Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill

Public Bill Committee, 8 February 2001.

Standing Committee A

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

On a point of order, Mrs. Adams. We do not have the second part of the Hansard report of our proceedings on Tuesday. It is therefore impossible for members of the Committee to refer back to that debate.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

The matter is being investigated and the Hansard report will be in the Room as soon as possible. Clause 11 Television and radio broadcasting

Clause 11 - Television and radio broadcasting

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 5, line 28, leave out from `Broadcasting' to `section' in line 29 and insert

`Corporation or Sianel Pedwar Cymru (the Welsh Authority referred to in'.

This minor amendment would remove a misprint in the Bill, which refers to the British Broadcasting ``Authority'' instead of the corporation, and set out the full name of the Welsh fourth channel authority. Both the BBC and Sianel Pedwar Cymru are excluded from the scope of the Bill. BBC services are regulated by its board of governors while the Welsh fourth channel—S4C—is regulated by the Broadcasting Act 1990. Their exclusion is in line with the decision to exclude from the scope of the Bill those broadcasting services that are already well regulated by statute or charter.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Adams. I have not served under your chairmanship before, and I look forward to doing so.

I thank the Minister for her explanation of the amendment. It would clarify which Welsh broadcasting authority is covered by the Bill and correct the original reference in the Bill to the ``British Broadcasting Authority''. The Minister said that the BBC was regulated by its board of governors. The amendment would correct an elementary matter; I am surprised that the reference to ``Authority'' was not noticed when the Bill was first drafted. However, I have been a member of Standing Committees that have debated Bills containing many more elementary mistakes than the Bill that we are currently debating. Parliamentary draftsmen are under enormous pressure, and mistakes can happen.

The Minister will know that, occasionally, we are concerned about the role of the governors of the BBC and about their fulfilling the requirements placed on them. Although we associate advertising almost exclusively with those commercial television channels that are legitimately allowed to advertise, some of the problems that have arisen under other clauses of the Bill that deal with product placement are just as much a problem in BBC programmes. Unfortunately, such matters are not regulated sufficiently tightly by the Bill. We are requiring the governors of the BBC to be far more vigilant than previously in ensuring that tobacco advertising that might fuel the prevalence of smoking does not slip through. We see product placement on television despite the ban on commercial tobacco advertising. I would like the Minister to impress upon the governors of the BBC that the BBC is affected. They may say that they do not, and never have, carried any tobacco advertising because the BBC does not run advertisements. However, when programmes are being vetted, precautions should be taken to avoid letting through other forms of advertising that we know to have a potent effect on young people.

I do my level best to stop my children from watching soaps because I have severe misgivings about the values that are imparted through them, but children coming home from school often plonk themselves down in front of the television and watch soaps in which role models openly smoke. That is an illustration of how product placement can creep in. It was a grey area when we debated it. Although there may not be official sponsorship agreements between television stars and tobacco companies, the potency of seeing a revered television star smoking on screen is enough to inspire young girls to take up the habit.

I remain concerned. I do not want the amendment to go by without putting on record my concern about the new responsibility that will be placed on the governors of the BBC.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I may want to speak further about the clause in the clause stand part debate. I am concerned about how we define what the BBC is, not least because BBC World is broadcast on satellite television. The BBC is being encouraged through the new communications White Paper and the opportunity to earn money other than that which it receives from licence payers, to separate out its duties. I am worried that unless one defines the BBC, it may be able to carry advertising that the Government do not intend, especially if its programmes are beamed overseas.

If one goes down and looks at the BBC's facilities for making programmes for transmission on satellite channels in other areas—in Europe or in the United Kingdom—there is a man with an automatic machine, which feeds in a pile of cassettes with all of the different programme items. The transmission is beamed via an uplink to a satellite. That satellite zooms it over to another satellite and it comes down in China or wherever. Every 15 minutes or so the programme stops, and the advertisements are dropped into the programme breaks in those countries that are receiving the transmission. The whole delivery may be the responsibility of the BBC, or an independent television company.

The original name of the BBC was the ``British Broadcasting Authority''. Now the better-known name British Broadcasting Corporation is being included in the Bill. We must be careful what we are defining. As I understand it, the Government are trying to ring-fence what is paid for by the licence fee. The Government are telling the BBC that it must set up separate organisations, which I think are different, specific legal entities—limited companies, or even public limited companies. Those organisations are separate from what we know as the BBC of today, which is paid for through the licence fee. Activities such as running extra digital TV channels distributed by satellite, which may all have advertising in them, will be dealt with in a different way. I am happy to have a chance to analyse that; yet again a Government amendment prompts me to consider an issue, which is what exactly the BBC is now.

It may well be that the British Broadcasting Corporation controls what we know as the BBC, and also controls something like BBC World, which has a different remit and be financed in a different way. It may be financed by sponsorship, and is almost certainly financed by advertising. Have the Minister's ever-vigilant staff been thinking about that?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

That is an interesting line of inquiry. Has my hon. Friend considered the reverse traffic? What happens when the BBC imports programmes from countries in which tobacco advertising is not so strenuously regulated? What responsibility will it have in such situations?

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I do a good deal of policy work on communications and it is my view, increasingly the Conservative party's view and even, dare I say, the Labour party's view, that one cannot have different regulations for the BBC than for any other broadcaster, because the BBC is no longer just a terrestrial broadcaster with two channels. It has a large number of channels—[Interruption.] It is so nice to know that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) is ready, chuntering away in the background.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the amendment; perhaps he would pull his argument back in.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I was about to sit down, Mrs. Adams. It is always difficult to keep track when a Committee member keeps a running commentary that is always too low for me to hear, but which is obviously designed to distract. Unfortunately, Mrs. Adams, you have not been here to see the Trappist tendency among Labour Members again. They do not want to put anything on the record and certainly do not care whether we track what we are supposed to be tracking.

Ernie Ross (Labour, Dundee West)

I had the misfortune to serve on the Select Committee on Employment with the hon. Gentleman for many years. All his self-righteous nonsense amounts to exactly nothing.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

Order. Can we come back to the Bill now?

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

We are on the Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is still on the Employment Select Committee in his own mind; I think that it threw him off some while ago. He has had a distinguished career on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs; he is well known for that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden was trying to direct attention to the fact that we have separate regulation for the BBC and for all those other organisations—which is relevant to the Bill, if I may say so, Mrs. Adams. We need to be sure that the amendment is proper, given that the Government are attempting to stop tobacco advertising on the airwaves, whether by the BBC or any other broadcaster. The Minister may want to draw the provision even wider; she may consider that before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House on Tuesday.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I belatedly welcome you to the Committee, Mrs. Adams, and apologise for not having done so when I first spoke.

The amendment is straightforward, simple and is merely a minor wording amendment, but I shall try to address the questions that members of the Committee have raised. The amendment's purpose is to ensure that services already regulated by broadcasting Acts are not doubly regulated, and to deal with overlapping regulation. The Bill, as amended, will exclude services regulated by statutory codes issued by the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 and the BBC. The services regulated by those Acts include ITV, channels 4 and 5 and public teletext as well as cable and satellite programme services—when the person who provides the service is established in the United Kingdom—digital terrestrial television, restricted services, BBC commercial services and independent radio. Services that are not covered by the Broadcasting Acts include cable text, in-house broadcasting—in shopping malls, for example—and closed user services. Services not covered by the Broadcasting Acts are automatically covered by this Bill. The combination of the two should cover all the areas in which we have territorial jurisdiction, and where we are able to cover it.

Product placement is an issue that causes concern, but it is covered by the statutory codes and the Broadcasting Acts, which state that product placement of tobacco products should not be permitted on either channel. If there were any breaches of those codes, I would be interested to hear of them, to ensure that they are properly pursued. The codes that exist should be properly enforced, whether by the governors of the BBC or the Independent Television Commission.

The Bill is not intended to ban smoking on television; it would be wrong for us to seek to do so, and it is not Government policy. However, we intend to ban tobacco advertising, and that is clearly the intention of the Bill and the statutory codes.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I tried hard to make a distinction between the debate on the amendment and the stand part debate, by leaving aside any discussion of the Independent Television Commission and Radio Authority until now. Amendment No. 47 caught the BBC, and its role. However, what I want to say follows on from the Minister's speech to that amendment.

I find unsatisfactory the Government's approach to the change in law under this clause. They say that the Bill needs to deal only with the services not covered by the Independent Television Commission or the Broadcasting Acts. There is a problem with approaching the question of tobacco advertising from that minimalist perspective, however. It is not working very well at the moment in relation to the other authorities. Commercial television channels can legitimately advertise; that is how they raise their revenue, and how they can afford to make their programmes. The problem of product placement is just as acute in those independent television channels.

Like all hon. Members, I do not have much time to watch television. By the time we leave this place at night, there is little left to watch. However, on the occasions when I do, I find that there has been a slide. Even on BBC programmes that are not supposed to advertise, products appear blatantly, and for long periods. As an intermittent television viewer, I sometimes comment to my husband, ``My goodness, they are getting away with blue murder there. That product has been in the foreground of the picture for a very long time.''

There seems to have been an imperceptible slide in that direction, and the same is true of product placement. The nub of the problem is that ``advertisement'' has not been defined. We are dealing with an incredibly fine line. I realise that it would be unreasonable to ban people smoking on television, because, as far as possible, television tries to portray real life, and people smoke in real life. However, product placement is a subtle subset of that.

We had a similar discussion in relation to films, especially films from Hollywood that contain blatant product placement. Our television channels, including the BBC—the licence-funded channel provider—and the independent channel providers, show Hollywood-produced films in which blatant product placement occurs, and that is a powerful tool. I believe that we would all agree that young people who enjoy the cinema and revere cinema heroes are affected by such subliminal advertising on television.

I am worried that, in considering tobacco advertising in the context of television and radio broadcasting, we are skating over the issue superficially, without tackling problems. We could have nobbled the problem of product placement earlier in the Bill. I do not believe that the phrase ``product placement'' appears in the Bill, although I may have misread the Bill, and perhaps it does.

We need to signal to the television and radio companies that produce and compile programmes that anxiety has been expressed about product placement and what I have described as the slide in that direction. Although the Bill may send a signal, so long as it remains without a definition of advertisement, a grey area will remain about what constitutes advertising, which has been one of the Bill's weaknesses from the outset.

I hope that now is the time to raise the issue. This is a stand part debate, and we reserved discussing television and radio until we reached clause 11. However, the matter relates to other parts of the Bill. The approach to the construct of the Bill is, ``Well, it's okay because the independent television and radio producers are already regulated, and the Broadcasting Acts already deal with the regulation. There is just a little bit left that we need to cover.'' I am not sure that that will do the trick. We need to send a much stronger signal to the different authorities identified in the Bill, which will now effectively have a censorship role. We are asking them to reconsider the content of their programmes and pay more attention to the question of subliminal advertising and product placement. To help them do that, we need to define what constitutes an advertisement.

Mr. Ian Bruce rose—

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I inform him that copies of the Hansard report of Tuesday's proceedings are now available in the Room.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I am glad that we have that on the record. I have my copy of Hansard, and have noticed several errors, which, unfortunately, I have not yet been able to go through so that I can ask the Committee to take note of them. We might just about be able to discuss that this afternoon.

I revert briefly to the issue of who controls broadcasting and advertising. We discussed previously why a Bill that effectively deals with Department of Trade and Industry and Department for Culture, Media and Sport matters is being introduced by the Department of Health. Although it is common ground in the Committee that serious health problems result from tobacco, which is why we are all keen for tobacco consumption to be reduced, the matter will be controlled by different Government Departments.

As is clear in the communications White Paper, the Government have not tackled the issue of who in the Government will be responsible for communications. They propose a single regulator, but the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will effectively deal with the broadcasting side, and the Department of Trade and Industry will deal with the more technical side and consumer affairs matters. It is important to know who is supposed to be controlling matters and who is supposed to be keeping an eye on what happens in broadcasting. Clause 12 deals with who will be the lead authority in checking such matters, but it is a difficult aspect.

In relation to product placement, now is a timely point at which to discuss once again the fact that the Government have decided not to define what constitutes an advertisement. As we saw in relation to a clause that referred back to the first clause, an advertisement is what it was in the first clause, and the Bill does not tell us any more.

I believe in listening to Ministers and taking their advice. The Minister kindly told us that an advertisement is what the dictionary says it is. I have a short version of the dictionary definition and a longer one; let us refer to the latter. ``Advertisement'' comes from the root ``to advert'', which means to refer to something. When I say anything about the Bill, I am ``adverting'' to it. The dictionary definition suggests that although the root of ``advertisement'' comes from ``advert'', normal usage of the word implies referring someone else to something. It is not just about ringing up one's local newspaper and saying, ``I'd like to put an advertisement in the newspaper, because I want to sell a bicycle'', or ``I want to sell some tobacco''. That is an advertisement, but there is more to advertisements than that.

Let me read the first definition of ``advertisement'' from the dictionary. It is:

``The turning of the mind to anything; attention; observation; heed''.

That is not the paid-for advertisement that the Minister thinks that she is dealing with.

The second definition is:

``Calling the attention of others; admonition; warning; precept; instruction''.

The third is:

``The action of informing or notifying information; notification; notice''.

On that definition, we start to come towards the kind of advertisement that the Government are trying to ban.

The fourth definition is:

``A written statement calling attention to anything; a notification; a notice''.

The fifth definition is:

``A public notice or announcement, formerly by the town crier, now usually in writing or print, by placards or in a journal, a paid announcement in a newspaper or other print''.

We must wait until we reach the fifth definition of ``advertisement'' before we arrive at what we thought that the Bill was about.

Clause 11 implies that a person who uses a cigarette or offers one to someone else in any broadcast material is caught by the Bill, because that is an advertisement for cigarettes. The Minister is dealing with an inadequate Bill. She is doing a good job of attempting to move it swiftly through our two weeks of consideration, but we still have not defined ``advertisement'' correctly. We have discussed several fundamental amendments each day, and I urge the Minister, when she refers to the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the codes contained in clause 11, to take care not to catch things that she has told us that she does not wish to catch. Because terms are not sufficiently defined, she may find that clever lawyers will approach the courts, saying, ``If it's all right to smoke on screen, because that has been accepted as okay, why isn't it all right for product placement, blatant advertising, sponsorship and everything else?'' I urge the Minister to tell the Committee how those important issues are being dealt with.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I shall try to address the points made.

The purpose of the clause is to prevent unnecessary overlap and complication between two parallel regulatory frameworks—one is the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, and the other is the Broadcasting Acts and their statutory codes, which currently regulate the way in which the BBC and other television and radio services operate. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of product placement, which we are concerned about in relation to tobacco and health. The codes already ban paid product placement of tobacco products. We would be extremely concerned—as would the BBC governors and the ITC—if we found a link between a television programme and a tobacco company for the promotion of the latter's product. Were there any concern or suspicion that such a link might exist, it would be investigated straight away.

The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) described her feelings as a television viewer. If she has anxieties about tobacco product placement in that context, I would be keen to hear examples and see that they are properly pursued.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

As a television viewer, how easily will I remember to which authority I must refer my complaint? Section 2(1)(b) of the 1990 Act refers to ``additional services which are provided from places in the United Kingdom''.

To whom should I refer a complaint about product placement in an imported programme shown on a particular channel?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The two focuses should be the BBC or the ITC's code of practice. I will happily give the hon. Lady the full details in that regard. Clearly, such product placement should be prevented and properly regulated under the existing framework.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I am sure that the hon. Lady, as a health Minister, thinks that there are just two regulators. A report from the European Informatics Market group, the all-party group on the matter, found 13 different regulators that deal with such broadcasting issues in the United Kingdom alone.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Such issues are covered by the Broadcasting Acts, and a regulatory framework is in place. We considered whether we should try to regulate all those issues under the same framework and the same Bill. We decided that, because a regulatory framework was already in place for television, the right approach would be to make sure that this Bill covered all television services or additional services that were not already covered by the Broadcasting Acts. That is exactly what the clause does. It does not try to replicate or overlay an existing regulatory framework with a new one that might complicate it. It tries to cover all additional services to ensure a full and complete ban on tobacco advertising in this country.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I genuinely do not know the answer to my question, as it relates to an issue that would be dealt with by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Would it require eight complaints to be received to trigger an investigation? Currently, eight complaints must be received to trigger an investigation into bias.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I cannot answer that in relation to the nature of the way in which the investigations take place. I shall be happy to find that out before this afternoon's sitting.

The Bill's intention is clear: we want to make sure there is a proper system to regulate tobacco advertising. The Bill should plug the gaps that might not already be covered by an advertising ban.

The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) asked whether the Bill should be progressed by the DCMS or the DTI. Life and legislation do not fit neatly into particular boxes. He obviously thinks it a shame that the Bill has implications for several Departments, but that, inevitably, is how a lot of legislation works. We are introducing the Bill because of our concern for public health and the 120,000 deaths that result each year from smoking and tobacco. The question of which Departments will be involved is something of a red herring. The important point is that we should get the Bill right, and there are clear health reasons to do so.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I had hoped to catch the Minister before she sat down because this will be our last chance to talk about broadcasting. Can she clarify the situation as regards my point about imported programmes and the responsibility that television service providers have for their content? In the case of programmes imported from America, such as films that have blatant product placement in them, would the BBC be able to use the same defence as an individual and say that it had had no reason to suspect that the film contained product placement? Would the Minister regard that defence as reasonable in a case in which there was blatant product placement in an American programme?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Certainly, those involved in the means of transmission may use the defences of not knowing, not being aware, or not having any reason to suspect. In the case of sponsorship agreements, the companies involved in transmitting or distributing films would only be affected, under the sponsorship clauses, if the purpose of what was done as a result of the agreement was to promote a tobacco product. However, if they were based in this country and involved in broadcasting an advertisement for tobacco, they would be covered, even if the advertisement had originated abroad.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

The Minister keeps using the word ``advertisement''. According to the dictionary, ``advertisement'' means ``simply referring to'' tobacco. Will she deal with that point?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

We had that discussion many times in the debates on clauses 1 and 2 and several more clauses since. I have made it clear every time that the word ``advertisement'' in this sense carries its natural meaning. Clause 1 states that a

```tobacco advertisement' means an advertisement—

(a) whose purpose is to promote a tobacco product''.

The main offence in the Bill, as set out in clause 2, relates to

``A person who in the course of a business publishes a tobacco advertisement, or causes one to be published''

or distributed. Our intentions have been made clear.

The Committee has discussed issues surrounding display, and will discuss them again when we reach the new clauses. We have also discussed how the Bill does not include freedom of speech or news reporting. The Bill is competent and adequate, and we have had quite enough debate to make clear the intention of the House on advertising.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Enforcement

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

We are keen to discuss the clause because it relates to a completely different subject. Having arrived in the Committee at this stage, Mrs. Adams, you could not know that we have had no discussion on enforcement and have saved all our points on it for this debate.

Enforcement is an important area. We share the Government's aim of trying to reduce smoking. We have our doubts about the Bill's effectiveness given that there is no effective control over the volume of smuggled tobacco coming into the UK. None the less, the enforcement authorities will be required to put the Bill into effect, and even its limited effectiveness will depend greatly on those authorities. It seems perfectly reasonable, therefore, to ask the Minister what the Government intend in terms of allocating resources to the weights and measures authorities in England, Wales and Scotland and to district councils in Northern Ireland so that they are able to enforce the Act. We have not raised that question before and now is the right time to do so.

When the Act comes into effect, it will be bound to create many cases, at least initially, that need investigation by the relevant enforcement authority. The Bill represents a big shift in practice as regards the currently quite legitimate advertising of tobacco products. Those who engage in the trade of buying and selling tobacco products and their accessories will have to adapt to a new situation in which it is no longer legal to advertise those tobacco products. During the earlier stages of the Commiteee, we sought on a number of occasions to clarify precisely what is an advertisement and what is a display, and we are going to receive some clarification on the latter point when we debate new clause 3.

There will undeniably be a transitional period during which those involved in the trade will try to adjust to the new law and work out precisely what it means for them. A lot of specific guidance has still to be given in regulations; effectively, we have an empty box into which the regulations have still to be placed. I have been very concerned that a number of small commercial entities that trade tobacco products, such as specialist tobacconists and corner shops in which 50 per cent. of the product is tobacco, may find themselves in the difficult position of having to go to court to clarify whether they are trading legitimately once the Act bans tobacco advertising.

The up-front cost to the weights and measures authorities concerns me. It would be extremely helpful to those who trade in tobacco products to have the assistance of the authorities in clarifying, in the early stages, precisely what the regulations mean. We cannot give any guidance because we have not seen the regulations, which will not be set out in the Bill. The rule of the enforcement authorities will be very important, and I am aware, from other Bills that have gone through this House and passed into law over the past four years, that we are expecting a lot of extra work from weights and measures authorities in England, Wales and Scotland and from our district councils.

The resourcing of the authorities is pertinent. We share an interest with the Government in that we want to ensure that those who will be affected by the Bill should have proper guidance, part of which will undoubtedly be provided by the weights and measures officers.

Why will Ministers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland be able to take over enforcement functions in some cases? Is that because no extra resources are being allocated to the weights and measures authorities in England and Wales? Is that the intention of the Minister's Department, given that a lot of up-front effort will be needed to get across the change in commercial practice that the Bill requires? What is the rationale behind that provision? Does the Department take the pessimistic view that the authorities are likely to fail in their task, and that the Department will need to be able to take over those powers if weights and measures authorities protest either that they do not have the required resources, or are not capable in some way.

The Local Government Act 1999 provides, in a similar way, for the Government to step in where local authorities fail to perform particular tasks, as properly measured. Does the Minister agree that it is important for the weights and measures authorities to know the circumstances in which her Department might muscle in and take over. That could be demoralising to someone who has been carrying out a new task in trying to bring about a change in commercial practice by stemming tobacco advertising and who suddenly finds that it has been taken out of his or her responsibilities. That could lead a local authority to think that it had not done well in the task, and was being criticised. It is important to spell out for everyone's sake, the circumstances in which the Department would take over responsibility.

Does the provision have anything to do with taking a case through to prosecution? Is some sort of two-tier role in operation, under which weights and measures authorities may check on where there may be a breach of the law, but the Department take over because of the cost of going to court and prosecuting. I am interested to know the rationale behind the provision.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

My hon. Friend touches on cost, but the Bill puts a duty on every local authority—every district council—to be an enforcement authority. There is no requirement for the Minister take the costs off the local authorities, which must bear the costs, unless the Minister decides to take over.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. At the moment, local councils are of the opinion that more and more is being foisted on them, without the necessary resources. I am not making any sort of spending commitment by saying that resources are needed for enforcement. Health has had a large increase in funding, which we have said that we will match. Within that increase in funding, it should, logically, be possible to allocate the resources appropriate to making a Bill work.

I should be interested to hear from the Minister how the provision will work in practice. We need to understand aspects of enforcement application before we can judge whether we think that the Bill will be effective.

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Adams, on this last day of our proceedings. On enforcement, may I first say to the hon. Member for Meridian that it is not exactly true that the Bill represents a big shift in what trading standards officers have to do, or that it creates is a completely new situation. The so-called voluntary codes have to be policed somehow, and policing fell on many occasions to local authorities trading standards departments.

In 1994, it was decided to take tobacco advertising off shop-fronts, where it was soon replaced by Coca Cola adverts as far as I can remember. It was also decided to remove tobacco advertising from billposters in close proximity to schools. There is evidence, therefore, that some local authorities have acted as a type of police to ensure that the voluntary codes were adhered to.

As regards enforcement, the contents of the clause are not dissimilar to those in the Food Standards Act 1999. I chaired the pre-legislative Select Committee that considered that Act before its Second Reading. We took a great deal of evidence from different parts of the country from trading standards officers—or weights and measures, as the hon. Lady calls them. Different parts of the country have different forms of enforcement in relation to foods standards. It was quite clear that what was needed in that Act—I suspect that this is also the reason for provision in the Bill before us—was a power for someone to be able to take over if it were found that the trading standards authority, or other relevant local organisation, was not capable of doing a job that would give meaning to the Act in their particular area.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

May I put it on record that my constituency is not ``Meridian'' but Meriden, lest I should be confused with the television company? That is quite important in view of the matters that we have just discussed.

I, too, served on the Committee that dealt with the Foods Standards Bill, and I clearly remember that, it spelled out the circumstances in which the enforcement authority could be supplanted by another authority. If a local authority was failing to perform its role of enforcement, it could be superseded. The difference is that the circumstances in which that could happen were spelled out in that Act, but are not in this Bill.

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

I apologise for getting the hon. Lady's constituency name wrong. I think that I was talking about clause 11 at the time, which is about television. It is not unusual for members of the Committee to talk about one clause when they are supposed to be discussing another one entirely.

I agree, to some extent, with the hon. Lady. The Foods Standards Act was about policing. The other side of the coin is that the clause before us does contain powers. I have a question for my hon. Friend the Minister about subsection (5). Members may have noted recently, in the national media, the prosecution of people who were selling unfit poultry meat. Some of them went to prison, and rightly so. That prosecution effectively started in my own Rotherham borough. The trading standards authorities went to the south coast at some stage to take evidence and interview people in, I think, Brighton.

That was clearly a national scandal, and the cost of the investigation has been horrendous. Meetings have taken place between the authorities and central Government, but the costs of that investigation all fell on Rotherham metropolitan borough council. The investigation cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and was clearly national in nature. If it happened again, unless the rules were changed and money found to pay for such an investigation, authorities might be dissuaded from becoming involved in gathering evidence and prosecuting people who are breaking the law.

I would like to ask my hon. Friend whether subsection (5) will help with that? Investigations and proceedings in cases of breaches can be massively expensive. Would that be taken into account? That would clearly be an improvement on the provisions of the Foods Standards Act 1999, which were simply about making sure that local authorities, or whoever was responsible, were policing the food chain correctly.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

It seems that we may all be voting against the clause. I am only too pleased once again to support the hon. Gentleman, even though he did not support his own argument last time we had a vote. The hon. Gentleman briefly mentioned the fact that trading standards is now the correct name for what old-fashioned people like me call the weights and measures authorities. The Committee will be pleased at his expertise, but is the Bill faulty? Is there no such thing as a weights and measures authority any more?

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

The hon. Gentleman will have to ask the parliamentary draughtsman about that. I use the phrase ``trading standards'' because that is what we have in our borough. Different parts of the country may have something else, and I am no expert on local government in Wales or Northern Ireland. I cannot really answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

The hon. Gentleman invites me to vote against the clause, and I am not surprised that he wants to do so. If a Bill is not enforced, it becomes a non-Bill, and, given that the Tories tabled an amendment declining to give the Bill a Second Reading, I am not at all surprised to hear that they want to try again to kill the Bill. At each sitting, Opposition Members have said that there are loopholes in the Bill and that it will never be possible to enforce it. If that were the case, why would they want to vote against any part of it? The Opposition should be completely in favour of it.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

I am going to sit down. I am not against debate, but I would like to move on because I have other things to say later.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Strangely, we have had a really useful contribution from the hon. Gentleman, who pointed out yet another loophole in the Bill, but when we suggest that he helps us to force the Government to return with a clause that would deal with his concerns, he immediately replies, ``No, no, no. Let the Government carry on, let them be condemned by their own folly.''

I am concerned about the clause, which contains many loopholes and reasons why the Bill will not work. The hon. Gentleman again misunderstands me. He was a co-signatory of my early-day motion when I tried to ban tobacco. I no longer feel that that is the right way forward—voluntary action would be better. We have to ask how the Bill's provisions will be enforced. The nub of the Bill is the enforcement of a set of rules and regulations that the Government have decided to introduce. It was extraordinary to discover from the expert who last discussed trading standards that weights and measures authorities apparently no longer exist. Does that mean that I shall be out of order if I discuss weights and measures authorities? I believe that my three district councils are responsible for that.

Most of the advertising that concerns us appears in the national press, the enforcement authority for which is provided by the Broadcasting Acts. It may be, however, that tobacco companies could decide to put a big advert on the side of their lorries. Those lorries are driven from one end of the country to the other on a regular basis, passing though every district council area in the country. That would mean that all those district councils had a duty to prosecute that company. If The Daily Telegraph is delivered in every district authority area in the country, and someone has placed something that looks like a tobacco advertisement in the newspaper, all local authorities would have a duty to prosecute.

That is a ridiculous situation. If a local tobacconist sets up an advertisement that it has paid for, one could say that there would be some purpose in asking the local trading standards office to warn that individual. That is usually the sensible solution: the authority tells the person that he is breaking the law, and normally the individual would remove the advertisement. It may be, however, that the individual says, ``No, I have read the Bill carefully, and I have been advised by the tobacco company that what I am doing is legal, and you are going to have to prosecute me individually.'' In that case, no special funding route has been set out to enable each local authority to prosecute such cases.

We should compare the situation with the weights and measures case that we have just had in the north-east. A man who wants to weigh bananas in pounds and ounces because his customers ask him to do so is being prosecuted—despite the Minister saying, ``Oh no, no, we wouldn't prosecute somebody just for responding to a consumer''. I understand that it has cost at least £200,000 to date to prosecute that individual for selling a few bananas to someone who asked for them in pounds rather than kilograms. That seems bonkers, but it is the mechanism that we are being asked to approve. I am being asked to say to all three weights and measures authorities, which is what they are called now, in my constituency—[Interruption.] I will give way to hon. Members who clearly want to make a speech. Or perhaps they do not.

Those three authorities in my constituency, and all the 100 or more local authorities throughout the country, must get on and start prosecuting. If the enforcement authority says, ``Look, we're strapped for cash at the moment, as all local authorities are,'' and councillors say to their enforcement officers, ``You may have a duty to prosecute, but if you expect us to keep piling money into your budget, you've got another think coming,'' how will the Government force them to police every individual advertisement or suggestion of an advertisement and challenge it in the local courts? It is nonsensical to set that down as a duty. The clause does not say that the enforcement authority may take action; it states that the authority has an absolute duty to take action. The relevant Government Department, whichever Department it is—I will come to that in a moment—does not have a duty to prosecute. It may decide to come in and take over or, if it wishes, prosecute a certain class of advertisement centrally. We are being asked to allow the clause to go through without being told what the Government intend to do. Regulations may already exist in draft form, setting out that any case covering more than one local authority will be picked up and paid for by a central prosecuting authority.

If an authority is to take action, someone has to decide who will pay for that. I cannot see my tiny authorities of Weymouth and Portland, Purbeck and West Dorset, which have tiny amounts of money, agreeing to pay. The recent case in the north-east cost £200,000, which to my authorities is a significant amount. The Government have taken over the banana-measuring case. I am sure that my councillors, of all political persuasions, wish to reduce tobacco consumption, but they would not incur the risk of spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in court costs for a test case on behalf of the Government. The Minister needs to tell us how the clause will operate.

Subsection (3) refers to an ``appropriate Minister''. Who is an appropriate Minister? It is not defined in the clause. I would be grateful for a signal on that.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

It is in clause 19.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Is it the Secretary of State for Health?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Yes.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I am shocked by the situation that will now exist. Every morning, officials in the Department of Health will have to check what is happening in consumer affairs, which are already monitored by the Department of Trade and Industry. An extra department or section of the Department of Health will have to be set up specifically to deal with tobacco advertising. That seems extraordinary. If that is joined-up government, give me silo government.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The example of the Food Standards Agency has already been evoked. My hon. Friend did not serve on the Committee that considered the Food Standards Bill. It may help him to know that a piggyback arrangement, under which someone looks over the shoulder of the people who are carrying out the enforcement role, operates under that legislation. Initially, health enforcement officers from the local authority carry out an investigation, and the FSA enforcement officers look over their shoulders. It is quite a heavy structure.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I am grateful for that intervention. I apologise to the Committee for not having read sufficiently through the Bill, but I am even more concerned now that we have identified who will be responsible. I thought that the appropriate Minister would simply refer to an appropriate Minister in a Department that had monitoring arrangements in place, rather than to the Secretary of State for Health, who is a pretty busy man already.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

The hon. Gentleman seems concerned about the possible appointment of extra staff in the Department of Health or elsewhere to monitor the compliance of advertising agencies and others with the proposed legislation. The Government estimate that about 2.5 per cent. of the 120,000 premature smoking-related deaths a year—about 3,000 lives—could be prevented. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is worth appointing a few civil servants to achieve that?

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

If a single life can be saved, that must be done. Clearly, we want to spend the money saving lives, but I am not dealing with that point. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would accept that I was asking who would be responsible for enforcement. I discovered that the Department of Health would be responsible, but it does not have the necessary mechanisms. It has controls in that it looks at what the British Medical Association does and various other matters. The Secretary of State for Health is constantly bombarded with various important issues relating to people's health—such as drugs, the Alder Hey problem and so on—and of course he is a very suitable person to deal with such matters.

We are trying to determine who would be an appropriate Minister to keep an eye on what happens. There is a consumer affairs department within the DTI. I thought that it would be perfectly normal for that department to consider matters involving weights and measures—but apparently not. If I were a weights and measures or trading standards officer at a district council and I was concerned about what my duties were, I should be able to look to a single Department within Government. That is what joined-up government is about. I should be able to say, ``That is the lead Minister for me in my job.'' I should not have to go round with all the individual Acts of Parliament under my arm to ensure that what I did complied with those Acts, policed by individual Secretaries of State.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which is reasonable. On a point of correction, trading standards functions are carried out by county authorities and city authorities, not by district councils. Therefore, they probably will have the resources to undertake the role in a satisfactory fashion. I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) speaks to his new clause 2, he will see the merits of making that authority responsible for tackling the weaknesses that he flags up. I am sympathetic to that.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I would certainly be pleased to take advice. I have asked my colleagues which authorities deal with such matters. I have seen confusion in the past about whether it is the district or county authority, but we are still talking about a large number of authorities. In Dorset there are in effect three county authorities. There are two metropolitan councils, one in Poole and one in Bournemouth and there is a third council for rural Dorset, which includes my constituency.

It is interesting that a group of us in the Committee are struggling to work out whether the relevant authority is still called the weights and measures authority or the trading standards authority and which is responsible for enforcement. Imagine what the public will think when they want to know whom to contact about a problem with tobacco advertising.

Getting back to the point about which Minister is the ``appropriate Minister'', I rather suspect that people who feel that some terrible tobacco company is trying to get round the advertising ban will contact the DTI because it deals with trade and industry, consumer affairs and so on. That would be incorrect.

One of the problems that arises when one says that the funding is with the local authority is how it gets that funding. The money going to local authorities generally comes from the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions; not much money comes from the Department of Health. The mechanisms are getting confused because social services are funded partly by the health budget. Those are complications that we should understand when we discuss the clause. We must ensure that we get clarity.

I know that Labour Members are keen to ensure that this is a workable Bill. What will happen when an officer from their trading authorities contacts them to say, ``You were on that Committee. I've just realised that we've got to have an extra body to deal with this. Can you contact the Government and get the funding?'' I am sure that they will have to ask to whom they should write to get the additional funding. The appropriate Minister is at the Department of Health, but I do not think that the Department of Health has a budget to send down to the trading standards people in whatever local authority it is. The clause is creating further confusion about the way in which these things should be funded.

Subsection (5) enables the Secretary of State to take over proceedings. When a local authority is faced with activities that are clearly not only local, but of a wider nature, we should not just have the Secretary of State saying, ``Well, I have plenty of money at the Department of Health and I do not need to buy any new cancer drugs so I will come and take over the prosecution and spend £200,000 on the activities of that tobacconist.'' We should tell the Department of the Health that if that is what it wants, it should take over prosecutions in specified circumstances, not that it may do so. Passing the buck is not the right way to proceed here.

Subsection (7) brings us to the magistrates courts. I am sure that hon. Members can tell me the sort of penalties that could be imposed. I assume that offences will be triable within a magistrates court and that the fines and penalties should be fairly minimal. If a major tobacco company has spent a lot of money on an advert that we think is caught by the Bill and a local authority says that it is aware of its duty to act, it is strange that the case is simply triable within a magistrates court with no jury.

I am not an expert in what happens when cases move up from magistrates courts to the Crown court, but the Minister owes it to the Committee to explain how a major multi-million pound campaign—£100 million is spent on promoting tobacco products in this country—will be affected by the legislation. There will be attempts to find loopholes. Local authorities may be prepared to carry out their duty and spend ratepayers' money on taking a case to court, but the magistrates will be able to inflict only three months in jail or whatever maximum penalty such a court can apply. Will the Minister explain exactly how the provisions will operate? Will the hundreds of thousands of pounds that a local authority might have to pay to bring cases to court be commensurate with the penalties that could be imposed?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I am surprised that we have taken up so much time debating this clause, which is pretty standard stuff. It sets out which bodies and which Ministers are responsible. If the hon. Member for South Dorset had bothered to read the Bill, his comments might have been substantially shorter. The clause reflects the work of local trading standards officers who enforce consumer protection or under-age sales provisions. Nothing weird is going on. The clause is completely in tune with the work of trading standards officers, who are properly defined and know exactly who they are.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

The hon. Lady adopts the terminology of trading standards, but it is not in the Bill. What explains the switch from her terminology to what is in the Bill?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The language in the Bill is perfectly appropriate to identify the precise organisations and agencies that will be responsible for carrying out the provisions. ``Trading standards officers'' is a broad term to encompass the relevant authorities. It is sensible. There is no confusion. As I said, trading standards officers know exactly who they are and exactly what they will have to enforce. It is set out in the Bill. Opposition Members are wasting time over straightforward matters. If they had bothered to talk to local trading standards officers, they would realise that the provisions are no big deal.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

The Minister continues to talk about trading standards officers, but they are not specified in the Bill. Trading standards officers are simply not described. The clause refers to the weights and measures authority, which is not the same terminology. A local authority worried about having to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds might well say, ``We are not a weights and measures authority. That is fine. We can shrug our shoulders; there is nobody to enforce the Act.''

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The enforcement authorities know exactly who they are. They are properly defined in the Bill. I am trying not to waste the Committee's time by listing them every single time that I refer to trading standards officers. Clause 12(1) expressly states that ``enforcement authority'' means:

``(a) in England and Wales, a weights and measures authority;

(b) in Scotland, a local weights and measures authoritiy; and

(c) in Northern Ireland, a district council.''

If I have to refer to that every time that I mention trading standards officers, the Committee's debate on the clause will take even longer than it has already. I am trying to move the Committee on to substantive issues.

Legitimate questions were asked about resources. The Department of Health will fund the training of local authority enforcement officers. Resources for enforcement will be allocated in the usual way—through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Hon. Members asked whether the Bill would result in a huge number of investigations and prosecutions. I remind the Committee that the approach of trading standards officers is first to draw attention to offences and then to educate to prevent or end offences in the simplest, swiftest way. Prosecution is not trading standards officers' first action; court proceedings are the last resort. The Local Authorities Co-ordinating body on Food and Trading Standards has discussed the issue with the Department and much of what is proposed will fit well into its existing work to prevent under-age sales, especially in the light of the new enforcement protocol that has been drawn up to tackle that problem.

The clause will allow Ministers to take on a prosecution to enforce the measure, but we would not normally expect that to happen, as we have great confidence in the local trading standards authorities' ability to monitor and to prosecute under the terms of the Bill. However, it is appropriate for the Secretary of State or the Minister to have the power to prosecute in an especially costly and complicated case which requires lots of evidence. It is hard to envisage such a case, but it might be one that involves brand sharing or a related matter. However, it is important for that power to be in the Bill to ensure that it is properly enforced when, for example, there is a complicated and costly prosecution that might be difficult for a local trading standards organisation to pursue.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

From what the Minister is saying, it appears that she did not include in the list of matters that the Secretary of State would normally take over, something that covers the whole country, which I assumed would have been included in the regulations. If we are talking about advertisements in national newspapers it would be extremely difficult for a local authority to say, ``We're going to spend our money on The Daily Telegraph advertising'' for example, when that clearly covers the whole country. I would have assumed that the Government had a mechanism to pick that up.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Individual cases would need to be considered on their merits, but we do not expect the Bill to result in huge numbers of prosecutions. The tobacco industry has told us that it intends to comply with the law, and we hope that it will do so. Trading standards officers attempt to resolve an issue, to educate and to draw attention to offences before there is a need to prosecute. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to prosecute when it is necessary and the case is complicated or costly. However, we are confident that local trading standards authorities will be perfectly competent and able to implement and enforce the Bill. That is their job and that is what that they will do.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Clause 12 is important and I ask the Minister to reconsider it on Report, because it is not just Government Departments and legislators who will have to work with it. If the clause were expressed in the vernacular, everyone who read it might understand it, but ordinary mortals might read it and wonder whether a new weights and measures authority is to come into existence.

Ernie Ross (Labour, Dundee West)

This is time-wasting.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

It is not time-wasting; I am making an important point and it is unnecessary to get frustrated about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Powers of entry, etc.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not become irritated and frustrated as we debate this clause. They must accept that the practical working of the powers of entry is an important aspect of the Bill that has not been debated before. We spent two full Committee sittings debating the powers of entry during proceedings on the Food Standards Bill in 1999, but now we are being asked to hurry up. It is important to devote the appropriate time to discussion of how the clause will work in practice. I warn Labour Members that I have several questions for the Minister.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Am I to believe, from the expressions of concern about the timetabling, that it was Conservative Members who decided to complete the Committee stage of the Bill in four days? Or was the timetable imposed on us by a motion tabled by the Government?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The first time that I saw the date of 8 February was on the printed programme motion. Other Bills came out of Committee on the same day, for some mysterious reason, which is probably not unconnected with the imminent general election. We are all trying to read the tea leaves on that.

Clause 13 deals with powers of entry. That important matter will affect people. The stakes are high when an enforcement officer is required to use powers of entry. It quite often becomes public knowledge that an investigation has taken place, and stigma attaches to the individual who has been investigated. We must help the Government to find the right balance for powers of entry. We accept that enforcement has to be effective.

My first question to the Minister relates to clause 13(1)(a), which states that an exception is made for a private dwelling house. I wish to place it on record that I desire legitimately to protect people's domestic property when it is used only for its proper purpose. I have, however, a major concern about enforcement of the ban on tobacco advertising, which is linked to our fundamental concern about the effect of the Bill on illegally smuggled tobacco. At present, there is good reason to suspect that there are non-commercial premises where contraband is stored prior to sale. Although this is anecdotal—I have not physically witnessed it—I fear that more often than not the contraband is stored in a garage attached to the home of someone who has access to one of the famous white vans that are responsible for distributing up to 48 per cent. of the contraband cigarettes that are smoked in the north-east.

I am keen to close the floodgates on illegally imported tobacco. That was the key point of our amendment on Second Reading. Every time that the hon. Member for Rother Valley refers to the strategy of Conservative Members on Second Reading, he studiously omits to point out that we moved a reasoned amendment to the Bill. I am keen to impress on the Committee that the amendment was not a flat rejection of the ban on tobacco advertising; the rationale behind it was to deal with the volume of illegally imported tobacco.

Will the exemption for a private dwelling house include the garage? I want to see an innocent person's home protected, but can the Minister assure me that, in granting this legitimate exemption, she is satisfied that it will not prevent enforcement officers from examining whether tobacco advertising, especially of illegally imported products, is taking place if they are not able to gain entry to garages?

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

I am mystified by what the hon. Lady's remarks have to do with advertising or promoting tobacco. What she says is logical if the objective of the Bill is to tackle the smuggling problem, but it seems highly unlikely that the premises where the smuggled goods are to be found will be advertised.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I do not know whether I am grateful for the hon. Member's intervention. He clearly does not do his household shopping. Those of us who go regularly to the supermarket look from time to time at the ``For Sale'' board, where people can advertise kittens or their car without the hassle of advertising it in the newspaper. For the hon. Member's information, on those boards one sees cut-price cigarettes advertised with a domestic address and telephone number. The look of bewilderment on the face of the hon. Member indicates, and I have no reason to doubt, his complete innocence in all these matters—and mine, too, in terms of ever contemplating securing illegally imported tobacco. It would not even cross my mind to do that, but the fact is that, for quite a proportion of the population, it does. It is one of the main reasons for fuelling the prevalence of smoking.

We have not had ``advertisement'' tightly defined, and those notices appear in supermarkets all over the UK. Does the Minister think that they are advertising? An enforcement officer doing his or her weekly shopping in the supermarket might well see a little postcard on the notice board of a supermarket and think that it may open up an interesting line of inquiry because he thinks that it constitutes an advertisement. He may pursue it to the address and find that it is a private dwelling house. Under the Bill—[Interruption.] I am finding it quite hard to concentrate, Mrs. Adams. Under the Bill, he or she is currently prevented from access, and I should not wish us to tie the hands of the enforcement officers and prevent them from being able to shut something down. I think that that is a loophole.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

My hon. Friend was a bit hard on the hon. Member for North Devon who clearly intervened only to demonstrate that he was actually in the Committee, which he was not on a previous occasion. Perhaps he meant to pretend that the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) was here, when she is not. That is the sort of attention to detail we are used to from the Liberal Democrats.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

Order. Mr. Bruce, you are really trying my patience.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Mrs. Adams, we have no wish to try your patience. We are trying to look carefully at the effectiveness of enforcement. The same matter arises in clause 13(4), under which a justice of the peace must assess the grounds given for reasonable entry, except in a private dwelling house. I have a similar concern that we may be closing down an effective method of constraining the ever-increasing flow of illegally imported tobacco products into the UK.

My second point was to raise, with the Minister, the wording and implication of clause 13(2). It states:

``A duly authorised officer of an enforcement authority may make such purchases and secure the provision of such services as he considers necessary for the purpose of the proper exercise of his functions.''

In my na—ve way, I was concerned to read that, given our responsibility to use taxpayers' money being wisely, effectively and efficiently. The provision sounds suspiciously like a blank cheque. No definition or constraint is being placed on the purchases—no restriction to reasonable purchases— that the enforcement authority could make. That is a little more sinister than it appears to be. We must be wise about the whole question of illegally imported products.

Let us suppose that an enforcement officer breaks into a garage at an address—the Minister is going to say that he can do so—that he saw on a postcard in a supermarket, which suggested that there might be illegally imported cigarettes there. The officer may have regarded the postcard as an advertisement of the cut-price cigarettes. We are talking about the underworld, and criminal activity. Let us suppose that the officer was then caught up in the purchase of some contraband. We know that that happens in relation to other illegal substances, and I should not like to create a loophole here. An enforcement officer should have to give a better account of why such expenditure would be necessary.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

If the hon. Lady and her party are so concerned about such matters why has she not tabled amendments on these clauses? Why are we having this discussion?

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Because of the time constraints.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

Order.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I repeat the outcry on my side of the Committee. We have only two sittings left and points can be dealt with in the stand part debate without having separate debates on recent amendments. That will give the Government the opportunity to amend the Bill in the way that I have suggested, adding ``reasonable'' to the clause on Report. That is what I seek.

I am concerned about the inter-relationship between subsections (1)(d) and (3). In subsection (1)(d), the enforcement officer requires a

``person to give him such information, or afford him such facilities and assistance, as he considers necessary for

the purpose for which he has entered the premises. Clause 13(3) makes it clear that a

``person is not obliged...to answer any questions or produce any document''.

A police officer makes it clear to people who are apprehended on suspicion of a crime that any evidence that he or she gives may be—I think it goes like this—``taken down, and used in evidence against you''. I cannot remember the exact wording as no one has ever said those words to me, but we have seen enough television programmes on crime to know the phrase.

Will it be clear to the person initially required to give information in this case that he or she is not obliged to answer? It could be frightening when a person's premises are entered. In a state of fear, people may not be clear that they are not obliged to give information unless that fact is clearly stated to them. Will the Minister clarify whether it will be?

On clause 13(5), it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Rother Valley has left the Committee, because he and I shared the experience of the proceedings on the Food Standards Bill, which contains clauses parallel to this one. We debated at length who might accompany an enforcement officer. I warn the Minister that the Bill states that, when entering premises, the enforcement officer may take with him

``such other persons and such equipment as he considers necessary.''

When we debated the scope for an enforcement officer to do that under the Food Standards Bill we insisted that such other persons should be authorised.

The media take a great interest in scare stories and issues such as these. It is not impossible for an investigative journalist pursuing a story involving a possible conviction to find his way in unless it is specified that the person accompanying an enforcement officer must be authorised. That would not be unreasonable protection for the person into whose premises the enforcement officer has broken for the legitimate purpose of investigating whether the ban on tobacco advertising has been contravened.

Those are all practical points that relate to the considerable powers that have been provided to enforce the Bill. I will be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Clause 13 is long. Clearly, in the time available for the entire Committee stage we cannot go into detail, but on my first reading of the clause, I suspected that those who drafted it had been careful to consider the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Human Rights Act 1998 to try to make sure that all the appropriate authorisations were given.

The issue is a minefield, though not of the Minister's making. Problems can arise simply from a clever lawyer saying, ``Yes, you've got all the evidence, you've done everything, other than meet this clause of this particular Act''. All the evidence that any common-sense person would consider perfectly good could then be thrown out. Unfortunately, that is happening more and more in courts. I do not in any way accuse the Minister of not trying her best to prevent that, but will she say a few words about how investigations operate under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which prevents all sorts of things, and whether that will take precedence over powers given in the Bill under discussion?

My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden made a point about other people being authorised to be present at an investigation with an officer. It seems sensible that a police officer authorised to investigate can take along someone else such as a technical expert. However, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, we might discover that someone on the premises has not been properly authorised.

I am worried about the interaction between the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. In the past a police officer, with his warrant card, was considered to have all sorts of authority. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the police officer often has to get additional authority to enter someone's premises. Certainly, the police officer has to have the entry authorised in advance by a senior officer and a magistrate in order to enter the premises unannounced.

I am concerned that the Bill gives only trading standards officers authorisation to enter premises. If a police officer and trading standards officer want to be authorised to investigate premises together, the magistrate may not be able to authorise the police officer because he is not listed in the Bill. Perhaps that is a semantic point. However, the issue of authorisation is problematic. Police officers should have a clear ability to investigate any crime without getting caught by interrelating Acts and Bills.

A further issue arises over how authorisation affects the internet. I have read the clause several times, and it does not specifically deal with the internet. I note that in excluding a private dwelling house, it says:

``used only as a private dwelling house''.

There might be difficulty with a police officer seeking to obtain authorisation from a magistrate for entry to a residential house that is not registered by the local authority as a business premises, but is suspected of operating as a business via the internet. It might be difficult for an officer to check whether a particular computer has been used to put out advertisements within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts, even if the information is being sent via an overseas outfit. If it is actually being sent from a computer in the United Kingdom, it is caught by our advertising regulations, even if it appears on someone else's computer as though it has come from overseas. I would be grateful if the Minister would discuss internet access and how it is affected by clause 13.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I served on the Committee that considered the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill 2000. I emphasise that the point made by my hon. Friend is serious.

I seek the Minister's reassurance that she feels that electronic communications can be adequately monitored using the powers in the Bill, because they are not specified in the Bill. Maybe the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 gives the Government the power that they need for that. Is the Minister satisfied that the interaction between that Act and this Bill has been properly considered? We spent a long time in Committee discussing only the enforcement issues, yet we are expected to put these proposals through in a just few minutes because of the timetable. That is a very serious issue. I hope that the Minister will consider it carefully and reassure the Committee that the issues have been properly considered by the Government because they are certainly not so considered in the Bill.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The clause involves standard powers for enforcement, which are modelled on similar powers in other legislation, such as the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Food Standards Act 1999. The hon. Member for Meriden seems to be arguing that we should implement powers of entry into private homes.

On the examples that the hon. Lady used of smuggled goods, I should point out that smuggling is illegal. The police and Customs and Excise already have powers to tackle smuggling and investigate where there are suspicions of stolen goods and so on. The Bill is about advertising, not smuggling. It is about advertising in the course of a business. If the card in Tesco that the hon. Lady described is an advert in the course of a business, it will be covered by the Bill, and Tesco might want to check that it is not committing an offence by displaying that advertisement on its board. The advertising is the offence created by the Bill, not the illegal sale of goods, which are already covered and enforced on through other legislation. The Bill is about enforcing a ban on advertising.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I am concerned about the legalistic way in which the Minister is dealing with this point. Are we right to think nothing in the clause would stop a trading standards officer walking into a normal place of business and dealing with what might be an offence by gathering information and evidence, without needing advance authority from a magistrate? I am concerned that an officer may, in the normal course of events, perhaps when visiting a shop, find a piece of evidence, but would have to rush back to receive authorisation before being allowed to collect such evidence.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The clause provides for officers to have exactly the same kind of enforcement powers—to be able to go about their ordinary business, in other words—that they have under the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, or when they enforce underage sales regulations or the Food Safety Act 1990. We are talking about exactly the same kind of standard provision. For that reason, all the issues about the interrelationship with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 have been examined in the same way that links with the Consumer Protection Act and other Acts were.

These are standard provisions and enforcement processes. Equally, on the issues about a person accompanying an officer, no one can enter premises unless authorised by the warrant-holder. That is the normal way of doing things. Under clause 13, the enforcement officer can require the production of any

``book, document, data, record (in whatever form it is held)''.

That covers internet provisions too.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

On authorisation, if the Minister consults the Food Standards Act 1999 on powers of entry and the question of accompanying persons, she will find not only that accompanying persons have to be authorised, but that they must have to produce proof of identity. That provision is missing from this Bill.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

People cannot enter premises unless authorised by the warrant-holder. The normal process is that an officer does not get a warrant unless he needs one. If it possible to conduct the business or obtain the evidence without having to have a warrant, that is what trading standards officers will do. They will obtain a warrant if they cannot otherwise obtain the evidence that they need. The clause is relatively straightforward. It covers lengthy enforcement issues, but there is nothing distinctive or unusual in that.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I want to make a serious point. In the interests of brevity, perhaps I did not express myself properly earlier. If someone were thought to be publishing advertisements on the internet illegally, one might not need to enter his premises to establish that fact, but could intercept his transmissions. Does the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 give the relevant authorities the powers to enable such action to be taken, or does it empower others who are outwith the terms of the Bill? Can the Government guarantee the monitoring of electronic transmissions to ensure enforcement of its provisions? Powers of entry are not the be all and end all.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I shall ensure that the Bill has the right powers of enforcement. Such issues have been considered by the parliamentary draftsmen, but I shall clarify the matter later in our proceedings.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

Perhaps the Minister will write to me.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about that matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Obstruction, etc. of officers

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I want to get the balance right between the need to empower enforcement officers, so that they carry out their work properly, and the need to protect those on the receiving end of such enforcement. I am worried about the way in which the Bill is drafted. It will be difficult to determine and prove whether a person has intentionally obstructed a duly authorised officer under subsection (1)(a), which is based heavily on subjectivity. It is a matter of one person's word against another's.

It will be impossible to determine and prove whether a person has failed to comply with a requirement made of him by an officer without reasonable cause. That takes me back to an earlier debate on the difference between

``has no reason to suspect''

``could not reasonably have known''.

Whether a cause was reasonable will be difficult to prove. Can the Minister cite examples of what would be a reasonable cause for failure to comply with a requirement made by the enforcement officer?

To understand how the provision would work in practice, I tried to think of some examples. It will be a big cultural change for our nation to adjust to thinking in terms of being alert to whether something is a tobacco advertisement and who has responsibility for its display. What about a tobacco advertisement that is displayed on an office building, which may not be the offices of a company that is in the business of promoting tobacco? Can an enforcement officer search that building?

Would an authorised officer have the right to enter the office of someone who, for example, had a Marlboro poster on the wall? That is not an unusual occurrence. I do not have one on my wall, but I gather an attractive Marlboro man poster is particularly popular with young women whose smoking prevalence is increasing—and which we are trying to reduce. If such a poster was displayed in an office, would the enforcement officer have the right to enter it and seek to prosecute someone? That individual may not primarily regard that as tobacco advertising; but we might accept that such a poster is banned from advertisement on billboards and other places where it might encourage smoking, and its continued existence might promote tobacco consumption among colleagues in the office. I am unclear about the practicalities of the clause. How on earth can the defendant claim that obstruction was unintentional, and what constitutes a reasonable cause for failure to comply? Perhaps the Minister would illustrate that for us.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

How does an individual know that another individual is authorised to require information to be given? The problem is that we set up all these Acts; we are the only people who read them; even we probably forget about them as soon as we leave the Committee; and then, lo and behold, somebody knocks on the door and says, ``I am authorised to do X, Y or Z.''

That may sound theoretical—people do not try to assume powers that they do not have—but I am told that since the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 was passed, there has been a flood of police inquiries to internet service providers for information about various people. On many, if not most occasions, it has been discovered that police officers, who are duly authorised people, are asking for information that they are not entitled to receive, and the matter has not been sensibly dealt with.

In order to try to resolve that problem, it has been agreed by the National Criminal Intelligence Service that when people ask ISPs for information about telephone tracks and information going across the internet, each constabulary should have a single officer to handle all inquiries, so that the officer can check that the proper information is being asked for in the proper, authorised manner. It is important, when introducing a new criminal offence setting up a police force to police words and thoughts—we actually have a thought police here—to make it clear how people will be authorised.

It would be extremely helpful if there were a provision to ensure that individuals were given an appropriate form showing them their rights and responsibilities before they could be said to have caused obstruction. In other words, if somebody knocks on the door and an individual is obstructive or gives false information, the person claiming obstruction should be required to show that he or she had handed the individual an appropriate document showing his or her powers and the responsibilities of the individual for dealing with the matter. It is easy to say that virtually nobody is ever prosecuted under such clauses, but, willy-nilly, we put them into Bills, placing additional requirements on members of the public who have no real reason to be knowledgeable, though ignorance of the law is no defence. I hope that the Minister will give us the reassurances that we need to support the clause.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I must support my hon. Friends. Rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly, trading standards officers are not always the best loved people in local communities. They generally do a good job, but, as in the case of weights and measures involving pounds and ounces, and kilograms and grams, there is often a certain resistance to dealing with trading standards officers. That resistance may be especially prevalent among the class of people who will be caught by the Bill.

The lack of requirement of proof of identity in clause 13 makes me nervous, as does the fact that there is no requirement to produce the warrant to prove that people are authorised to conduct the entry. This clause contains no defence that would provide someone who had reasonable grounds to doubt the identity of the person with the ability to refuse entry or co-operation.

The Government might think of introducing an additional defence in subsection (3), for when the individual whose premises were entered had reasonable grounds to doubt the identity of the person seeking entry. Without such a defence, the clause is a snoop's charter. More defences must be offered to citizens who could be subject to such powers of entry. The Minister did not want to introduce a requirement for greater proof at the time of entry into clause 13. Will she at least put an additional defence into this clause, to help to protect the rights of our citizens?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Again, this is a standard clause, which establishes an offence of intentionally obstructing

``a duly authorised officer of an enforcement authority''.

The clause is necessary to ensure that the enforcement authority has the proper powers to enforce the measures.

Clause 13 states:

``A duly authorised officer of an enforcement authority has the right, on producing, if so required, his written authority''

to enter the premises. The clause therefore contains that requirement.

The provisions are standard ones that equally apply to parallel legislation, such as the Consumer Protection Act 1987. There should not be a serious problem with the clauses to which the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred, as they operate in the same way as those in previous legislation. Clause 14 rightly uses the words ``intentionally obstructs'', because it would be wrong for the clause to cover unintentional obstruction, given that it establishes a criminal offence.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

My understanding is that it is not an offence for a shoplifter, for example, who has been caught by a police officer, to claim that he has not stolen anything and obstruct the officer in his investigation of the crime. A criminal would normally lie, and it is not an offence to do so; the police officer cannot prosecute someone for being unco-operative in the detection of a crime.

The clause does not seem to be standard, because it makes it a prosecutable offence to tell a lie and say, ``It wasn't my advert, guv'nor.'' If that is standard clause, I am a Dutchman.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

This is a standard process for enforcing legislation, along the lines of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and other such measures. It is right and appropriate to have such provisions in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Penalties

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

The question is that clause 15 stand part of the Bill.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Labour Members are trying to jump the gun by voting through the clause before we have had a chance to debate it, but they will not get away with it. Unfortunately for them, it is my job to ensure that that does not happen without some discussion.

The clause relates to the level of penalties that can be imposed for the offences. I am not entirely satisfied that the defences in clause 14 are as safe and sound as we would like. The provisions in clause 13 are not a mirror image of the Food Standards Act 1999, despite the fact that the explanatory notes say that there are similar provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and the Food Standards Act—they are similar, but with important differences. The fact that there are these lacunae cause the Opposition the anxiety. We are giving strong powers of entry here—[Interruption.]

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

Order

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Thank you Mrs. Adams. I suspect that it is because speeches are off limits to Labour Members that we get a sedentary growl instead.

The lack of mirroring of other legislation—which has been more substantially debated than it has been possible to debate the powers of entry in this Bill—is the reason for the Opposition's disquiet about the position of a person whose premises have been broken into. The penalty for obstructing an officer—if it proved impossible to convince a court that it was unintentional—would be £1,000, which is a significant sum of money. It will difficult to prove the intentions, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset said—it comes close to policing people's thoughts, which is an impossible thing to do. The penalty for any other offence on the Bill would be up to three months' imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and that is £5,000.

These are substantial penalties, affecting often small commercial premises, such as corner shops, newsagents. We are trying to legislate for both the corporate giants of the tobacco industry, and the small businesses that may be displaying a tobacco advertisement, and no distinction is being made between the two.

In the case of a small newsagents, or a specialist tobacconist, who displays a tobacco advertisement, since they are very often a one-man-band, a prison sentence of three months will possibly cause their entire business to fold. In part because it may be impossible to prove intention, one way or the other, and because reasonable cause for failure to comply has not been defined. I would seek in the guidance from the regulations, to have some illustration—which I asked for in the stand part debate on clause 14—of what might be a reasonable cause.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made the point that someone could produce a defence that they had reasonably grounds to doubt the identity of the individual trying to enforce the entry. This is particularly the case as there is some confusion over trading standards definitions, and weights and measures authority definitions, which have remained unclear.

The Minister thinks that there will not be many cases of enforcement, but the beginning is when there are likely to be the most cases and attempted prosecutions for failure to comply. It will take some time for this change in the law to be part of common practice. For many of those individuals, it would take a while to find out what the Bill meant. It is right to ask the Minister about the scale of the penalties and whether it is fair to legislate in this way for both big and small businesses.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

My concern is the opposite of that of the hon. Member for Meriden. I took her point that this seemed to cover the span from the corner shop to the big tobacco company. I listened with interest her point about the penalties being excessive for the corner shop, but my concern is quite the opposite, that they are not much of a disincentive to the big players, when one considers the volume of business and the profits that can be made, despite the fact that advertising, although legal, costs a great deal of money.

Clause 16 defines offences by bodies corporate. I appreciate that the existence of a three-months' term of imprisonment for someone within the body corporate is a fair disincentive, but a fine of £5,000 would come out of the petty cash box and would not be much of a deterrent if it felt inclined to give it a go. A single advert might produce revenue that would dwarf that fine. The Minister said earlier that the tobacco industry had said that it intended to comply with the Bill—I believe that to be so, and I hope that it will prove to be so—but, when enacted, the legislation will continue for some time and one does not know whether in future a business might be inclined to try its luck.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I join hon. Members in their opposition to these offences. More needs to be said, however, about the special offence that is being created, with a fine of £1,000—and, no doubt, a criminal record to go with it. I shall not go down the route of what constitutes a criminal record, but I think that the individual would have one and might not be able to hold a licence to sell alcohol, which could be serious for their business.

Under clause 14, a duly authorised officer could go into a shop and, if he saw what he thought was a criminal offence in terms of advertising at a point of sale that had broken the regulations, could interview an individual and say ``Who provided the information? Who said you should use this type of display on your premises?'' There is no requirement in law for the shopkeeper to have a lawyer with him and he could not say, ``Whoa, hang on a minute. I won't answer your questions until I've got my lawyer here to advise me.'' He could turn to the officer and say, ``Oh I've no idea who provided this.'' When it was shown by the officer later that the shopkeeper knew exactly which sales rep had put it in, he could be fined £1,000 under clause 15 for having knowingly given a false answer, yet on further investigation it may have been found that the display was legal, so that someone who was not breaking the law on advertising was being fined for not being helpful to the officer who asked where the advertising material had come from, and for trying to deny it.

There is no requirement that, before anyone answers questions, they should be cautioned that anything they might say could be taken down and, if untrue, could lead to prosecution. An authorised officer is not required to say to a person, ``I'm going to ask you some questions and I think you should get your lawyer here, because you could end up with a criminal conviction and a fine of £1,000.'' To have that on the record could be serious for that person's future, if they wanted to stand as a parliamentary candidate, become a magistrate, take out a licence to sell alcohol or run a night club.

I hate ever having to agree with the Liberal Democrats, but the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) made a sensible point. The tobacco industry and the people who sign up as members of the Tobacco Merchants Association are responsible corporate beings in terms of the law. I do not expect them to say, ``Let us break the law,'' but individual tobacco companies and individual retailers and wholesalers of tobacco will test this law. The company secretary might be liable for three months in prison but, as we all know, the magistrates courts do not imprison people for things like this, especially on a first offence. That the maximum fine is £5,000 is nonsensical.

What are we all doing here spending our time debating this Bill, if the Minister is saying, ``We have this Bill, it is full of loopholes but it provides something that was put in the Labour Party manifesto.''? With a £5,000 fine it is almost unenforceable. We know that a case involving 30p worth of bananas is costing the prosecuting authority over £200,000. We are saying to individual local councils that if they found the most blatant situation of a national organisation running an event such as a rave, with lots of free tobacco—

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

The hon. Gentleman is making an important and interesting point in a characteristic way. Is it not the case that, where large corporations are prosecuted in local courts for particular offences, the main problem that they have, and that which they fear, is not the fine—as the hon. Member for North Devon said, that could be found in their petty cash box—but the publicity, which is far more of a sanction, in general terms?

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman makes a point. I was not suggesting that Imperial Tobacco would not be put off by that, although we have had lots of speeches from the hon. Member for Rother Valley saying that these tobacco companies do not give a damn about public opinion and killing people. I do not necessarily go down that route, but—

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

I have never used the expressions that the hon. Member mentions, and I never would do. Only 50 per cent. of people die prematurely by smoking tobacco.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I am not sure what that point is, but I follow the hon. Gentleman. One cannot say that too often, but I am not sure how that relates to clause 15. Worse than having these penalties is the death penalty for people who ignore the dangers of tobacco. Perhaps we ought to include this as a sub-clause (3) and Ministers ought to remind people that there is a death penalty for not realising how dangerous tobacco is.

If the Government and Parliament have decided on a particular Bill, it should be enforceable and the penalties should be commensurate. The Opposition do not believe in the thought police. We want a situation where people can reasonably say, ``This is an offence. Stop it.'' Hopefully, that will be the effect of the clause. We also have to take into account situations where an organisation has deliberately and blatantly decided to find a loophole. First, it will try to make it difficult to identify the appropriate officer who should be sent to prison. There will be all sorts of cut outs, such as who actually agreed the advertisement. If it were a company secretary of an organisation—that is normally what the position is—one would have to make sure that the company secretary was not resident in the Cayman Islands, as there would be no jurisdiction there to say ``I must have this individual removed from the jurisdiction and prosecuted.''

The very element of three months brings in a number of different points. I think thatI am right to say that we cannot extradite somebody on the basis of a three-months' prison sentence. I think I am also correct to say that, for instance, a police officer cannot burst into a premises in hot pursuit without a warrant if the offence for which the person is being arrested carries a penalty of less than six months' imprisonment. The low penalties cause some problems for enforcement authorities.

The Minister needs to tell us, on behalf of the Government, why she has decided first, that somebody should be prosecuted and fined simply for saying to an officer, ``I do not know about that,'' when they did, even if no other offence is being committed and secondly, why somebody who has blatantly gone against the wishes of Parliament should have their penalty limited to £5,000 with only a three-month fine in terms of the enforcement powers that police and other authorities normally have.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

The whole Bill rests on this clause, because if the penalties for breaking the terms of the eventual Act are not adequate, then the Act is just a toothless tiger. It is really important that this is looked at. The Minister is looking as though she is in less than her normally benign mood, but this is a genuinely important issue.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

The Minister's smile has come back and we are glad but I think she was simply sitting there and thinking, ``Crumbs I have spent all this time and effort and I have got a toothless tiger.'' She is very disappointed to hear that.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I hope she may think that because the Opposition find itself in a difficult position. We have reservations about the Bill, and whether it will have the effects that the Government claim that it will, but we do not want a Bill that will not work to pass into law. Bad legislation is in no one's interest. I agree with the hon. Member for North Devon very strongly, for reasons that I will explain, that this may be the case as a result of this clause.

The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) talked about the effect of reputation on a company. That is the case for the major tobacco companies. They will be fearful and they will respect the terms of this legislation. In that sense, the larger game is won. It is the smaller players who worry me.

In my constituency there is a company that has consistently and persistently broken the terms of environmental law. It has taken years and years of fines. The company is called Ivory Plant Hire and it has been caught endlessly and the magistrates have consistently imposed inadequate fines on them. It has not been embarrassed by the adverse publicity in local papers; it has continued to livery its lorries and run them around my constituency proudly, breaking the law consistently and persistently.

I understand that, yesterday, at last the fines reached such a level that the company went into voluntary liquidation—I do not know the terms of that. It has taken years to get there and during that time my constituents' lives have been made a complete and utterly misery because the courts, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset rightly said, were reluctant to imprison anyone. The firm had to be encouraged to realise the seriousness of the situation by the various enforcement authorities—the police, the Environment Agency, the district council, the county council and the traffic commissioners. All these people were up in arms against the activities of the company but it carried on breaking the law because the level of the fine imposed upon it was inadequate to deter it from its criminal activity. It is a real problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden rightly expressed concerns about the small companies—the small retail tobacconist who makes a genuine error—for whom the fine might be excessive, but the fine is not adequate for companies that are determined to break the law. There is a real precedent here. I understood that, for many years, tobacco advertising was illegal in Italy yet every publication in that wonderful country regularly carried tobacco advertisements, for the simple reason that the fine was so small that the advertising agencies just factored it into their costs and carried on. Although Italy could claim with all conscience that it had banned advertising, tobacco advertising was widespread throughout the country.

There is a real issue here for the Government to address. Are they satisfied that these fines are adequate to deal with both medium-size wholesalers and retailers, operating at regional or local level, or possibly, and perhaps more worryingly, by larger operators who decide to move into the vacuum—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee A

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

On a point of order, Mrs. Adams. I suggested earlier that there was a slight problem with the Hansard report, which had arrived rather late. For the record, I have asked Hansard to amend something. The report reads:

``Here is a branded packet of cigarettes''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 February 2001; c. 154.]

I did not have a packet of branded cigarettes. I had a bottle of water in my hand and was saying that its brand name was also the brand of a certain cigarette. Since that is likely to become illegal, we need to see the regulations.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

That is not a point of order, but I am sure that it is very helpful. Clause 15 Penalties

Clause 15 - Penalties

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

We were talking about vacuums, as far as I recall, when we were interrupted at 11.25 am, and we were exploring the important question of the penalties that exist to ensure that the Act is complied with and is not simply treated as an operational cost.

I am sure the reputable manufacturers—the British American Tobaccos, Imperial Tobaccos, Philip Morris's and so on—will not wish to appear before the courts of England and Wales, or anywhere else, to be charged with breaking the law blatantly. My concern is that, as they will no longer be able to advertise their products, it will be easier for other brands to start taking market share away from them.

I do not know whether the figures that I have are correct; they come from the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, which, in a brief that I believe every member of the Committee has received, said that 7 per cent. of smokers switch brands each year. Some 26 per cent. smoke more than one brand, so the market for brand switches is massive—around £3 billion, including advertising.. If new, less scrupulous, manufacturers appear in the market place, there will be a huge opportunity for them. If they are prepared to break the law and run the risk of the inadequate penalties in clause 15, we will have a real problem.

In its brief, the TMA says, and I think that it has a point:

``The UK tobacco market has traditionally been dominated by premium priced brands.''

It claims:

``Advertising enables those premium brands to maintain consumer loyalty. In the absence of advertising, competition can only be in respect of distribution and price.''

It is wrong on that point. Cheaper companies may be prepared to flout the law if they feel that the price is high enough.

I invite the Minister to reflect on whether the catch-all penalty for the High street tobacconist might not prove tempting to reasonably large to medium-size businesses, which may be tempted into the UK market to attract brand share away from the established brands, which have traditionally maintained their position by advertising, and secured a higher price in the process. I am anxious that we should explore that point positively, and hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Has my hon. Friend had a chance, as I have over lunchtime, to read the Food Standards Act 1999, which, we were told, complies almost word for word with the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill? If so, has he noticed that the wording is in fact completely different and the two documents act in completely different ways? It is strange that we are rushing through the penalties in clause 15, having been told by a Minister of the Crown that we are simply following the normal mode, when that is not in fact the case.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I have not read the Act, but I am aware that there are different provisions in different Acts. It is rare for Acts to match perfectly. I am not in the slightest surprised to hear that there are differences between that Act and the Bill.

I should not exactly declare an interest before I sit down, but should say that many years ago, in an incarnation of which I am not especially proud, I advised a tobacco company. I know that those companies are capable of being very ingenious in seeking to exploit any loopholes. I can see all kinds of opportunities for major companies to operate some subsidiary that might decide to breach the law in some way.

The Government must be clear that the penalties are adequate. The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) made his point powerfully in his short speech, and I look forward to some reassurance from the Minister.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The clause sets out the penalties for the offences in the Act. The penalty for obstructing an enforcement officer is a fine of up to £1,000. Other offences would attract penalties of up to £5,000 and/or imprisonment for up to three months.

Hon. Members have made two different kinds of point. First, it has been suggested that that penalty would be too harsh for the small shopkeeper or for someone in difficult circumstances. The clause sets out maximum penalties, and the courts will, rightly, take account of individual circumstances. It would be a mistake to try to set out in the Bill what those detailed different circumstances may be. It is precisely the job of the court to take account of the individual situations of particular people who are being prosecuted for offences under the Act. That is the right approach.

I have also heard hon. Members' concern that the penalties may be too light for certain perpetrators, companies and individuals who choose to flout the law many times. I am sympathetic to the point that major tobacco companies are wealthy institutions with a huge amount of money. It is important to include the prospect of three months in prison in the Bill, and that will be an important deterrent. It is also important that this Bill should be in line with other aspects of the criminal law, but I will consider the points that have been made about the nature of the offences.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

One way forward might be a different penalty for a second or subsequent offence?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I am sure that the Bill needs a means of dealing with repeat or subsequent offences or abuses the law. I want to ensure that that is the case.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

On a similar but slightly different point, my lady wife is a magistrate, and she has kindly shown me how magistrates are advised by the Lord Chancellor's Department about whether they should impose a maximum sentence for differing offences. Am I right to say that it is unusual for a magistrates court to jail anyone for a first offence, because of the guidelines that they receive from the Lord Chancellor's Department? If that is so, and that is known to someone who is chancing their arm, that person may think, ``Well, on my first offence and second offence, there is no chance of my getting three months, and my fines for the first and second offences are likely to be graduated fines.''

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Clearly, the courts would regard a matter as serious if it was a second or a repeat offence. It would not be surprising if the courts did that. I have made clear my intention to consider the points that have been made and to ensure that the Bill is in line with other aspects of the criminal law. We are doing everything within reason to provide the proper deterrents.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Offences by bodies corporate and scottish partnerships

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

The question is that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

We have spent quite a bit of the break between the sittings of the Committee having a closer look at the Food Standards Act 1999.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

Does my hon. Friend find it surprising, given that the Opposition are seeking to toughen up the Bill, that Labour members are so anxious to get it through that they are calling Divisions before we have even discussed the clause?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I am afraid I have turned a deaf ear to what is going on. It has been attempted before. Things must be given their proper time and it would be a dereliction of duty if we did not stop to look at what has been placed in the clause.

The more I have read the misleading assurance given in the explanatory notes that the enforcement provisions mirror what is in the Food Standards Act 1999, the more disquieted I have become. There are many differences between the two pieces of legislation, and I wish that I had not taken on trust what the explanatory notes said on the parallels between them.

Clause 16 deals with the officers of a body corporate. I seek an assurance from the Minister that an officer of a body corporate who is unaware of a tobacco advertisement displayed or produced by an employee of his company will not be liable to prosecution for the neglect referred to in clause 16(1)(b). It would be unfair if the production or display of a tobacco advertisement by an employee of a company made the managing director of that company guilty of an offence, even though he was unaware of the advertisement. If I read the Bill correctly, there is no defence for officers of bodies corporate who did not know, or had no reason to suspect, that the purpose of the advertisement was to promote tobacco, that its effect would be to promote a tobacco product, or that the advertisement would be published in the UK. Such a defence exists for those guilty of an offence under clauses 2 or 3.

Will the Minister make clear whether I have misread the Bill on that point? A number of exceptions are given. It is the style of the Bill to list the offences and then the defences, but there is not always an exact parallel between them. We have already discussed one amendment that would ensure that groups are not unwittingly left out of the series of defences that are proffered. I seek assurances for the officers of bodies corporate.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I am sure that it is due to my ignorance, but I want to get a couple of detailed points on the record. [Hon. Members: ``Hear, hear.''] I am grateful for that endorsement from Labour Members. I am not quite sure where it came from; I will not point the finger of blame.

I want to deal with the question of plurality and singularity. Clause 16(1)(a) states:

``If an offence under any provision of this Act committed by a body corporate is proved—

(a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer.''

What happens if more than one officer is proved to have been involved in the process? Can the authorities proceed against more than one officer, or should clause 16 be amended to ``an officer or officers''? I should be grateful for clarification. Does the clause allow more than one individual to be prosecuted if they are seen to be to blame? In the case of advertising, the body in question may not be just the company; it may be an advertising agency, or the organisation that carried the advertisement. So I imagine that proceedings could be taken against more than one body corporate.

The Bill makes specific provisions for partnerships in Scotland, but makes no mention of partnerships in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It may just be that I am ignorant of company law, but does that mean that the definitions included in clause 16 extend to partnerships in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I wish to make a similar point about the definition of exactly who is liable. I was told by my accountant when I first set up a limited company that the company secretary was the person who ended up going to jail. That is why, within any companies in which I have been the main person, my wife is always the company secretary. She would get more sympathy from the courts than perhaps I would. It is important when considering who should be going to prison that we know what the Minister intends.

My other point is similar to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) about prosecuting more than one person. There was a tragic case in which a child had been beaten to death. The child could only have been beaten to death by the father or the mother, each of whom accused the other. The courts could not decide who was responsible. Clearly, they were both irresponsible in that they did not stop it happening, but both of them got off. A director of a company could have authorised various people to carry out advertising activities. We have to find the person who gave the order. I am concerned that each director in turn could say, ``No, it was not me, it was the other director.'' [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) like to intervene?

Ernie Ross (Labour, Dundee West)

It is rather strange that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen want to increase the defences and the Back-Bench Members seem to want to close down the defences. I am not quite sure how they are working together on this one.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I do not imagine that the hon. Gentleman has had a good lunch because I can see that he is very attentive, but he clearly was not listening to what I was saying. We want to ensure that, having decided that one wants to go after a particular director or manager under the clause—after all, we are here to examine the detailed working of such clauses—a defence would not arise from the wording of the clause whereby people could simply say, ``We know that someone within this company has authorised the advertisement, but you can't get us because we will keep accusing each other of it.'' One needs to know that if a body corporate has been guilty of doing something, someone will be sent to prison. A company cannot be sent to prison; a person has to be sent to prison. Therefore, determining how a person is identified is a very important issue for the Committee, and I hope that all my colleagues agree with that.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) seemed to be suggesting that I was misleading the Committee. I hope that she was not suggesting that.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The wording of the explanatory notes is misleading. They say:

``Such powers are standard powers for enforcement officers (see for example similar provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Food Standards Act 1999).''

Such parallels are absent in the section on penalties. The previous legislation includes a penalty for an enforcement officer who discloses to any person information obtained on the premises with regard to any trade secret. There is no parallel in this Bill, yet there is an equal risk. That is just one example of where standard features of other Bills are supposed to be mirrored in this Bill, but are not.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The explanatory notes have never stated, and nor have I said in the course of our debates today, that the provisions were identical. We are talking about different pieces of legislation. Certainly, the important powers have been modelled on the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and some elements of the Bill are modelled on the Food Standards Act 1999. It is perhaps a rather tight and not a reasonable interpretation of the explanatory notes to say that, just because there are differences between the Bill and those other Acts, the explanatory notes are inaccurate.

The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire asked whether more than one officer could be prosecuted. Yes, more than one officer can be prosecuted under the Bill, and they have the same defences as apply in earlier clauses— that they were unaware, were not able to foresee or were not able reasonably to suspect. They have the same defences—if they were unaware, were not able to foresee or were not able reasonably to suspect—identified in earlier clauses on defences.

Partnership in England is not a body corporate. Scottish partnerships are the equivalent of the body corporate in England. The clause provides that an officer of a company can be personally liable, as well as the company itself being liable, where his or her actions were instrumental, for reasons of, say, neglect or connivance, in committing the offence. That is why the parallel provisions apply to Scotland.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

The Minister said that so rapidly that I may have misunderstood or not heard what the Minister said. I asked about partnerships in the United Kingdom being taken to court. Could a firm of family solicitors, for example, who were instrumental in placing an advertisement, be prosecuted as a partnership, and who would be prosecuted? Would it be the senior partner?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

My understanding is that partnerships are not covered as a body corporate by clause 16. Therefore, the issue relating to officers who are part of the body corporate would not apply in the same way.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I understand that the Minister is saying that a partnership in England effectively counts as unlimited liability. The individuals are the individuals. Can the Minister address my point that if no particular officer is identified in a company as the person who gave the order, and if it is therefore the company that is seen as guilty, who will be the designated fall guy or girl who ends up going to prison?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Member's point about partnership, as I understand it, is that there is individual liability in partnerships. On the question of which officer might be liable, the clause means that an officer can be personally liable if his or her actions were instrumental. Under those circumstances, the individual would be liable.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

We are not debating the same point. When a court finds that a company has transgressed, whom does it imprison for three months? The courts cannot imprison the company or the company logo. If a person has not been identified as an individual within the body corporate, who is liable? Is it the company secretary, or some other officer?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I am informed that that will depend on the facts of the case. I will clarify that issue and get back to the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Regulations

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 9, line 13, at end insert—

`( ) No statutory instrument containing regulations under section (Displays) is to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, or laid before the Scottish Parliament and approved by a resolution of that Parliament.'.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 3—Displays.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

New clause 3 refers to the debate on the difference between advertisements and displays. To ensure full clarity, we tabled a brief amendment earlier and said that we would also table a new clause.

As stated in an earlier clause, we want to allow advertising at the point of sale. Where products are for sale, advertising will be permitted. The regulations will specify what kind of advertising will be acceptable. During the debate it became clear that there might be a lack of clarity about what would happen when, even if advertising were constrained within the regulations, companies or organisations tried to find a way around that by displaying their products around a shop in a way that might be construed as an advertisement, but where the clear purpose was to promote the tobacco product. Companies might try to argue that they were not advertising their product, simply displaying it for sale. That might be a source of concern, and it requires clarification.

We have no problem with the way in which products are currently displayed for sale and no intention of restricting ordinary displays to behind a gantry or to the usual displays in duty free shops. Our intention is not to prevent the broad status quo. We are, however, concerned that companies might find loopholes that would allow them to display their products to promote tobacco, contrary to the Bill. For example, they might scatter cigarettes among children's toys or extend a display of cigarettes to fill a shop window.

We would prefer not to set out regulations and not to use the regulatory power. If a display is used for an advertisement—for example, Marlboro cigarettes stacked in the shape of a big M, as in the Marlboro sign—the Bill's powers for prosecuting advertisements may be invoked. The regulations in the new clause will provide some back-up to prevent future abuse of displays. It is not our intention to regulate at this stage; should we need to in future, we would not set out to constrain or regulate the broad forms of display typically used today in corner shops or other places where tobacco products are for sale.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I am pleased to hear the Minister's relaxed attitude towards current displays. People who are worried that a legitimate aspect of their current business might fall foul of the Bill will welcome that. I share the Minister's concern about loopholes that would allow tobacco products to be displayed together with toys. It is in everyone's interest to prevent that. We probed the Minister earlier on what constituted an advertisement as opposed to a display. Both the amendment and the new clause are helpful in clarifying that. People affected by the Bill will read those provisions carefully, but the detailed regulations will provide more specific guidance, so I am glad that they will be subject to positive resolution.

The Minister's relaxed attitude suggests that she views the regulations as a reserve power to deal with an abuse of what is permitted rather than as a proactive measure to be invoked as soon as the law comes into force, requiring retail outlets to adapt their existing practices to conform to it.

Let me return to display and advertisement. Given that a more explicit explanation is to be given to the term ``display'', might the Minister, on reflection, consider providing a closer definition of ``advertisement''? I think that it is possible to provide guidance to businesses in that respect.

I wish to ask the Minister some questions about the publication of draft regulations for consultation. I believe that a promise has been made several times that draft regulations for consultation would be forthcoming on point-of-sale and advertising displays. The Government said, first in relation to their intention to produce primary legislation and later as part of their plans to implement the now-annulled European directive, that they would produce regulations for consultation. Those encouraging noises have been made to the industry for almost four years.

It would have been helpful if the consultation and drafting of the regulations had taken place before we debated the Bill. I am struck by the way in which we seem to do things the wrong way round. We agree the legislative framework in an empty-box structure and are promised regulations in due course and consultation either simultaneously or some time later. I should have thought that consulting first and producing draft regulations would have been helpful ways round the question of displays.

My final point is that the Minister said that there may or may not be regulations, which provide for the meaning of ``place''. We had a problem when we debated a previous clause with the description of a specialist tobacconist as a shop. We debated how that might constrain the effectiveness of the Bill, since not all specialist tobacconists have shops. I would be interested if the Minister would tighten up the definition and say specifically what she means by ``place''.

We are defining some things precisely while leaving others open. It will be important to retailers to know specifically what ``place'' means and how they need to adapt present practices to the new definitions in forthcoming regulations. Clarification of the word ``display'' has proved helpful because the absence of a clear definition would lay us open to a situation in which a retailer might feel, in the absence of a display, that the safest thing to do would be to put all his products under the counter. I know that some people take the view that that would be a good thing because it would remove temptation from people's way, but one problem of removing the products in such a draconian way is that it drives sales under cover.

We already have a significant problem in the UK with a high proportion of illegally imported tobacco, sold not under the counter, but clandestinely from the back of a white van. We must be clear that it will be legitimate to put tobacco products on view where the trade is carried out in compliance with the Bill. That is an important distinction to make. The Bill is likely to be counter-productive without the clarification that the Minister says will be forthcoming in regulations. It is desirable for the myriad retail outlets for tobacco products to be quite clear about how much of the product they can put on view.

At present, displays containing a significant number of packets are usually behind the till, in view. I hope that I understand correctly from the Minister that she is relaxed about those displays. The effect of altering the present displays would undoubtedly be to draw attention to the changes in the law, but placing the products under the counter would have an undesirable impact. As far as possible, we want to ensure that legitimate trade in tobacco products is allowed, notwithstanding their public health risk. It is desirable to encourage people to keep their habit within the law.

The consumption of illegal tobacco represents 25 per cent. of all tobacco consumption, and the figure is almost as high as 50 per cent. in the north-east. We are fighting a losing battle; people are increasingly tempted to go for the under-the-counter products or products out of a white van rather than legitimate ones. Clarification of what is a display is essential to supporting the legitimate business of retailing tobacco products. I hope that the new clause and the regulations will be helpful in that respect.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Let me deal with one of the elements of display and how that might affect the way in which people retail tobacco. I would like the Minister's comments on a specific practice that could be extended. In duty free shops, tobacco shops and clothing shops, it is quite normal that when one purchases a large quantity of a product, one is given a carrier bag with a logo on it. It seems to me that if the carrier bag has advertising on it, it is a very effective way of giving out something at point of sale that will end up as an advertisement trailed along the high street by people going about their business. Will the Minister consider that? The same applies, of course, to a lot of other branded goods.

Something that is purchased that has a logo on it—within a tobacco-selling area that complies with the regulations, which we have not yet seen, about how tobacco products should be displayed— and is then taken from that place becomes a moving advertisement. I have here a copy of the House of Commons logo. The portcullis is the logo that appears on House of Commons branded cigarettes. We have other branded products, including mineral water and a teddy bear. The brand is the same as on our branded cigarettes.

We understand how the sale of such branded products might be affected by the provisions on point of sale. A product with a Silk Cut or Marlboro brand could be on sale within a tobacconist's shop, where it might well be legal to sell it because it is not being advertised outside the shop. Once it is in the hands of the individual who buys it, the branded product is not caught.

The other element in new clause 3 to which I wanted to refer is the use of the words ``on a website''. We all have to try and get our heads around something that exists in the virtual world. Several Acts, including the Computer Misuse Act 1990, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Telecommunications (Fraud) Act 1997, have attempted to define in law something that exists as electrons, but not as something that a person can pick up and walk away with. In the past, a person could not steal or alter those electrons without their being defined as real things.

I have a problem with the way in which the Minister uses the phrase ``on a website''. New clause 3 says:

``A person who in the course of a business displays tobacco products or causes them to be displayed...on a website where tobacco products are offered for sale is guilty of an offence''

unless he complies with the regulations. Under certain regulations, it is legal to have such products on the website. Let us assume that we can say that the website exists. It does not exist where a person is looking at and is affected by the advertisement. It may be legal for the website to exist, but not for it to be on a computer in someone's home or office. It is difficult, but one is attempting to regulate the advertisement at the point at which it is read, as opposed to in a virtual world.

I have given an example of the situation that might arise, particularly in relation to an overseas operator but also with a UK operator, unless the regulations are tightly drawn. Advertisements appear on screens at airports and various places. One could walk into an airport where advertisements were being clicked over in electronic form. If they have come from a website as opposed to a computer sitting underneath the machine, they could be legal and get round all the regulations that the Minister proposes to introduce.

We have established that people can have access to such information where they buy cigarettes. However, the Bill says that if people are not in a place where they can buy cigarettes, they should not be able to see advertisements for them. Advertisements should not be fired at them. If the information on a screen at a supermarket, airport or wherever comes from a website and tells people how they can purchase the cigarettes and how much they cost, and if cigarettes can be purchased from the website, the regulations designed to prevent that from happening outside a tobacco-selling environment will have been overcome.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

Is not the point that the Government should at least define what they mean by ``website''? Would a display that had been developed in Internet Explorer software but was not accessed from a remote computer count as a website? I am not aware of occasions in law when the term ``website'' has been used and defined, but perhaps the Government are. To use it in an undefined way leaves a number of loopholes in the legislation, which my hon. Friend is helpfully illuminating.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

That is the problem. The definition is not even as simple as the one that I gave of a website existing in a single place, because in general they do not. When we see a page on a screen, we are often seeing information that is sent from a number of different sources and, indeed, things called cookies, which live on our computers, are all part and parcel of the image that one sees on the screen. The telecommunications companies would say that when someone asks for a web page and it has started to download, it is not necessarily transmitted in a direct line in only one direction from the web site to the computer. That is why it is called the world wide web. It sends a packet of information, perhaps from the top left-hand corner, via one route and the next packet of information says, ``Oh, it is a bit crowded around here, but there is another route over there''—and off it shoots.

The concept of something being delivered via a web site is, legalistically, difficult to tie down. If I were advising the Minister, and were paid the sort of money earned by parliamentary draftsmen and civil servants, I would say—

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

It is not enough.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

My hon. Friend intends to be a Minister in a few months' time: I know that I will not be, but I may be being too flippant.

If the Minister wants to stop people reading advertisements in a non-tobacco-selling environment, I must advise her that the new clause will not achieve that objective. I shall receive no fees for that advice, but when the draftsmen come to frame the regulations, they might well tackle the problem. The Bill provides certain powers, but the Minister has not defined them to my satisfaction.

Website is not in my dictionary—only a modern one would define it—but the term ``internet service provider'' has been used, and we have heard about the internet service providers who will, a week on Wednesday, see the Minister and her officials to ask, ``Will you please view us not as a publisher, but the conveyor of web information?''

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

A week on Wednesday?

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

My hon. Friend is surprised that that advice will reach the Government after the House of Commons has finished dealing with these issues.

Will the Minister explain how this part of the Bill will operate? At this late stage in our proceedings, has she produced draft regulations to pass to members of the Committee so we can all feel happier about what she is trying to do?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Hon. Members have raised various points about new clause 3, some of which were discussed earlier in our parallel debate about point-of-sale advertising. The hon. Member for Meriden asked when the regulations on such advertising would be published. We intend to produce draft regulations for consultation as soon as possible—hopefully during the Bill's passage, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading.

As to regulations under clause 17, I explained earlier that we do not envisage drawing up draft regulations at this stage, and we may not use them. The hon. Lady was right to refer to the regulations as a reserve or back-up power. The implication for the calculation of individual repayments is that, until such regulations are introduced, a display that is not an advertisement is not an offence.

The issue of the word ``place'' has been raised. New clause 3 allows it to be defined in regulations, in the same way as point-of-sale advertising. We have already debated the meaning of ``website'' in that context. The Government intend that the point of sale should refer to the point at which the cigarettes or tobacco products are bought. A tangentially linked website at which the links were in place would not count as a point of sale in that respect, so the point-of-sale advertising or exemption for advertising in those circumstances would not apply as a defence.

This matter will be dealt with further in regulations and set out for consultation when the regulations on advertising, as opposed to regulations on display, are drafted.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

An interesting thing has happened in America. California, and most states, have decided that goods and services ordered over the internet should not have sales tax attached to them in order to give a boost to the internet. If a person wants to book into an hotel in those states, other than via the internet, he or she can go into the hotel lobby to use a terminal through which guests can communicate with the front desk and book a room. The hotel confirms the reservation, and the guest has avoided the sales tax. The point is that we will see 80 ft by 60 ft screens advertising tobacco, and a man at the bottom of them who will sell tobacco. People will be able to press a button on screen to order cigarettes, which will be immediately available.

The Government are effectively saying to the tobacco industry, ``It is all right, we are not actually going to have any regulations; it will take us quite a long time''. We can see the sort of thing that might happen.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

If he remembers rightly, the hon. Member for South Dorset will recall that I mentioned the example of a massive computer screen that people were driving past. As I pointed out to him then, the people who owned the computer screen and were distributing the advert would be caught by the Bill. That would be an advertisement, and would therefore be covered. It is exactly in order to prevent advertising at the point of sale from becoming an abuse and a way to get around the intentions of the Bill that we have included a power to regulate the kinds of advertising that are acceptable, at point of sale, through regulations. If we had not done so, we would not need to make regulations. If we thought that there were no problems in that area, we would simply set out an exemption. What we have set out instead is a power to regulate the exemption.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

This is an important practical discussion. I want to be perfectly clear about it. There is a very real risk because of the difference in excise duty. One might go to a specialist tobacconist or a newsagent that was a retailer of tobacco products. If it had installed a computer terminal that was connected to the internet and was able to access, via its website, a business that was not carried on in the UK and that displayed half-price cigarettes, and if its customers used that terminal, the tobacconist or newsagent might be liable for prosecution.

Someone sitting at home who called up on his or her personal computer the same website for a business not carried out in this country but which supplied half-price cigarettes—

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

Order. That is rather a long intervention.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I am trying to get a straight answer. Is it the case that one of the actions that I have described would be illegal and the other would not?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The questions for the courts would be, first, whether the advertisement was not at the point of sale, along the lines that we discussed earlier on the huge computer screen broadcasting an advert for people driving past in their cars, and, secondly, whether the advertising complied with the point-of-sale regulations. We are not saying that all advertising at all points of sale is permitted and acceptable. We are saying that advertising at point of sale must be subject to regulations, which will be put out to consultation.

As I said previously, we have a relaxed attitude to the kind of displays currently at point of sale. We have introduced an exemption to the overall comprehensive ban on tobacco, because it is acceptable for companies selling a legal product to be able to advertise the prices and range of wares in that context. However, if that becomes an abuse and a way of getting around the tobacco advertising ban—whether by using massive computer screens or other means to play the part of a tobacco advertisement—we would use regulations to make sure that it did not become a loophole. That is why we have set out the need for such a power in regulations.

I want to touch on the point made by the hon. Member for South Dorset about walking around with a plastic bag with a Silk Cut logo on it. An individual walking around with a plastic bag, umbrella or whatever it happens to be would not be caught by the Bill, as long as he or she was not operating in the course of a business. However, if the plastic bag was clearly an ad for Silk Cut or other cigarettes, it would be caught. The production of that ad would be caught by the Bill, and the distribution of that ad in the course of a business is also covered by the Bill. If, rather than its being an ad for Silk Cut, the producers claim that it is simply a Silk Cut branded bag, they would be covered by the brandsharing provisions. Production and distribution would be covered by the Bill, but an individual walking around with a product that he purchased several years before would not.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I think that I am right to say that an advertisement that is intended to go between the wholesaler or manufacturer and the retailer is not caught by the Bill. Therefore, somebody who sends lots of packets of cigarettes with a carrier bag to the retail outlet would not be caught by the Bill. As there are no regulations prohibiting carrier bags in retail outlets—unless the regulations should be so amended—giving away a carrier bag, especially if a customer asks for it, would not be an offence. As the Minister said, an individual walking out with a carrier bag and wandering around town with it would not be committing an offence. I would be grateful for clarification.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

As soon as the retailer sells or gives away the bag, it is distributing a product. If the product was exempted because it was clearly needed in the tobacco trade, there would be a defence under the Bill while the product remains within the trade. However, if it is a product to be sold rather than a communication between members of the tobacco trade, it would be covered by the Bill. Why would a wholesaler send a retailer lots of branded plastic bags in the course of communications within the tobacco trade? The role of the wholesaler is arguable anyway, but as soon as the retailer sells the bag and distributes it, it becomes a tobacco advertisement or a branded good, and will be caught by the brandsharing provisions.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

The Minister is forgetting what she said previously. Her view, which is not mine, was that the packaging around a packet of cigarettes is not an advertisement for the tobacco product inside. If the carrier bag is fully branded, we all agree that the branding, which does not even have information about tobacco on it, is intended to promote a tobacco product, and is therefore an advertisement. It is not covered by the Bill or the clause, as the hon. Lady seems to be saying.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

If that the defence that the hon. Gentleman wants to run in the courts if prosecuted under the Bill, I wish him luck. The argument that a carrier bag is to be considered as part of the packet for the cigarette—and is therefore not to be regarded, either as an advertisement for the product, or alternatively as a branded good—might prove somewhat tenuous in the courts. That is clearly not the intention of the Bill.

New clause 3 sets out the issues around display, as opposed to point of sale advertising, which we have discussed in some detail. Amendment No. 14 is a consequential amendment, and deals with the process for discussing the regulations through the affirmative procedure, should they be required.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I started off with some concerns about new clause 3. Having heard the Minister's response, my concerns have merely increased. The new clause, which we first saw yesterday evening—or earlier if we were more attentive—does not cover what we thought the Minister was going to attempt to cover.

I went a demonstration of digital radio yesterday evening. Digital radio provides a facility not only for normal music but for digital information to be supplied on a screen. Tobacco advertising from overseas could be provided in that way. We already have digital television in this country—indeed, the UK is the leader in digital television. Digital television has many interactive features. Under the voluntary bans, and under all sorts of codes, we cannot have television advertising of tobacco products. Despite that fact, I could design today a facility that tobacco companies could use to have their websites accessed and displayed on digital television. People already have such facilities on their televisions. The Minister, in trying to rush the Bill through by 5 pm, is not listening to the Opposition's advice.

Although new clause 3 is obviously designed to improve the Bill in terms of possible abuses, it is not enough for the Minister to say to the tobacco companies, ``Well, don't worry chaps, we're not actually going to think of having regulations until we might see an abuse.'' When the abuse comes along, it will take a considerable amount of time to deal with it. Some employment agency regulations in which I have an interest have taken two years to arrive since the original legislation was enacted.

The Prime Minister says that we should have at least three months to consult on statutory instruments, and then the Government have to find time for them in this place. We are, in effect, saying to the industry, ``Come and try us: there are all sorts of loopholes.'' The Minister needs to address those points.

Amendment agreed to.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 9, line 16, after first `Parliament', insert

`with respect to England, Wales and Northern Ireland'.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 43, in page 9, line 16, after second `Parliament', insert `with respect to Scotland'.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The two small amendments are designed to help to clarify the implications for the devolved assemblies of the United Kingdom. As drafted, two aspects of the clause lead to confusion. Clause 17(4) does not make it clear that the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments have specific jurisdiction. The implication is that either Parliament can give effect to an annulment. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Of course, we accept that, as a result of devolution, Parliaments may take decisions that lead to a completely different course of action. We have seen that in relation to the provision of free personal care. We have always said that that was a logical consequence of devolution. Subsection (4) says:

``this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament or of the Scottish Parliament.''

That would permit one or other of those Parliaments to take unilateral action. That would rather weaken the effectiveness of the Bill.

For argument's sake let us assume that the Scottish Parliament, for reasons best known to itself, decided on the course of annulment. We know that the prevalence of smoking in parts of Scotland is very high, and we share the Government's aim of trying to help in those communities where there is a high incidence of smoking. So we would not wish annulment to happen. We were seeking by our amendments to clarify this, if there is any confusion, and to be constructive.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I have a lot of sympathy with the amendments. Not being a lawyer myself, I think that it is important to provide clarity. Having read the amendments and re-read the clause, I have asked for reassurance, more than once, that what the hon. Lady has described as the purpose behind her amendment is provided for by the Bill. I am assured that the Bill already provides for Westminster Parliament to cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland and for the Scottish Parliament to cover Scotland. That is the consequence of this Bill as it is drafted and the amendments are therefore unnecessary. I give the hon. Lady the assurance that I will check this one more time before we reach Report. I have done so already, as I am concerned to make sure that exactly the points that the hon. Lady has raised are already covered within the Bill. It would not be right for the Scottish Parliament to annul inappropriately the regulations that have been set by the Westminster Parliament.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

That is helpful. A lot of people who are not lawyers and who read the Bill will be as confused as both of us were. We shall have to take the word of the highly paid and well-qualified draughtsmen that they have got this absolutely right. It might also be possible, to make that clear as part of the guidance, and for that reason I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

This is a very important clause, because it gives the power to make regulations and orders. My general observation is that we have a great deal of the cart before the horse with this Bill. We are taking a great deal on promise that provisions will be made in regulations—regulations that we have not seen, and on which, in some cases, consultation has not yet taken place. Being a relatively new parliamentarian I find that an astonishing way to go about one's business. So do those people who will be directly affected by this Bill, not least because, for a number of years, they have been promised consultation on these very important matters.

Also, there are some discrepancies that cause me to raise an eyebrow in relation to the regulation-making powers. Only an order in clause 7 or the regulations in clauses 8 and 10 will be affirmative statutory instruments that will be debated by both Houses of Parliament. However, the regulations referred to in clauses 4, 6, 12 and 18 do not appear to need affirmative statutory instruments. The one that causes my raised eyebrow is the transitional provision, which, unless I am very much mistaken, does not require positive resolution. A number of hon. Members have very considerable concerns about that provisions and how the transitional arrangements up to 2006 will be applied and why some sports should be given preferential treatment under them. The way in which the regulations will subsequently be debated will vary. It is important that we have the chance to debate them, especially as the fruits of consultation that has not yet taken place cannot inform our present argument. We could have approached some of the tricky issues in the Bill differently if the consultation on which those subsequent regulations will be based had taken place. For example, I do not feel at ease about whether we have satisfactorily dealt with the regulation of ISPs, and we have had no sight of the regulations that will affect them.

There are some discrepancies in, for example, subsection (2), which allows the appropriate Minister or Secretary of State to regulate differently for different cases or circumstances. I am concerned that that may be discriminatory and will not set a level playing field for those involved in publishing or distributing by electronic means. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, who has experience of the printing industry, made the interesting point that our country's printing businesses will be placed at a disadvantage under the Bill in terms of international tendering for magazines and periodicals that contain tobacco advertisements. By comparison, the new internet service industry seems to have been granted a considerable concession under new clause 3. The different industries that compete for our attention and to influence our choices will be treated in a different manner. I fear that the print industry may now be disadvantaged vis a vis those publishing or distributing by electronic means.

The Government have failed to provide adequate time for the detail of the Bill, as they have rushed to introduce it so that they can tick the box and say that their pledge to ban tobacco advertising has been achieved in the lifetime of this Parliament. That detail will be important to the effectiveness of the Bill and to the achievement of the Government's aims. As we have had no sight of the regulations, we will not even comment on the likely effectiveness of the secondary legislation until it is all done and dusted and has passed through the Houses of Parliament. Empty-box legislation is an inferior form of legislation, but very much a feature of this, my first Parliament. Disquiet about that is not confined to Opposition Members. Representations from the affected industries lead us to impress on the Government the fact that leaving decisions to regulations as much as possible is not regarded as especially helpful.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

On first reading the Bill, we assumed that it would be similar to some previous Acts. We have also been in power—and will shortly be in power again—so we acknowledge that it is extremely difficult for Governments to introduce all-encompassing Bills without regulatory powers, as regulations are to introduce in the light of circumstances. However, it is extraordinary that the Minister now tells us that those powers are simply a fallback position for many cases. We have to tell that to our constituents, including retailers of tobacco.

I do not know whether any member of the Committee has a tobacco factory in his or her constituency, but am sure that everyone in the Room has an interest in the tobacco industry through the House of Commons pension scheme. In one way or another, I suspect that we are all shareholders in the tobacco industry. Damage to business confidence and to the value of shares is not necessarily the result of regulations, because one can usually calculate their effect. I expect that people will be calculating the effect of the Bill and that they will assume that the consumption of tobacco will decrease. That may be an incorrect calculation, but it is certainly what the Government intend.

The Government are saying to business that they have additional regulatory powers, but that they do not intend to use them for the moment. However, under other legislation, they have made draft regulations available so that people could work out more or less what to expect; and, once the Bill was enacted, the regulations could be made. Industry will know, because it had seen the draft regulations, what it should be doing.

Let us assume that Mr. Bloggs, the retail tobacconist, is thinking about putting a new display in his shop. He is going to revamp it and spend many thousands of pounds on a shopfitting exercise. He rings up his Member of Parliament and says, ``I understand that new point-of-sale regulations are coming along for tobacco. Do I have to keep my cigarette stocks down so that only one packet is showing, or can I display them all?'' Mr. Bloggs has a number of display stands with advertisements. What should he do? He wants the shop's fitting to last for between five and 10 years, and he wants to comply with the regulations.

Mr. Blogg's Member of Parliament will not be able to help. He may say, ``It is true that the Government have the power to make regulations that might include hiding all the cigarettes. You may have to keep all the cigarettes in a separate room, and you will have to bring them out in a plain brown wrapper to sell them.'' That is not an extraordinary vision; it is the sort of request that any constituent might make about how the regulations might work. We shall have to tell people that we do not know whether such regulations will be made, and that will cause uncertainty.

We believe that there is likely to be an election in May. The convention between the parities, not often spoken about, is that if an election is imminent and the Government are about to make some regulations, they will not publish them without the agreement of the other main political parties. In other words, if they are likely to be politically contentious they will not be rammed through within 28 days—or whatever time lag is appropriate. The gentleman's agreement—or gentlelady's agreement—is that contentious regulations will not be rushed through without agreement. We may not have an election in May, but it is a possibility in May, June or whenever, yet the regulations are not even in draft form and no one knows what effect they might have.

It is wrong-headed of the Government, if they are convinced about how they want to regulate tobacco advertising, not to say so. They should be fair to the industry, perhaps even say that, as long as it sticks to a voluntary agreement, they will not make regulations. We are back to voluntary agreements. The Government have obviously listened to us and said, ``We shall do it by voluntary agreement. Unless you keep to it, we shall make regulations.'' That is only fair.

One never wants to embarrass the Labour party, but the reason why Bernie Ecclestone rushed to No. 10 Downing street about the threat to tobacco sponsorship and advertising on Formula 1 cars was not that he needed to ensure that tobacco advertising would continue, but that he needed to have certainty about when the ban would happen. When the Government came to power, Bernie Ecclestone was in the middle of trying to sell Formula 1. He could not sell it without knowing what regulations would affect him. Certainty within business about whether a regulation is going to come in is most important.

When Governments make statements about the possibility of regulation, stock market valuations can go way down until the regulations are confirmed. We have seen it with the new electricity trading arrangements. When are they going to come in? We have seen electricity shares going up and down.

The tobacco industry is supposedly a legal industry. It does not have to have a sword of Damocles hanging over it—a set of regulations that the Government could bring in at any time but are not even willing to divulge to the industry. That is why we need a very clear indication from the Minister about what these regulations will be, what the Government's plans are, which regulations they intend to introduce and when under clause 18 the requirements on sponsorship will be brought in. All that needs to be explained to the Houses of Parliament. The House of Lords, where Labour does not have the massive majority that it has in the House of Commons, will not accept being asked to sign a Bill without being told how much it will cost or what the regulations are. This sort of anonymous legislation, with no commitment from the Government as to when they are going to introduce regulations, if at all, is not satisfactory in a parliamentary democracy.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I rise to ask a one-word question. Why? What is the rationale for different bits of regulation being subject to different procedure? It is not explained in the very helpful explanatory notes, and of course it is not explained in the Bill itself. I hope that the Minister will explain when she winds up. This clause is a bit of a bad-news, good-news, bad-news story. As my hon. Friends have said, there is too much uncertainty in this Bill. Too much is left to the future. Too much is left to regulation. Indeed, some of the most difficult and complex issues are left to regulation. I am very unhappy about passing a Bill that leaves the complex issue of brand sharing to future regulation. At least the brand sharing order will be a positive order. That is good. There will be a chance to scrutinise it in detail and for the whole House to vote on it. We will not be able to amend it, but there will be a chance for proper scrutiny of a kind.

It is bad that there is this uncertainty. It is bad that there is so much left to regulation. It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, an empty-box Bill with huge areas left to the future. I am tempted to think that this is because the Department found some issues too difficult—too difficult to introduce at all or to introduce in the time; I am not sure which. That is a matter for great regret. I am one of the cynics here. I think that the Government wanted to get this Bill on to the statute book before they had thought it out. They have provided a framework so that they can claim to the electorate that the Bill is on the statute book, whereas in practice they will have done very little to control advertising by the time of the election. The advertising of tobacco products will remain largely uncontrolled and unregulated for a considerable period. Yet so much hangs on these regulations. That is bad.

It is good, however, that at least we are positive. I am glad about that. It is good to see three affirmative resolutions—three orders that require the affirmative procedure. I welcome that. Very often the Opposition have to argue, to change things from negative to affirmative. I remember the proceedings on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. Many of our ``victories'' in Committee were squeezing out of the Government changes from negative to affirmative procedure. I am glad, therefore, that there are four affirmative procedures in place. That is good. Four out of seven are affirmative.

That, however, drives me back to this question of why? Why are three negative and four affirmative? I assume that it is because the Government attach greater importance to the latter than to the former—they believe that the latter deal with issues of more complexity or greater importance, or are more fundamental to the Bill, while the former deal with lesser issues.

On that rationale, why are advertising at the point of sale under the negative procedure and distributions at nominal amounts, which are covered in clause 8(6), subject to the affirmative procedure? I may be wrong—if so, I will be happy for the Minister to tell me so in her charming way—but I would have thought that advertising at the point of sale was a hugely important issue that should be subject to the affirmative procedure, while distributions at nominal amounts could have been left to the negative procedure without the Opposition making too much fuss. Why are they that way round?

I remain a cynic about the Bill, and I have a feeling that the Government needed a few negative procedures to provide a cloak of respectability to allow clause 18—the Bernie Ecclestone memorial clause—to be placed under the negative procedure. That is one of the greatest scandals in the Bill. The Government do not want to give Parliament the opportunity to discuss the matter any more than it has to.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Are we being too cynical in believing that, as we approach a general election, the Government want a bare-bones Bill that has not been give the chance to reveal that it does not work? They can say to the electorate, ``We've solved that problem,'' but in a few months' time we will know that they have not.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

That was a summary of my earlier remarks, and I can only agree with my hon. Friend. The Department has said, ``The Bill contains seven order-making powers. We have to make clause 18 negative for political reasons, so let's make another two negative to give it respectability.'' If that is so, the Minister has got it wrong: it would be better for advertising at the point of sale to be positive and distribution at nominal amounts to be negative.

I am afraid that I am cynical about this, but the Minister is a lady with great persuasive powers, and she may be able to convince me that my cynicism is misplaced. I am grateful that four out of seven procedures are affirmative, but why are the other three negative?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The clause sets out the regulation-making powers and the ways in which they will be treated under the Bill when enacted.

I should say straight away that we intend, as soon as possible, to introduce regulations on brand sharing, the sponsorship timetable and point-of-sale advertising. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading that we intended to introduce regulations on the sponsorship timetable during the passage of the Bill, and we hope to introduce the regulations on point-of-sale advertising and brand sharing as closely in line with that as possible.

We do not intend to regulate on new technology, display, nominal distributions or specialist tobacconists. Those powers are to be held in anticipation of loopholes. It is better not to legislate on those matters if we can avoid it, so we shall not introduce regulations at this stage.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

The hon. Lady has identified the regulations that she does not intend to introduce. Will she have discussions with the appropriate bodies about voluntary agreements on how they will operate, as that would make the introduction of regulations unnecessary?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

We shall happily hold discussions with any of the companies involved about how they might operate in order to prevent any need for future regulations on those matters.However, I add a note of caution about the past success of voluntary arrangements. We put the powers in the Bill so that we would not have to rely on voluntary agreements to regulate potential abuses of the Bill. We need the flexibility to respond if problems arise, but we do not currently intend to use those powers. If we need to introduce regulations, we will consult fully at that time.

Four of the sets of regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure—those on new technology, brand sharing, display and distributions at nominal cost—because new offences will be created in those four areas. Although the offences are already set out, the introduction of any regulations would take account of the effect felt by people involved in those areas.

On specialist tobacconists and point-of-sale advertising, regulations will clarify defences rather than setting out new offences and new problems. The sponsorship timetable is simply about setting out a timetable. It is appropriate that the negative procedure is used in those areas because they merely set out detail and clarify matters. We do not intend to use regulatory powers in many of those areas if we can avoid it, but it is appropriate to have flexibility. That is why those areas are covered by regulations rather than in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Interpretation

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I listened with great interest to the Minister. I hope that those who are listening to our debate and who will read Hansard carefully will have noted that the two-speed process introduced in the regulations is important. I was particularly interested to hear that the specialist tobacconist powers might be held in reserve, giving specialist tobacconists a chance to work out how they can comply with the Bill without excessively burdensome regulations being placed on them. The distinction discussed in the stand part debate, which if I recall correctly might have been curtailed at the beginning of our proceedings, was helpful.

I draw attention to clause 19, about which I seek clarification. It refers to

``publishing by any electronic means, for example by means of the internet''.

The Minister will be aware that I am worried that the approach may, understandably, be more lenient towards the new technology. It is still evolving and blossoming and should not be cut off at an early stage of its development. I remain worried, however, that those who publish printed matter by conventional methods may be discriminated against in comparison with people who publish by electronic means. The clause deals with them together, but in other parts of the Bill they are treated differently.

The Minister's new clause 3 provides for publishers of information by electronic means through their websites legitimately to continue if they carry on their business outside the United Kingdom and customers from the UK access their websites. I am not convinced that, under British law, anything could be done about that problem. None the less, those responsible for publishing printed matter by conventional means will be placed at a comparative disadvantage. Both sorts of publishers compete in an international market. The publishing world operates in a global market, as does the internet business. Both tender for business and present information to those who wish to be informed and advised about our buying decisions and strategies. However, conventional publishers in Britain are alone among publishers in European Union member states in being banned from competing in the international market, while some portion of those publications may be distributed in this country. That situation differs from that of internet service providers, who may carry on their business from outside the United Kingdom but whose customers may access it from here.

I am worried about that discrepancy. The two groups are lumped together in the clause as if they had equal provision, but the Bill makes a distinction and they do not have equal provision. I would welcome hearing from the Minister that, as part of the preparation for drawing up regulations, she will consult print publishers as well as those of electronic means, so that she may better understand the concerns resulting from the different way in which those two types of publishing will be treated.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I want briefly to address some narrow, technical points. It is always the case in this place—because we represent what the Prime Minister called a very conservative body—we assume that because we have always done things in a particular way and used a particular form of words in an Act of Parliament, if it came to a court case and someone claimed that something had been done incorrectly, the courts would assume that any lack of clarity in our legislation could be accepted in the courts. When I complained about the lack of clarity surrounding the question of the appropriate Minister, I was grateful to be told that there was a definition. However, like so many of the definitions in the Bill, it tells one nothing. It states that appropriate Minister means

``in relation to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State''.

There are 20 or 30 Secretaries of State, and in this Bill—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is describing the Minister to whom I was about to refer in derogatory terms.

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

It was you, actually.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

The Secretary of State is not defined here. It might be the Secretary of State for Health, or even the Prime Minister, who can obviously delegate things. The definition does not tell us to which Secretary of State it refers. On the front of the Bill there is a reference to ``Mr Secretary Milburn'', but nothing else in the Bill shows that it issues from the Department of Health. The Minister may say, rightly, that it is the Government's Bill, but if one wants to define the appropriate Minister, it would be a good idea to say who that Secretary of State is.

The next part of the definition refers to the ``Scottish Ministers''. That means that any Minister of the Scottish Parliament can pick the matter up and is an appropriate person to introduce regulations. For the sake of clarity, the definition should be made clearly in the Bill.

I revert—although not in any detail, as the matter has already been covered—to the fact that ``advertisement'' is not properly defined. The reason for having definitions in a Bill is to deal with something that has not been made clear in an earlier part of the Bill. In this case, clause 19 refers us to clause 1, but there is no better definition in clause 19 than there was in clause 1. Why do we even have the definition in clause 19? It is a tautology. If the definition in clause 1 is clear, there is no requirement for it in clause 19. Presumably, the draftsmen said, ``Minister, we've got to define advertisement'', so they put in the original draft of the clause what they felt an advertisement meant. Then they found themselves getting into a mess, so they simply said:

```tobacco advertisement' and `tobacco product' have the meaning given in section 1''.

As clause 1 does not contain a clear meaning of those terms, that is a tautology and shows that the Bill is in a mess.

I am glad that the final part of this discussion includes the difficulties that the Minister will face in relation to electronic publishing. Publishing by electronic means is included in the Bill, but it is strange that, although we refer to internet service providers and web pages, the definition, which includes all kinds of related things, does not include other forms of electronic publishing that look like a web site or an ISP. ISPs have already written to me, and no doubt they will come to speak to the Minister after the Bill has gone through the House. They want ISP to be defined simply as somebody who transmits things and is not a publisher. They want to be excluded from that definition.

Under previous telecommunications Acts, the telephone company that transmitted a dirty phone call or a slander over the telephone was not liable: it was simply a carrier and not responsible for the content. Yet, without a clear definition, people can be caught by the provisions. ISPs have received some comfort from the Minister saying, ``It's not you, if you didn't know anything about it''. However, ISPs and their role are not properly defined in the Bill, and nor is it clear who may be caught as an ISP. In many ways, I am an internet service provider, because I have a web page. If somebody dials into my web page, which is run for me by another company, I can personally be said to be an ISP. The Labour party and the Conservative party are ISPs by some definitions.

Clause 19 contains a set of definitions that are tautologous. The clause does not clarify which Minister is involved, nor does it give us a proper definition of the electronic side that would be helpful to lawyers and courts in future. I hope that the Minister can help the Committee on those issues.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I shall try to respond to the points that have been raised.

The hon. Member for Meriden was concerned that the clause and the Bill treated print publishers and electronic publishers differently. They are treated differently in a couple of respects, although the broad aim of the Bill is to be neutral with regard to the different media. First, they have a different defence for electronic means of transmission—that they were unaware of what was being published. Secondly, we have taken a power in regulations to cope with changes in technology, not because we intend to treat electronic media differently from print media, but simply to anticipate future changes in technology.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of print for a foreign market. I said in replying to that debate that I would consider that issue in time for Report.

The hon. Member for South Dorset, as I had expected, again asked about the definition of advertisement and expressed his concern about the definition of a web page. I have set out the Government's position on those matters. The words have the ordinary meaning that people attach to them. Sometimes it can be counter-productive to attempt to define too narrowly in legislation what we mean, word for word, in every case. In doing so, we would exclude more than was intended simply because a particular example had not been anticipated. In that regard, I think that the Bill strikes the right balance.

Finally, on the question of to which Secretary of State or Minister the clause refers, I should point out that it is standard practice to refer to the Secretary of State in that way in legislation. However, in practice it is the Secretary of State for Health to whom reference is made, because it is his responsibility to take the lead on tobacco products. The hon. Gentleman has expressed anxiety on many occasions about legislation that crosses, and which has implications for, several Government Departments, and I have told him that that, unfortunately, is the way that the world works. Legislation often does not fit into single departmental boxes, but that should cause no problems because we on the Government Benches recognise that it is important that Departments should work together, and are trying to ensure that they do so.

As I have said, it is common practice for a Bill not to define a particular Secretary of State, but in this case it is the Secretary of State for Health to whom reference is made.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I do not want to cause too much discomfort, although we on the Opposition Benches often play games by trying to get Secretaries of State to give different answers to the same question. However, it must be said that the Bill would be improved by a clearer definition. Perhaps a phrase such as ``the Minister who is responsible for tobacco products'' could be used. The clause ought not to refer merely to ``the Secretary of State'', given that there is no such title in British governance.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I repeat that such a reference is standard practice in legislation, and it is clear that ``the Secretary of State'' means the Secretary of State with responsibility for this policy area. The clause is perfectly adequate, therefore, and I ask the Committee to accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Commencement, short title and extent

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

In respect of clause 17, the Minister referred to the speed at which different sets of regulations might come into effect—a point that relates to the question of whether the Bill will be enacted on the day appointed by the appropriate Minister. Can the Minister assure me that in enforcing the legislation, enough time will be allowed for specialist tobacconists, newsagents and internet service providers to comply with it and make the appropriate changes? She perhaps anticipated my pleading on behalf of smaller companies that do not have the resources to make such changes easily. I am thinking in particular of small newsagents, many of which have fascia signs that have been supplied by tobacco manufacturers. It might not immediately occur to them that they need to replace such signs, which is quite an expensive process. The different rates at which the regulations come into force is therefore important.

Can the Minister give some idea of the time scale involved? I understand that, in a way, the delayed regulations depend on a promise of not abusing the system, so perhaps no precise time scale can be given. None the less, I seek an assurance that every effort will be made to help small businesses with the changes that must be made in good faith to comply with the Bill.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, we have not defined whether existing hoardings, which have been published, can result in a prosecution because they are still on display. That is an important point that we have not previously discussed. One could say that every time someone looks at a hoarding, it is being published, and that would be an offence. If the advertisement is already on a hoarding, is there a requirement for it to be removed, and under which section of the Bill would that happen? If the Minister believes that that will happen, can she indicate when that will take place?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I shall set out our intentions. The appointed date for the Bill to come into force would be two months after Royal Assent, but a further three months will be allowed for advertising in retail outlets, in in-pack promotion schemes that entail coupons being inserted in a pack or forming part of a pack, and for direct marketing contracts that were set up before 8 October 1999. We have set out that provision to enable small businesses in particular to have time to comply with the legislation without excessive burdens being placed on them.

However, I should also say that our intentions have been clear for a long time. We are broadly implementing the European directive, which has been publicly available for a considerable time. Small businesses and large businesses alike know our intentions.

The hon. Member for South Dorset raised a specific question about an old advertisement or hoarding that is still up. If someone allowed that advertisement to be in place and was responsible in some sense for allowing it to remain in place by, for example, having it on his or her property or premises, he or she would effectively be publishing it, or at least assisting with its publication. It would be bizarre to allow all the advertisements that are currently up to be permitted under the legislation simply because no one had got round to taking them down. That would be a major loophole if we allowed it to happen.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

It has just occurred to me that I cannot see under which section of the Bill such a person would be prosecuted. As the Minister said, it would be bizarre to ban new advertisements while retaining others. One can imagine that as the date approaches, the tobacco companies will have balloons in the trees. In Burnley, there is a ``Vote Ian Bruce'' sticker up in a tree; I do not know how it got up there, but there is no way to get it down. I am probably breaking the law because legislation specifies that posters must be removed within a particular time after an election.

With loopholes in mind, may I ask where the Bill prohibits such behaviour? I am not sure how a person not in the tobacco trade who continues to show a poster would be caught.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The Bill provides for someone to be currently responsible for publishing or bringing to the attention of the public. If that person does not take the advertisement down, he or she is therefore liable. If it were not in his or her power to take the advertisement down because, for example, it was stuck in a tree, he or she would have a defence.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

That is a fascinating point. What about old enamel signs outside antique shops? Are there any brands advertised by old enamel signs or by mirrors in gentlemen's lavatories that would be affected? Are there any old brands of antique interest, that are not there to promote the brand, but which are still up, that will be caught by this? If the brand was not current, would there be a problem?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The question would be whether something was being published in the course of a business. An old curio that was privately owned clearly would not be covered by the Act. However, if something was being distributed, published or used currently, and had either the purpose or the effect of promoting a tobacco product today, it would, no matter how long ago it had actually been manufactured, be covered. Obviously there is no intention to ban historic antiques.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

The hon. Lady did say published or distributed today, but by someone in business for tobacco. I think that she should include those words.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

We are talking about what is done in the course of the business, so the hon. Gentleman would certainly not be prosecuted for continuing to wear the Silk Cut jacket that he clearly acquired some considerable time ago.

The hon. Member for Meriden raised a point about the timetable for regulations. We will, of course, give considerable time for the consultation. We have not yet set out the timetable for implementing the regulations, but will do so in the same way in which we provided appropriate time scales for introducing some of the provisions for advertising and retail outlets, and timetabling provisions in the original European directive around brandsharing and other areas. There is no intention to place unnecessary burdens on business, and we obviously aim to introduce the ban in the most effective way.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 3 - Displays

New clause 1 - Review of effect of this act

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

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

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

With this we will consider new clause 2—Tobacco promotion regulatory authority.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The hon. Member for Rother Valley may find that there is an overlap between some of the aims that I have set out to achieve in new clause 1 and some of what he sets out to achieve in new clause 2, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say. Obviously the legislation has imposed some significant restrictions on the way in which legitimate business has been carried out in this country for a long time.

The justification given for the ban on tobacco advertising is the reduction in the prevalence of smoking, and the Government have set a target of reducing that by 2.5 per cent. It is important that we test the proposition properly and require the Government to evaluate the effect of what they are doing. Parliament should head the scrutiny of the legislation.

The UK has taken a significant unilateral decision as part of a significant trading block to ban tobacco advertising for public health reasons in order to meet the target of a 2.5 per cent. reduction in smoking prevalence. We owe it to those who will have to comply with the ban on advertising to demonstrate whether the target has been achieved because of the investment that they will have to make.

Our purpose will be made clear by this debate on our reasoned amendment. We share the Government's aim of reducing smoking prevalence, but the relatively modest target of reducing prevalence by 2.5 per cent. will be difficult to achieve unless we do something far more effective about the volume of illegal tobacco coming in to this country, which we see as fuelling the incidence of smoking.

It is quite reasonable to ask the Secretary of State to commission a qualified body to carry out a rolling study of the effect of the Bill. There is little difference between the hon. Member for Rother Valley and me on the concept of a qualified authority. I have read the Health Committee Report with care, and I understand his reasons for wanting a body to be introduced called the tobacco promotion regulatory authority. The Health Committee's report promoted such a body, and the Bill introduces new instruments that will carry out the role for which the Health Committee envisaged a tobacco regulatory authority.

It is a semantic difference, but under my new clause the Secretary of State would select a reputable and appropriately qualified body. Such a body might already be in existence. I am no great fan of setting up quangos and authorities all over the place, we have enough of them--I wonder about the effectiveness of some of them sometimes. An existing authority may be able to perform this role for the Secretary of State.

Commercial regulation is outside the sphere of my brief on health, so I am not sufficiently conversant with the constraints on the Advertising Standards Authority, for example. Existing regulatory authorities and bodies may be perfectly well-qualified—

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

A university.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

My hon. Friend mentions a university. The Secretary of State often commissions a university to carry out such a report. It is possible within existing structures to charge a body with the responsibility for evaluating the effectiveness of the Bill. We owe it to those who will be affected by it. It would also inform the public about the success or our legislative efforts in reducing smoking prevalence, and how much that is attributable to the ban on tobacco advertising.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

My hon. Friend will remember that the Prime Minister made a big thing about producing an annual report on Government measures. We saw it in one format one year, and then the format was changed completely so we could not follow it the second year. Her clause would merely put into statutory form what the Government promised us with all that spin when they first came into power. They said that they would report back on the measures that they had taken and on the effects that they had had.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I recall that the first glossy annual report did not exactly sell like hot cakes at Tesco. I am not in favour of glossy reports, but I am very much in favour of an effective report that has a statutory basis to it, so that we can properly evaluate whether or not the Bill has been successful in meeting the Government's target of reducing smoking prevalence by 2.5 per cent. The target does not appear in the Bill. The rationale for this measure would not be apparent to any lay person reading the Bill, who would not make that connection. It is important to make that connection, and for the Government to establish just how effective or not this ban on tobacco advertising has been, and to put that information in the public domain.

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

May I ask for guidance, Mrs. Adams. We are debating these clauses, but the clock is ticking and we have only 25 minutes left of this sitting. I have been invited by the hon. Member for Meriden to comment on her clause, which I am quite prepared to do. Clearly, I have to move my new clause formally, but I do not know which to deal with first.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

You do not have to move your new clause at this stage.

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

Thank you, Mrs. Adams. I shall comment on the other new clause first and then move on to mine. The Committee is running out of time, so I may table it again, so that the House can consider it in more detail on Report next Tuesday.

The hon. Members for Meriden and for Mid-Worcestershire may be surprised to hear me say that new clause 1 has some merit. Two important issues arise from clause 1: what happens to under-18 smokers, and what the impact of clause 1(b) on market share will be. We know that clause 1(b) has been the tobacco industry's defence for years—that advertising and promotion are simply about market share and brand switches. If the market did not move when advertising and promotion were banned in this country, we would know that the industry was right for all these years—that people keep smoking the same cigarettes because they want to, not because they have been enticed by advertising and promotion to switch to another brand.

Under-18 smoking is an important issue. It would be good to examine the problem and assess the impact of the ban on advertising and promotion. I agree with the hon. Lady that the Health Committee would be the most appropriate body to conduct such a study. I referred earlier to the Health Committee's evidence on the health risks of smoking, which was published in its report last year. Both written and oral evidence of the incidence of under-age smoking was examined carefully. It showed that advertising designed to encourage people over 18 to switch cigarettes had no effect whatever on young people's smoking habits. The Health Committee put various questions to the advertising agencies giving evidence.

The hon. Member for South Dorset said in his filibuster on integration [Hon. Members: ``Oh''.] I shall point out that his speech was not well-focused on clause 19, and leave it at that. Commenting on raising issues with the Secretary of State, the hon. Gentleman said that if people keep asking the same questions, they receive different answers. He is absolutely right. Advertising agencies were giving evidence about how they pitched their adverts to different age groups and claimed that they affected only adults, not children. I thought that that was a fascinating example of a Select Committee really doing its job.

I shall refer to the late Member for Preston, Audrey Wise. Irrespective of whether we agree with her politics, few could deny that she was assiduous in her Committee work. I recall sitting with Audrey on the Committee considering the Food Standards Bill in 1999. Whenever she elicited evidence from witnesses she would always get to the heart of the matter. I have the report of the evidence taken by that Committee. Audrey Wise took evidence from a Mr. Paul Bainsfair. Please do not ask me to explain in detail, but he was the chairman of TBWA GCT Simons Palmer Ltd. On page 318 of the report, she asked questions about the targeting of young adults. She referred to some written evidence that had been given to the Committee by the company and Mr. Bainsfair, and said:

``The client is Rothmans and the target `Primary: 18-24 males'. I should just like to know what you think characterises an 18-year-old male, their aspirations and things that appeal to them which would not also appeal to 14 and 15-year-old males?''

Crucially, under the voluntary code, tobacco advertising was not supposed to be aimed at people aged between 12 and 15. The age of 18 is used in new clause 1 because advertisers are not supposed to target below that age. It would seem relevant for a study to consider the effect of an advertising ban on people below the age of 18.

Mr. Bainsfair said, when he was answering questions in relation to what he called the piece of paper that had been given to the Committee:

``It is a fact that Marlboro is a brand which is smoked by younger men; they tend to be more upscale.''

The then hon. Member for Preston said:

``Yes, I understand that but what I am asking is how you gear the advertising to be attractive at 18, which is your target beginning and not include things which would also appeal to 14 and 15-year-olds.''

He replied:

``I shall try to answer your question, although...you do not really fully understand the way we work'',

to which Audrey Wise admitted:

``I am sure I do not, or what motivates you.''

Mr. Bainsfair then went into a rather long answer, saying:

``The advertising we are trying to develop, and remember that we have to stick very much within the bounds of the code which prevents us anyway doing anything which might be seen to be deliberately attractive to children—not that we would want to—means that it is pretty unlikely that the kind of advertising we come up with would particularly appeal to a 15-year-old.''

The debate carries on for several columns—I emphasise its relevance to new clause 1(1)(a)—and Audrey Wise says:

``All I am asking, since you are expert communicators, is what steps you take to make your adverts attractive to young males 18 and up and to not have them attractive to males of 14 and 15.''

Mr. Bainsfair replied:

``What I have tried to explain is that there is a very detailed code to which we have to submit all our ideas to make sure that we are not straying into an area which could be seen to do the very thing you are suggesting we might accidentally do.''

He was then challenged by Audrey Wise, who said:

``So you are supposed not to do it. What I am asking is how you carry out that remit, that is all.''

Mr. Bainsfair answered:

``I do not quite understand your question. We are aiming at 18 to 24-year-olds.''

The exchange went on for another column.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the report of the tobacco advisory group of the Royal College of Physicians? It notes that the real issue is the management of nicotine addiction. One would infer that the companies concerned are trying to establish nicotine addiction at an early age. In the most recent surveys, the data of which were compiled in 1998, as high a proportion of 15-year-olds as 30 per cent. regularly smokes.

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

My hon. Friend is right. I do not want to go down that avenue now, although it may be relevant to new clause 2. The regulatory authority was requested by the Royal College of Physicians in that study. It is an excellent study, showing people how addictive nicotine is, how it is delivered in different ways to people in society and the effect of the delivery.

Let me return to the evidence taken by the Select Committee. It shows how the Committee chased round the houses and attempted to find out why advertising would affect only the 18 to 24 age group, and whether we could depend on the voluntary code to ensure that the same advertising did not affect people below the age of 18. Audrey Wise asked someone who was paid by a tobacco company to run its advertising how a distinction could be made under the voluntary code between someone who was under 18, or under 15, and an 18 to 24-year-old. She said:

``So you are supposed not to do it. What I am asking is how you carry out that remit, that is all.''

The witness replied:

``I do not quite understand your question. We are aiming at 18 to 24-year-olds.''

Audrey Wise went on:

``The question is how you engage aspirations in the first place and stay within the CAP''.

She was referring to the code of advertising practice. All these matters are examined under the voluntary code, which the Bill would abolish. She went on:

``I thought that adverts had not to be aspirational. How do you distinguish between the aspirations of the bottom end of your adult smokers and the young teenager? There must be something you do, some sorts of things you do or refrain from doing in order to keep within the CAP. I am just asking you to explain.''

The proceedings continued. The witness could not explain. Audrey Wise then said:

``What guides your judgement? ...You have rock, cult, bikes, cars as sorts of things.''

We have all seen the images used in tobacco advertising over the years by Rothmans and many others. She went on:

``Fourteen and 15-year-old males seem to me to be just as interested as 18-year-olds. How do your adverts differ?''

The whole matter shows how parliamentarians' expertise can be used to examine reports and to take evidence on them. After about three columns, Mr. Bainsfair eventually made an admission. He said:

``Perhaps if I say that it is common sense that there is going to be an overlap. Some 15-year-olds are going to be more sophisticated than others. It is impossible to say that something which appeals to an 18-year-old will not appeal to a 15-year-old. If that is what you are getting at, obviously you are right.''

That has been the argument of people concerned about the health of young people and cigarettes for decades. It is nonsense to claim that certain advertising is for a set age group, whether or not it includes motorbikes. I do not have a problem with new clause 1 being added to the Bill, but we will hear what the Minister has to say about it. On new clause 1(a), it will be interesting to monitor the prevalence of smoking in the 11 to 15 age group. The vast majority of people start smoking between the ages of 11 and 15. It will be interesting to see what happens when advertising that is supposedly not aimed at them is taken out of our culture.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I do not think that we are going to hear from the Minister. The discussions suggest that, because of the forthcoming Division in the House, my new clause will have to be decided quickly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that there will be an opportunity to consider his new clause on Report. The matters are important and I interrupt only to remind him that there may not be time for us to hear the Government's reply.

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

I realise that, if I were to sit down now, I could table new clause 2 again on Report. As I would be interested to hear the Minister talk about the new clause, I will do just that.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

As this is probably the last time that I will speak in this Committee, may I thank you, Mrs. Adams and, through you, Mr. Malins for your chairmanship of the Committee? It has been good humoured and our discussions have progressed well.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

As there may be no other opportunity to intervene, I want to thank you, Mrs. Adams and, through you, Mr. Malins for the courteous way in which you have regulated our proceedings. The Committee has also conducted itself courteously most of the time.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I welcome the fact that, although the Opposition voted against Second Reading, they have tabled many constructive amendments and accepted many of the principles behind the Bill. That was helpful to our discussions.

I shall confine my comments to new clause 1, because I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley does not intend to press new clause 2 now.

I have considerable sympathy with the aims of new clause 1. It is essential to have effective independent evaluation of the impact of the advertising ban and that information must be publicly available. The issue of market share is interesting, but the critical issue concerns the prevalence of smoking in the United Kingdom.

We are keen to have proper and effective evaluation of the legislation, but it would be a mistake to set out in the Bill the specific requirements for research. For example, it is not clear that the under-18 age group is the right one. We may want to consider the under-16s and the 16 to 19 age group.

Subsection (2) of the new clause states that there should be an annual report, but if that requirement were in the Bill, it might become burdensome after 10 years; we might have conclusive results during that period. We need flexibility not simply to respond to the ban and to ensure that the right sort of research is taking place, but to enable us to respond to new needs for research in other areas as they arise.

I confirm that issues concerning research and evaluation and the work of the Health Development Agency will be considered by the Department. It is important to maintain flexibility in the way in which research is commissioned, but our intention is to ensure that there is proper public evaluation of the impact of the Bill. We are keen to see the Bill on the statute book and to evaluate its effect in the light of the considerable health consequences of smoking and the impact of advertising not only on new smokers, but on those who want to give up. Seventy per cent. of smokers say that they want to give up smoking. It is an important part of our health policy to provide support and encouragement for those who want to give up and to break the addiction to a deadly product.

I ask the Committee to reject new clause 1 and look forward to further consideration of the Bill on Report.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The Minister's comments are encouraging and I am pleased that the Government want to evaluate the Bill in a similar way to that suggested in the new clause. I may return to the matter on Report with some modifications in line with the objectives that we want to achieve.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

Order. I thank the Committee for behaving so well. I am disappointed that we did not have a vote, because I was interested to see if Little Ben would be allowed to vote. I thank hon. Members for their attendance and kind words.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at six minutes to Five o'clock.