| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
E-commerce
3. Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford): If he will make a statement on the regulatory framework for e-commerce. [124581]
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Electronic Communications Act 2000, which received Royal Assent on 25 May, gives legal certainty to the use of electronic signatures and gives powers to amend existing legislation. It will ensure that the United Kingdom is the best place in the world for e-commerce.
Mr. St. Aubyn: The Home Secretary's Bill, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which will regulate e-commerce in this country, is described in a Financial Times leader today as giving the Home Secretary
- powers that Joseph Stalin would have used with relish.
- could seriously injure the attractions of the UK as a location for e-business.
Madam Speaker: Order. Questions are getting out of hand today. We are getting into an Adjournment debate. If the hon. Gentleman has a constituency case, he should raise it on the Adjournment. Put the question to the Secretary of State.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
When will the Secretary of State accept responsibility for the Home Office Bill's highly damaging effects on e-commerce business for my constituents and others?
Mr. Byers: It is agreed by business that we need to have a safe and secure environment for electronic
commerce. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which the Home Office is taking through another place, will provide that environment. However, we are aware that there are concerns in the business community about some of the Bill's proposals, which is why the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Home Office, has indicated that he is more than willing to consult business about its concerns. That is what he will do. If necessary, the Bill can be amended to reflect those concerns.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): The Electronic Communications Act paves the way for Britain to take a leading role in that important area; my right hon. Friend should take no notice of the carping from the Opposition Benches. Will he look carefully at encouraging companies to work together to kitemark their products, so that they can sell to the rest of the world with an underlying support mechanism among themselves--which will be self-regulated--to ensure that goods and services are delivered? That would help. Secondly--
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put a question. Will the Secretary of State answer? We are moving on in questions today. Come along.
Mr. Byers: It is true that business-to-business transactions over the internet are proceeding very quickly and developing rapidly. However, my hon. Friend raises an important issue, which is about transactions with individual consumers over the internet. There is some merit in the idea of an e-mark to brand the validity of transactions. It is one of the issues that my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce is considering.
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): As the Home Secretary has apparently bet his annual salary that the estimates of the British Chambers of Commerce are grossly exaggerated, could the Department of Trade and Industry, as the Department responsible for e-commerce, give its own estimates of what the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill will cost industry? Could the Secretary of State also calm industry's anxiety by giving a categorical assurance that the compliance costs of meeting national interests will be fully reimbursed by the Government?
Mr. Byers: The Home Office, as the Bill's sponsor, has done its own assessment of the business cost. I repeat the point that I made earlier: if business has genuine concerns--I know that it has expressed some recently--about the measure that the Home Office is taking through the House of Lords, we are prepared to listen to those concerns. That is exactly what we did with the Electronic Communications Act 2000. I believe that we were able to ensure that that measure was very effective by listening to the views being expressed, and I am sure that we shall do exactly the same with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. That assurance is there. If business wants to discuss the matter with the Home Office, the Home Secretary has invited it to do precisely that.
Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton): It was thanks to Conservative Members that the over- regulatory first draft of the Electronic Communications Bill was shaken up and whittled down to the light-touch
approach that we finally saw. Now, however, it seems that all those excessive, interventionist regulations were simply sent down the road through St. James's park to the Home Office, and included in the RIP Bill. There seems to be a complete absence of joined-up government.More important, the Secretary of State himself seems to have completely abandoned the DTI's role within government as the protector and promoter of business and enterprise. What liaison has he himself had--it is all very well for him to talk about the Home Secretary doing this or that--with the Home Office in the formation of the RIP Bill? Or is he completely content with a Bill that puts yet more burdens on to business and is likely to cost British business £46 billion in lost business?
Mr. Byers: I replied to that question a little earlier. The hon. Gentleman has not reflected on the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), in which I made it clear that if business is concerned about the Bill's contents, we shall consult with business. That is exactly what we shall do. The Home Office is providing a secure and safe environment for e-commerce.
We are going to take no lessons on e-commerce from a party that supported key escrow--which got the whole of business up in arms against it. Conservative Members know very well that that was the Conservative party's exact policy. The Conservative party was the party of key escrow, and business opposed it totally. Our proposals are ones that business actually supports.
Regional Selective Assistance
4. Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): When he will publish the map agreed by the EU for eligibility for regional selective assistance; and if he will make a statement. [124583]
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): As soon as possible, once the map has been agreed with the Commission. I hope that that answer is in compliance with your desires, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Absolutely. Perfect.
Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister of State give special consideration to those areas seeking eligibility for inclusion on the map and which were on it in July 1999 but have lost that position in the most recent proposals? Will he consider those cases sympathetically? Will he also acknowledge that, now that the United States Trade Department has proposed trade sanctions against the importation of cashmere jerseys, state aid will be more important than ever in developing the local economy in areas such as my own, in places such as Kelso? Will he undertake to get the map's details resolved as soon as possible, and try to impress on the European Commission the urgent need to sort out the underlying trade dispute with the United States?
Mr. Caborn: On the first point, yes, we shall try to move the Commission on the matter as quickly as possible. I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire, which is shared by many other hon. Members, to clear up the matter as quickly as possible. We have a number of indicative offers out for regional selective assistance,
but they have been held up because of non-clearance of the map. I hope that the Commission will deal with the matter sooner rather than later.We are making very strong representations on cashmere and the United States's new approach on the carousel. The European Commission knows our position on those issues, on which we shall be making separate representations.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): In relation to West Cumbria, the gross domestic product figures that the European Commission uses as the basis on which it calculates regional selective assistance levels are simple, plain rubbish. They do not reflect what is going on in reality, as we lose substantial numbers of jobs in various industries. Can we have an inquiry into the make-up of those statistics and a review of the whole arrangement?
Mr. Caborn: I cannot comment in detail on the issues that my hon. Friend has raised, but the statistics are consistent across the Community. If specific areas have problems with the statistical analysis, we will consider them. The statisticians, both here in the United Kingdom and in the European Union, are professional people of integrity. If there are fundamental mistakes or flaws, we will consider them.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): What role will the regional development agencies play in deciding how money will be spent in regional assisted areas? Will the Minister consider carefully what is happening in the south-west, where the RDA looks after Cornwall? The RDA has shown an appalling lack of activity, especially in my constituency, in leaving the best site in the south-west empty because of its inaction in getting the Portland naval site freed up. Will he please get a grip on that awful organisation?
Mr. Caborn: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a meeting with Sir Michael Lickiss, the chairman of the RDA. If he has complaints beyond that meeting, we will discuss them. The strategy presented by the south-west RDA was a bottom-up process and was the subject of wide consultation in the south-west. The business community in the area accepted that strategy, and so did the Government, and that is what we will work towards. We will look into the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North): I thank the Minister for the work that he is doing to get the objective 2 map agreed, as well as the regional state aid map. It is important that we balance the money available for communities across the country, but I ask him to do all that he can to get a decision by the summer. In the interim and in respect of North Staffordshire, can he confirm that his officials are giving advice that conditional offers can be made, pending agreement by the Commission? In other words, can he confirm that everything that can be done is being done to benefit the North Staffordshire community?
Mr. Caborn: The answer is yes, and we have been giving out indicative offers since 1 January this year, to ensure some stability for the process, but we cannot make decisions until the European Commission makes decisions on the map. By the way, if the Staffordshire newspaper The Sentinel was as supportive of its area as other regional
newspapers, it could promote the area instead of running it down all the time. It is disgraceful that an official of the Commission has actually had to write to the editor about its inaccurate reports, which affect the area's industrial base. The letter stated:
- Moreover, the quotes in question are insulting to a UK Cabinet Minister and his Department.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |