English Heritage. Its passage through the House shows that there is widespread support for it on both sides. I reiterate the fact that the Government fully support it.