Commons Sitting of 7 February 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Brazil
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What support her Department is giving to encourage sustainable development in Brazil. [147638]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): Brazil is an upper-middle-income country with very great inequality. Nearly a quarter of the population live in extreme poverty. We believe that there is a great deal that the Brazilian Government can do to resolve the situation and promote sustainable development. We are glad to see that they are making progress, but they still have a long way to go.
    We are providing £8 million this year and £10 million next year in technical assistance to promote sustainable livelihoods and health services for poor people in the wider Amazon region, and to support Brazilian efforts to increase transparency of government. We try to maximise our strategic impact by working alongside major programmes such as those of the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, which each commit around $1 billion to Brazil each year.
    Mr. Blizzard: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment, and wish him well in his new role.
    We all know that Brazil contains some of the world's most sensitive environment, but the people who live there obviously want their economy to develop and become more prosperous. What can we do to help Brazil achieve the right balance in that respect?
    Water management is a very important part of sustainable development. What can my hon. Friend do to support the implementation of the new federal water law and the work of the new federal water agency in Brazil? We in this country have considerable expertise in that regard.
    Mr. Mullin: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I look forward to serving with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, of whom I have long been an admirer:
    910
    she is one of the most effective Ministers in the House. I am also happy to relinquish my title as king of the Adjournment debates.
    I understand that the national water authority to which my hon. Friend referred was set up only in December to implement national policy on water resources. It is therefore a little early for us to comment on its developmental needs, and we have no current plans to develop activities in the water and sanitation sectors.
    Our basic strategy is to focus scarce resources where we can have the greatest impact. That generally involves helping the poorest people in the poorest regions to enjoy sustainable life styles. We are a major contributor to, for example, the pilot programme to conserve the Brazilian rain forest.
    Mr. John Bercow: In pursuit of sustainable development in Brazil, does the campaign to eliminate illiteracy focus primarily on the phonetic approach?
    Mr. Mullin: To be quite honest, that is a matter for the Government of Brazil. I happen to speak for Her Majesty's Government.
    Brazil is actually quite a rich country, and we believe that it could do much more to help to deal with the huge inequalities in Brazilian society. We are always willing to help, and we think that Brazil has made progress recently under President Cardoso, but we feel that there is a good deal more progress to be made.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that although Brazil is correctly designated a developing country, some parts of the Brazilian economy are very developed? For instance, nowadays Brazilian steel is of high quality and, in terms of both quality and cost, it competes very well with western-produced steel. I realise that it is difficult, but will my hon. Friend try to ensure that money is given to Brazil for development only, and not used to develop areas that are already competitive?
    Mr. Mullin: I entirely understand where my right hon. Friend is coming from. As I have said, our aid is targeted on the poorest people living in the poorest parts of the country. That does not include help for the development of its steel industry.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is the Minister aware of the scam whereby people in Britain have been sold plots of land in northern Brazil, ostensibly to save that land from being developed? If so, he will know that those concerned have been arrested; but what advice can his Department give people in the United Kingdom about buying plots of land to ensure that they are maintained for sustainable development, and not simply for racketeers?
    Mr. Mullin: My advice to people in the United Kingdom would be not to buy plots of land in Brazil. Any scams are of course a matter for the Brazilian Government, but we are anxious to ensure before we start giving aid that it is going not to feed a scam but to feed the people who need it, and to help them develop sustainable life styles.

    Third World Debt
    Mr. Jim Dobbin: What progress has been made on the eradication of third world debt. [147639]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): There are 41 countries that are so poor and indebted that, without exceptional help, they will be unable to escape from their debt overhang, to focus Government spending on poverty reduction and to borrow wisely for sustainable development. In 2000, 22 of those countries qualified for exceptional debt relief totalling more than $50 billion. That will reduce their debts by around two thirds, on average. Of the 13 remaining countries, we hope that as many as four will qualify for relief this year, but many others are affected by conflict, and are unlikely to qualify without making progress in ending that conflict and focusing on the needs of the poor.
    Mr. Dobbin: Does the Secretary of State agree that, under the present Government, Britain has taken a lead internationally not only in areas of debt reduction, but, more generally, in areas of development? That is because of the Government's increased investment in debt reduction. I believe that that commitment will be on-going. Does she agree that it would be a disaster for development if the Conservative party were to assume power, with its in-built commitment to getting rid of debt reduction and to making cuts—particularly cuts in taxation for the wealthy—which would affect millions of people throughout the world?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree; I am most proud of the record on debt relief, for which people both in Britain and throughout the world have campaigned, but the big change is that the IMF and World Bank now back countries' strategies for their macro-economies, revenues, debt relief and aid to reduce poverty systematically. We led on that; everyone can be proud of the United Kingdom's general effort.
    I agree that the Conservative party is talking nonsense economics. Its figures do not add up. It says that it will cut taxes and increase spending—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. As I have mentioned before, it is not for the Minister to concern herself with the Opposition's figures. She is here to answer for the Government.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: The right hon. Lady will no doubt be pleased to know that, now that we have identified £8 billion worth of savings, not a single penny will come from the Department for International Development's budget. I am glad that she raised the matter.
    The right hon. Lady will remember that, in March 1999, I raised with her the issue of debt relief for Nigeria. What progress has the international community made in enabling Nigeria to qualify for debt relief? It is, after all, a country of 120 million people, with £30 billion of debt overhang, racked up by a military dictator who has now gone. Is that not an example of where the heavily indebted
    912
    poorest countries initiative is too slow and bureaucratic? What is she doing to ensure that Nigeria qualifies for some debt relief?
    Clare Short: I remind the House of the Tory record on development assistance. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am simply trying to answer the question. We inherited a shrinking aid budget. We have reversed the cuts. I do not believe that the Tories can cut taxes and protect the aid budget: the arithmetic just does not add up.
    Nigeria is not an HIPC country. Because it is an oil producer, it is enjoying a big increase in revenues; but it has been dreadfully run under the military dictatorship. Poverty is very great. Major reform is needed, so that its resources can be used beneficially for its people. It has a debt rescheduling agreement with the Paris club. The delay now in Nigeria is in economic reform; it is desperately important that it should reform. It is a big country. Its president has fine motives, but there has been no economic reform as yet, which is very worrying.
    Mr. Streeter: I find the Secretary of State's answer very complacent and worrying. If she is not prepared to take effective action on debt relief in Nigeria, will she at least take effective action to ensure that the new Nigerian Government can recover funds that were illegally stashed away by outgoing President Abacha? Several other countries are taking effective action to ensure that those stolen funds are recovered. Why are not the British Government taking effective action to help the poor people of Nigeria?
    By the way, in our policy document, which was launched this morning, a copy of which I will send to the Secretary of State, we make it clear that there will be no cuts in a Conservative aid budget.
    Clare Short: Every time the hon. Gentleman gets up, he shows his ignorance—so I do not know what will be in that document. For Nigeria to prosper, its oil resources, which have been ripped off by a corrupt elite, thus distorting the country's whole economy, need to be deployed to benefit the people. Debt relief from outside, when Nigeria will not refocus its own resources, would not help the people of Nigeria. The policy that he advocates is foolish and not in the interests of the poor of Nigeria. He should look more closely at the documents that my Department publishes—he might learn something.

    Arms Trade
    Mr. Harry Cohen: What assessment she has made of the impact of the arms trade on underdeveloped countries; and if she will make a statement. [147640]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): There are very few applications for licences for exports from the United Kingdom to developing countries. Where relevant, my Department assesses whether exports would hamper the sustainable development of such a country. If we believe that they would, we object to them. However, many developing countries have bloated and ill-disciplined armed forces.

    913
    Since March 1999, therefore, we have started to engage in security sector reform to help those countries to build responsible armed forces.
    The Government will shortly publish a draft Bill to strengthen controls on arms exports. We are also working to ensure that the very important United Nations 2001 conference on small arms leads to comprehensive action, including the removal of small arms from the continent of Africa, where they are fuelling conflict.
    Mr. Cohen: I thank my right hon. Friend for that important answer. Has she seen the new report from the Campaign Against Arms Trade which shows that, every day, that trade kills or maims 2,000 children around the world? Has she seen the Oxfam briefings on Mindenao or the Congo which state that tens of thousands of people, many of whom are children, are being killed by the small arms trade? Is not the trade dramatically undercutting her otherwise excellent international development policy?
    Could we have more detail on what action the Government will take against the illegal small arms trade? Will she also use her weight in Government to press for registration and regulation of the brokers operating from this country?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that, on his last point, he will be pleased with the contents of the forthcoming Bill. There is no doubt that conflict in Africa, for example, is desperately holding back the development of that continent. In fact, 20 per cent. of its people are affected by conflict and becoming ever poorer. Small arms are the means of perpetuating that conflict. Massive numbers of small arms have already been traded and distributed across the continent, where there is also the capacity to produce ammunition.
    As small arms are not coming from the United Kingdom, we want the United Nations initiative to work to ensure that arms are handed in and that exports from the Ukraine, for example, are stopped. We need the United Nations conference on small arms to be as powerful as the conference on land mines and to make a real effort to remove small arms from areas affected by endemic conflict.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Secretary of State tell the House to what extent the Department for International Development was consulted in the preparation of the draft Bill on the control of arms and arms brokers? Will she say why, four years after the Scott report, we have still not seen the promised draft Bill? Is that just laziness on the part of other Departments, or is she concerned that the Government have been influenced by the arms industry?
    Clare Short: I give the House an absolute, 100 per cent. assurance that the Government have not been influenced by the arms industry. My Department has also been fully consulted on the Bill to be published shortly. It has not yet been introduced because we have had Queen's Speeches stacked with legislation that we have had to pass. We have much more good legislation to come. That is why it is very important that we be returned at the next election.

    Balkans
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What projects her Department is supporting towards the rebuilding of communities in the Balkans. [147641]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): The UK effort in the Balkans is designed to help to build democratic government and effective economies. We focus on technical assistance that encourages best possible use of European Union, World Bank and other large-scale resources. Overall, we have committed more than £100 million to long-term development programmes in the next three years. Additionally, we are a major contributor to European Community reconstruction programmes that are worth about £3 billion over the next six years.
    Mr. Marsden: In thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I add my congratulations to him on his appointment? May I also pay tribute to the work of our forces in Kosovo and elsewhere in the Balkans? In the case of the engineers, they are literally rebuilding communities. Does he agree with the view of Oxfam and other voluntary agencies that one of the most crucial roles we can play in that area is to rebuild small-scale economic communities, and particularly to build up civil society and non-governmental organisations? Will he assure us that the Department will give priority to considering the support and funding of those types of projects—not least because the successful regeneration of small-scale economies in Kosovo and elsewhere in the Balkans will reduce the pressures on migration?
    Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words and for his justified comments about the work of the armed forces. I agree with him that strengthening democratic institutions and civil society is essential to the creation of healthy democracies in Kosovo and Serbia. We are in discussion with a wide range of NGOs and community-based organisations about ways in which we can assist. In Kosovo, we have a programme to reform public administration that will include co-operation between local government and community-based organisations. For example, last November we funded two Kosovar NGOs to monitor the local elections and to train election officials. We intend to repeat that exercise for this year's provincial elections. We have also been helping to fund the Army's reconstruction work, and we have extended the help to the small enterprises that my hon. Friend mentioned.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On behalf of the Opposition, may I welcome the Minister to his post and congratulate him on his promotion to dealing with international development matters? Will he, in turn, join me in congratulating the organisations helping to rebuild the Balkans, and the British Council in particular? The council operates throughout the Balkans, but especially in Belgrade and Kosovo.
    The Department for International Development has drastically reduced the number of contracts that it places with the British Council. Moreover, the council's budget has been cut, and it will have to spend £18 million on making 900 people redundant. Will the Minister guarantee

    915
    that no more cuts will be made to the council's budget, and that its valuable work in the Balkans will not be affected?
    Mr. Mullin: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. I certainly join her in congratulating the British Council on its work around the world. As she is aware, the council is funded by the Department. Although there has been some reorganisation, the council's budget has not been cut and it will continue with the great deal of good work that it does around the world.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend, and thank him for the commitment to spending £100 million in Kosovo? May I also alert him to the fact that the Scottish charities' Kosovo appeal is grateful for the £3 million that it received from his Department, the United Nations, the USA and the EU? That money will enable the charities to help thousands of people to rebuild their homes and their lives.
    Mr. Mullin: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Scottish charities' Kosovo appeal which, along with many other organisations active in the area, has played a very constructive part in the process of rebuilding that shattered economy.

    St. Helena
    Mr. Bob Russell: When she expects to make a decision about constructing an airfield on the island of St. Helena. [147642]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): We received the draft summary report of the comparative study of options for sea and air access to St. Helena at the end of December, and the draft full report at the end of January. We will now discuss the findings with the St. Helena Government. No presumption should be made that the report will lead to support being offered for construction of an airfield. The study is intended to identify the most cost-efficient solution to St. Helena's international passenger and cargo transportation needs.
    Mr. Russell: I welcome the Minister to his new portfolio, and thank him for that very full reply. However, I am disappointed: I had hoped that he would fly to St. Helena with me in May next year, on the occasion of the island's 500th anniversary. Does the Minister have any idea when the airport could open, once work on it has begun?
    Mr. Mullin: I am happy to fly anywhere with the hon. Gentleman. As I said, we have only just received the draft summary of the report, so it is still a little too early to start making firm commitments. The Government are committed to ensuring continued access to St. Helena. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed already that the Department will provide funding equal to the least expensive capital options. The choice, of course, is between replacing HMS St. Helena, and building an
    916
    airport with related infrastructure. The decision will depend on the outcome of the study that we are considering.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that when I had the pleasure of going to St. Helena on behalf of the then Government, more than a decade ago, a delegation of the island's elected councillors told me that they did not want the airstrip that was on offer? Airstrips are not compulsory.
    Mr. Mullin: I certainly agree that airstrips are not compulsory, and we shall, of course, take into account the wishes of the islanders. However, we are being pressed quite hard on the subject by people with various interests, including some of the islanders. We are studying the options and will consider which is best.

    Disease Treatment
    Ms Julia Drown: If she will make a statement on her Department's plans to encourage investment in research and development of drugs and vaccines to treat the major diseases which affect people in developing countries. [147643]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working with others to encourage the development of better drugs and vaccines for the major diseases of poverty, such as HIV/AIDS—for which there should be a vaccine within 10 years—malaria and tuberculosis. We are also focusing on the development of universal primary health care systems. Most of the poor of the world are not in touch with a health system that can deliver drugs to them, let alone improved drugs. We must develop on both fronts.
    Ms Drown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the good work that the Government are doing in this field. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although drug companies need to make profits, they are under a moral obligation to make life-saving drugs available? Rather than mounting legal challenges against poor countries which are trying to import cheaper drugs, should not drug companies be making life-saving drugs affordable for the millions of people at risk from AIDS and other diseases?
    Clare Short: I agree that we must ensure that the best drugs are available to people across the world. However, the World Health Organisation has a list of the 90 basic drugs that a country needs; almost all of them have no patent or copyright. The problem is that people are not in touch with health systems.
    Anti-retroviral drugs simply delay death from HIV, they do not cure the disease. Glaxo and other companies have said that they will make such drugs available at cost price. Even so, they are still expensive and most developing countries cannot afford them. However, I agree with my hon. Friend's fundamental point that there should not be legal clashes between companies and Governments. We should reach agreement to look at the benefits to the poor, and that is what we are trying to encourage across the world.

    HIV/AIDS (Southern Africa)
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What recent representations she has received regarding help needed to tackle HIV/AIDS in southern Africa. [147644]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): HIV/AIDS infection rates among pregnant women average 25 per cent. in southern Africa. That is a cause of great human suffering and a major setback to development. For example, life expectancy in Botswana—a very successful economy in Africa—is projected to fall from 71 years in the mid-1980s to 42 or under by 2010. HIV/AIDS prevention and better care are a major focus of our work in southern Africa. Since January 1999, we have committed £74 million to this work there.
    Mr. Pike: My right hon. Friend, who is visiting South Africa next week, knows that this issue in southern Africa is extremely important to the economy of the whole region. More than a third of the known cases of HIV/AIDS are in southern Africa. Clearly, education and prevention are essential to stopping the spread of the disease.
    Will my right hon. Friend speak to the drugs companies and the South African Government to try and end the present legal proceedings, so that progress can be made in ensuring that the necessary drugs are made available?
    Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. We must take action on anti-retrovirals, but prevention is more important. In Uganda, which has been a leader in education, infection rates among young people are dropping, which looks as if there has been a significant change in behaviour. That kind of programme must be put in place across Africa.
    I shall be meeting representatives of the South African Government, and I have talked with the drug companies here. The legal action is very regrettable, and if we can do anything to reach agreement instead, we will.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the right hon. Lady accept that the fight against HIV and AIDS in southern Africa has been hampered by the attitude of those in power in such countries as South Africa and Zimbabwe? Will she try to impress on those countries the need for prevention, education and treatment, and do all that she can to assist the people suffering from these dreadful conditions?
    Clare Short: I am delighted to agree with the hon. Lady—that may be a first, but I hope not the last. What has been achieved in Uganda, and the reduction in infection rates among young people in Lusaka in Zambia and in Nairobi show that the big efforts made in prevention and education are paying dividends for the younger generation. Across the world, it is predominantly young people who are being infected, more of them women than men. Such efforts are therefore saving the next generation. We must persuade all the Governments of Africa to do what the best of them are doing. There has been progress in South Africa recently, and we hope that Zimbabwe will move forward too.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagement
    Q 1. [147668] Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    I also spoke on the telephone to Mr. Sharon, the new Israeli Prime Minister, and offered our help in the difficult times that may lie ahead for the middle-east peace process.
    Mr. Edwards: The decision by Corus last week to shed 6,000 steel jobs will have a devastating effect in south Wales, especially at the Llanwern steelworks in my constituency, where 1,300 jobs are about to be lost. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the management of Corns, and especially its chairman Sir Brian Moffatt, have treated the work force appallingly and have not co-operated with the Government? May I urge him to put pressure on Corns to work with the Government, the work force and the National Assembly to save those jobs and secure British steel production in the future?
    The Prime Minister: We hope that, even at this stage, Corus will be prepared to rethink its decision. We are in close touch with the company, the work force and Members of the Welsh Assembly who have been active on the issue. The Corns work force are highly productive and highly skilled, and they deserve a decent future. I know that it is no consolation to them or to people in other parts of the country where jobs have been lost, but I was pleased at the announcement of new jobs at Bridgend earlier in the week and at Ellesmere Port. We must do everything possible to safeguard highly skilled, productive jobs in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. William Hague: The Foreign Secretary repeated this week that the Government, if re-elected, would make an assessment on joining the euro early in the next Parliament. Does "early" mean in the first two years of that Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: "Early in the next Parliament" means exactly what it says. It would of course be within two years.
    Mr. Hague: Ah, progress. The Prime Minister is more forthcoming than the Foreign Secretary, who said that early meant early, or the Trade and Industry Secretary, who under the helpful headline "Byers reopens cabinet split on single currency", reiterated his support for the single currency last night. If "early" means within two years, could it mean within months of a general election?
    The Prime Minister: It has been made clear already that it does not mean that. What is important when that assessment is made is that the economic tests are met.

    919
    What is absurd is the right hon. Gentleman's position, which is that he will rule out the single currency in principle, but only for one Parliament.
    Mr. Hague: It is no good the Prime Minister trying to distract attention from his policy, which is under scrutiny this afternoon. The Government have not known what "early" means. They do not know whether it means months or years, so when he says—[Interruption.] Let us get this clear. When he says that he will make an assessment on abolishing the pound early in the next Parliament, is he ruling out that being within months of a general election?
    The Prime Minister: I did that about a year or 18 months ago. Of course we will not move immediately, but we will do it within a reasonable time frame. Surely the issue is what the sensible policy to have is. Is it to judge according to the economic tests or to rule the single currency out on political grounds? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the speech by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My right hon. Friend said that if we were to rule out the euro on political grounds, which is the right hon. Gentleman's policy, we would lose massive inward investment. [Interruption.] No, it is not waffle; it is jobs in this country. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman—perhaps he will comment on it when he gets back up—that Nissan said in terms that if we ruled out the euro for the next Parliament on political grounds, the investment in Sunderland would not come.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has a cheek to lecture anyone on manufacturing jobs when 6,000 manufacturing jobs have just been lost under his Government and one third of a million have been lost in this country since he took office. Now that the Prime Minister has partly adopted the policy that he has always criticised—of ruling out joining the single currency for a certain period—because he will not make an assessment until many months after the election, and as he is so clear about the timing, will he tell us, on this central point in his coming manifesto, how the question in that referendum would be phrased?
    The Prime Minister: The question can be phrased at a later time, but the issue is perfectly simple: whether we join he single currency or not. The question is, what is the right policy? We have made it clear that the tests should be the economic tests that have been set out and the convergence of the economy. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain to the House why, if he is against the single currency as a matter of principle, he is against it only for five years.
    Mr. Hague: There is only—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman. There is only one honest policy: to tell the country what a future Government would do. The Prime Minister is unable and unwilling to tell us what he will do because he does not want to admit that he wants to scrap the pound after the coming election. He is not able to be more forthcoming about the timing. He is not able to say what the question will be. It would be easy to conclude that he does not know very much; actually, he does know the answer to
    920
    those questions but he does not want to admit it. Why does he not have the courage to tell the country that he wants to scrap the pound after the next election?
    The Prime Minister: We have said that, in principle, we favour Britain joining a successful single currency; in practice, the economic tests must be met—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer!"J I answered the right hon. Gentleman's question when he first put it—rather to his surprise. The final decision will be for the British people in the referendum. That is all absolutely clear. What is not clear is how one can be against it as a matter of principle, but only for five years. The real agenda was let out of the bag—rather well—by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in a speech yesterday. He said:
    "I urge my fellow countrymen and women to agree with me that we must renegotiate this unhappy relationship"—
    with the EU—
    "before it is too late."
    Conservative Members are nodding.
    I have explained our policy: to make a judgment according to the tests, and to do it in a way that allows the British people the final say in a referendum. There is no question of our renegotiating our basic terms of membership of the European Union. Given that the right hon. Member for Wokingham is again one of the party people at Conservative central office, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would like to get up and disown him.
    Mr. Hague: Our policy is to be in Europe but not run by Europe—a policy supported by the vast majority of people in this country. The Prime Minister's European policy is like his Minister for Europe—not trusted by anyone, giving no straight answers, and half the Cabinet wants to get rid of it. Everyone knows that his European policy is to keep the Minister and dump the pound. Should not his policy be to dump the Minister and keep the pound?
    The Prime Minister: These stirring speeches in favour of the pound would be much more convincing if the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not ruling it out for just five years. That is an absurd position to be in. Of course, he did not answer the question about the right hon. Member for Wokingham, because the right hon. Gentleman was not the only one to say that. At the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition was forced to intervene with Baroness Thatcher. He was forced to stand up to her, which, for him, took a lot of courage. He slapped her down and said:
    "I'm pleased to say I enjoy excellent relations with Lady Thatcher".
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! I am sure that he does. The truth is that our policy—to judge, according to the economic tests, what is good for British jobs, British business and industry—is the right one. The final decision will be for people to make in a referendum. The real reason the right hon. Gentleman rules it out, in principle, as a matter of politics, is that he knows—as we saw a moment or two ago—that a large part of his party want out of Europe altogether. If we did leave, we would lose jobs,

    921
    investment and influence. The truth of the matter is that it is not I who have to explain my policy; the right hon. Gentleman has to explain his. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Steve Pound—
    Hon. Members: Keep the pound—[Laughter.]
    Mr. Stephen Pound: Being loved by the entire House is an experience that is completely new to me.
    Did the Prime Minister see the report in The Times today listing the Cardinal Wiseman high school in Greenford as one of the most improved high schools in the country, notwithstanding the fact that my wife is a governor and my daughter a pupil of that school? Will the Prime Minister pay credit to Paul Patrick and his staff at Cardinal Wiseman and agree with me that here is graphic evidence of an education system that is improving and a Government who are delivering?
    The Prime Minister: There is one pound that we shall definitely keep.
    In relation to the education system, yesterday's Ofsted report showed that nine out of 10 secondary schools are improving, that primary schools have made a huge step change and that there is improvement in the standard of teaching. Of course, it also drew attention to problems in the schools, but that is precisely why it is important that we make the extra investment. Over the next few years, massive investment will go into our primary and secondary schools and into university education. We will put that money in, and the Conservative party would take it out.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: On the subject of education and following on from his response to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), will the Prime Minister guarantee that he will not put up student tuition fees if his party wins a second term of office?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to top-up fees, we have already made it clear that we do not favour top-up fees.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister should surely recognise, because the Government's own research demonstrates, that students and potential students are being disadvantaged and put off going into the tertiary sector as a result of his policy. We have got rid of tuition fees in the Scottish context. Why does he remain wedded to that tax on learning in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: First, actually there have been 500,000 extra students in further and higher education since we came to office. Secondly, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to look at the following words very carefully:
    "We support the Government's proposal to end maintenance grants and replace them with income-contingent loans as the fairest way of securing a greater contribution from students."—[Official Report, 16 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 995.]
    922
    That was said, during the passage of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill, by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the Liberal Democrat education spokesman.
    Ms Dari Taylor: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is more than aware of the anxieties being felt by steel communities throughout Great Britain, which of course includes Teesside. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cancellation by Sir Brian Moffatt of a meeting with Back Benchers representing steel communities is a continued sign of his sheer indifference to the devastation that he has caused?
    The Prime Minister: As I said a moment or two ago, it is important that we carry on working with the company and we hope that, even at this stage, it can reconsider. I know that my hon. Friend speaks for many of her constituents when she talks of their anger, because these are well-paid, highly productive and skilled jobs, often in areas of high unemployment; but we will stand ready to help, as we have done before, in any way that we can.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Is the Prime Minister proud of a record that has seen the number of vacancies in secondary schools double in his term of office? Is he proud to see secondary school class sizes at their highest for 25 years? Is he proud to see an inspector's report, published yesterday, that says that indiscipline in our schools is getting worse year by year, and that teacher recruitment over the lifetime of this Parliament is down by about 14 per cent? Is the 3.7 per cent. that the Government have given teachers adequate reward for that endeavour? The £200 million that local authorities will have to find to bridge the gap between what the Government have given and what they will have—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister knows what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
    The Prime Minister: Let me correct the hon. Gentleman on the facts. The inspector's report actually found that nine out of 10 secondary schools were improving. It is true that he found, in a minority of schools, that there was an increase in disruptive behaviour. He then went on to say, however, that the Government were taking action to deal with that, and that that action would deal with it. We are putting in an additional £200 million to deal with some of the unruly pupils and some of the excluded pupils.
    In respect of class sizes, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been an increase of something like 0.3 of a pupil since the election. Class sizes in secondary schools have been going up for a very long period of years. However, in primary schools, class sizes have fallen as a result of the additional money that we have put in. Now, we are making a £5 billion increase in investment in education. Of course, there is always more that we can do, and we have to do more. However, given that we are spending

    923
    five, six or seven times more on education than they ever asked us to spend, it really is absurd of the Liberal Democrats to accuse us of not spending enough.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Israel, and obviously many outside, hold the newly elected Prime Minister of Israel to be indirectly responsible, as he knew what was going to happen, for the massacre by a Christian Lebanese faction of Palestinian men, women and children—even babes in arms—in September 1982? Does my right hon. Friend agree that what happened yesterday will make it that much more difficult to have a peace process working in Israel and for the Palestinians, and that one of the ironies is that Sharon's victory yesterday will bring satisfaction to many terror groups in the Arab world?
    The Prime Minister: The fact is that Mr. Sharon has been elected Prime Minister, and it is important now that we, as a country, do everything that we can to further the peace process in the middle east. It is important for the middle east, and for the security of the whole world. Whatever differences there have been before, it is important that we work with the duly elected Prime Minister in Israel. The process is in a very fragile state indeed, and not just Britain, but the European Union and the United States of America, have to do everything that we can to put the process back on track and work with Mr. Sharon to deliver it.

    European Rapid Reaction Force
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the military advantages of a European rapid reaction force outside the NATO structure.
    The Prime Minister: I have already made the position clear.
    Dr. Lewis: For the sake of those who might find that answer obscure even by the Prime Minister's standards, the question was: what are the advantages of having a European rapid reaction force outside the NATO structure?
    Does the Prime Minister accept that the first world war certainly, and the second world war arguably, grew out of crises that escalated out of control without the Americans being involved? Does he also accept that the great achievement of NATO was to guarantee American involvement? If he does accept that, how can he possibly justify creating such dangerous arrangements, which would pave the way for conflicts in which the Americans would not be involved on the side of the European states?
    The Prime Minister: Let me read what the American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said yesterday:
    "I think if we approach the European security and defence initiative … with an understanding that it is firmly embedded in NATO, and we're not duplicating planning capabilities, and that we're adding to the overall capacity of both NATO and the EU … then there's no reason to see this as destabilising NATO in any way. In fact, I think it's our common belief that it will strengthen NATO."
    Colin Powell's words reflect not just American policy, but British policy. Once again, I shall state the facts for the hon. Gentleman. This is for peacekeeping and
    924
    humanitarian missions. It is for circumstances where NATO is not engaged. It is perfectly sensible that Europe should have the capability, in circumstances where NATO is not engaged, to engage in those missions.
    Let me give a classic example from the past 10 years. In Bosnia, in the early 1990s, because there was no European defence capability and because, at that time, the Americans did not wish to be involved, literally thousands of people were slaughtered right on the doorstep of Europe, so I regard the hon. Gentleman's comparison with the first and second world wars as absolutely fatuous. I am afraid that it is an example of how anything with the word "Europe" does something to the mentality of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in discussion with NATO colleagues concerning the European rapid reaction force, will he make it clear that there is no possibility whatever of this country or, I hope, any other European country signing up for, agreeing to or participating in national missile defence, because it would be a nuclear proliferation that would be a danger to the whole planet?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that it will not surprise my hon. Friend that I cannot make such a statement. As I have said in exchanges with the Leader of the Opposition, it is sensible to wait until we have a proposal, but I have no doubt at all that, as ever, we shall work closely with our American allies.

    Engagement
    Sir Robert Smith: Does the Prime Minister accept that the poorest pensioners in our society today are those who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee, but who fail to claim it?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is true that people who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee but who do not claim it are in poverty. We have introduced it and hundreds of thousands of people claim it. We are mounting a campaign now to increase the take-up, and those pensioners, like all the other pensioners, will get the benefit of the winter allowance of £200 and, if they are over 75, of free television licences. I say to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that we can always do more, but we have to do more within the resources that we have. We have many claims on those resources and, at some point, the Liberal Democrats must come to the realisation that there is a limit to the amount of money that any Government can spend.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that setting universities free of all Government regulation would mean lower teaching quality, spiralling student costs and top-up fees through the back door?
    The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. I should perhaps educate some Conservative Members about their policy. The position that they will take at the election is to cut—[Interruption.] They shake their heads, but I have not even said what it is yet. Their spending cuts to fund their tax plans include

    925
    £1.3 billion taken out of public provision for universities, which will mean a rocketing tuition fee for any student. They have no way of paying for that policy and that is yet another reason why people will not vote for them at the election.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I thank the Prime Minister for his letter today about the Krishna Maharaj case. Although I understand that he has necessarily reproduced much of the Florida state case, may I ask him to go forward on the point that he made about doing all that can be done?
    May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in Germany, a similar case cost $1 million for its national to be able to get his case properly represented at federal level and state level? I am not asking the Prime Minister to say yes or no today to such an approach, but will he encourage his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—perhaps also the Home Office in view of Mr. Maharaj's possible repatriation—and Law Officers to meet the Bar Council human rights people and others working for Krishna Maharaj to make sure that his sentence was justified and that, if any more can properly be done, it will be considered?
    The Prime Minister: We will of course do anything that we can and should properly do in relation to this case. I understand that representatives of the Foreign Office will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, and I shall ask them to contact him to arrange the meeting. We can then take whatever meetings are appropriate from there. I also understand that representatives of the Foreign Office previously met Mr. Maharaj's lawyer, and consular officials will of course be happy to set up another meeting with his legal team. As I say, subject to what is proper, we shall do what we can in respect of this case.
    Mr. Paul Goggins: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in welcoming this week's opening of the second runway at Manchester airport, which is now able to handle 40 million passengers a year? Does he agree that, once the new capacity is fully utilised, it could help to reduce the increasing pressures on London's airports as well as create thousands of new jobs in my constituency and throughout the north-west?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree. Opening the second runway is important for jobs in the area and for business, not only in the north-west but throughout the United Kingdom. I am delighted to congratulate all those who worked on the project.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Does the Prime Minister accept that the task of restoring public confidence in public life is as important in this Parliament as it was in the last? In view of the widespread perception that political honours are sold to party contributors on a scale unknown since Lloyd George's time, will the right hon. Gentleman fulfil his promise to clean up politics?
    The Prime Minister: We accept the duty to ensure that our political life is clean, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement about political honours.
    Maria Eagle: When outlining the Government's public expenditure plans, does my right
    926
    hon. Friend believe that it is essential to explain their funding to the people of the country? Does he also believe that every other party that presents plans should be able to provide similar explanations and that any party that does not is unfit to govern?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly ensure that any proposals that we make as a Government are properly costed. That is the right way to go about it. On the Conservative party, I could not put it better—[Interruption.] We have noted some sensitivity from Conservative Members on a certain subject. Earlier this week, the Conservative health spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), said:
    "A party that cannot realistically say how it intends to foot such a substantial bill is not fit to govern."—[Official Report, 5 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 740.]
    I agree.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Prime Minister knows that the inquiry into a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport ended nearly two years ago, lasted more than four years and cost approximately £12 million. When can my constituents and people throughout south-west London expect to see the inspector's report, which is public property for which they paid? When will the Government tackle the environmental damage caused by unrestricted growth of air transport?
    The Prime Minister: The inquiry is due to report on the latter point. It is important to realise that, although the inquiry has taken a long time—no one is surprised about that—and it will take time for us to consider the details of the report, as soon as we have done that we shall publish it and our response.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to read an article in today's edition of The Guardian, which questions the probity of a bookmaker who funds an election campaign for a political party while running a book on the election outcome? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when a top politician accepts £5 million to act as a glorified bookie's runner, we need a steward's inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: I notice that the company took a different view from the individual about the outcome of the election. However, my hon. Friend makes a serious point. It is no wonder that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) espouses his policy on the euro; the money that the Conservative party receives is conditional on retaining that policy. The donor sets out stipulations for future Conservative party leaders. There are 5 million reasons why it will not change its policy.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Prime Minister will know about the release this morning of Stephen Downing after serving 27 years in jail. The counsel for the Crown admitted in court that the conviction was unsafe. Will the Prime Minister pay tribute to Stephen Downing's family and the editor of the Matlock Mercury, who have stood by him steadfastly throughout the campaign? There have been several delays

    927
    in the case. Will the Prime Minister ensure that Departments address expeditiously any future action that they may need to take?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, I have not had an opportunity to study the judgment itself, although I know of the case. I also know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned long on this issue and has asked me about it before. I would simply say to him that of course I am happy to pay tribute both to the work of the family on behalf of Mr. Downing and to the Matlock Mercury editor, who has championed the cause. I am only pleased that, after such a long time, this case is finally at en end.
    Dr. Desmond Turner: Does the Prime Minister agree that the thousands of jobs lost last week in British manufacturing underline the monumental folly of any policy that would keep Britain out of the euro? The Tories may keep their pound, but how many thousands of British jobs would be lost as a result?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that, as I said a moment ago, ruling out the euro would indeed mean an immediate loss of jobs in Britain. There is absolutely no doubt about that, which is why the decision should be taken on economic grounds. However, there is another thing that would put jobs at risk in this country—a return to Tory boom and bust. We know how that started last time: with promises of Tory tax cuts that ended up in high interest rates, tax rises and spending cuts. That is what they did before, and that is what they would do again.
    Mr. Eric Forth: When will the Prime Minister end the scandal of English subsidies for Scottish benefits?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree on that matter. At least we can agree on one thing: he has an honest policy for the euro. He wants to rule it out for ever, and that is the policy that he wants to push on his party.

Points of Order
Mr. Robert Key: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At about 8.10 this morning, Portcullis house was evacuated because of another fire alarm. Within minutes, I was told that it was a false alarm. There was also a false alarm yesterday, and since the building has been occupied there have been fire alarms about twice a week, most of them false.
The helpful man at the company that put in the fire system, Surefire Systems, said that the system was fine and that it would be perfectly all right if only people would not go into the building. He said that the problem lay with the design, and that he was just the subcontractor following the design provided by Ove Arup. I was told by the Department of the Serjeant at Arms that the system had been forced on the designers by the Home Secretary.
Not only are hundreds of people disadvantaged by this problem every time it happens, including Members and the staff who run the place for us, but the entire system is put under strain. What can you do, Mr. Speaker, to try to ensure that those false alarms stop? It is embarrassing enough having press reports every week about the cost of the building that one works in, but when that building does not work, it is worse.
Mr. Speaker: I have every sympathy with Members and staff in that situation. There is nothing more annoying than being evacuated from one's workplace because of a false alarm. I understand that the alarm was due to a faulty detector head, and that a full investigation of the fire alarm system in Portcullis house is being undertaken. Meanwhile, the system is now being operated manually, and I trust that there will no further such incidents.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, after a flagrant abuse of Question Time by the Secretary of State for Health, you said, at column 783 of the Official Report,
"may I say this to Ministers? First, attacks on the Opposition are not really what I am looking for … Ministers are there to account for their Departments."—[Official Report, 6 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 783.]
You repeated that point today to the Secretary of State for International Development.
Today, the Prime Minister, in attempting to evade answering proper questions to him about his responsibilities, attacked the Opposition on 10 separate occasions—I counted. Is the Prime Minister bound by the same rules as other Ministers?
Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister is bound by the same rules as everyone else, but he gets a bit more leeway, and so does the Leader of the Opposition.

BILL PRESENTED
  EDUCATION (FUNDING)
  Dr. Nick Palmer, supported by Liz Blackman, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Michael Fabricant and Mr. David Kidney, presented a Bill to make provision about the distribution of funding between local education authorities: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed [Bill 40].

  Homes Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
  3.34 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Homes Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8th January 2001:

  Consideration and Third Reading
  1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

  2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock.

  3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

  4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

  Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lord
  5. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

  (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or

  (b) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

  The motion proposes that the remaining stages of the Bill should be completed this evening. The programme is supplemental to the one that was approved for consideration in Committee, which finished as planned on 1 February. I pay tribute to the members of what was an eventful Committee, coinciding with the addition to the family of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and the promotion to Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth). I feel sure that the resident of 74 Acacia avenue, who featured in many of the exchanges in Committee, celebrated both events in his local premises licensed for entertainment and the sale of intoxicating liquor.
  In all seriousness, we had a constructive debate, with valuable contributions from both sides of the Committee. I am grateful for that. There was full discussion of all the relevant matters and the debates were completed within the time set by the previous programme motion.
  In Committee, a limited number of minor drafting amendments were approved to simplify and clarify the Bill. The Government have proposed a few more amendments of a similar nature, and some that respond specifically to concerns raised by hon. Members in debate in Committee. We are not introducing by way of Government amendments any major new issue of principle. Therefore, one day should give us ample time to debate the remaining stages of the Bill. For these reasons, I commend the motion to the House.
  3.36 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Here we are yet again. The Government want to drive through the Bill—
  Mr. Raynsford: Of course.
  Mr. Waterson: In many ways, the Bill is a perfect example of the Government's approach. It is all hype and no delivery. Before the general election, Labour promised that it would tackle gazumping, but the Bill does nothing of the sort. It is a perfect illustration of the nanny state at work. It will over-complicate and add extra costs to the process of buying and selling a house. It will criminalise ordinary citizens in private contractual dealings, making them subject to the same level of penalties as apply to the carrying of a flick knife. The Government are seeking again to suppress debate in the House and to ignore informed criticism.
  The Minister began with a string of in-jokes, which I think will be familiar only to members of the Committee, Acacia avenue being one of them. The hon. Gentleman had the gall to say that the Committee finished as planned on 1 February. I do not know what alternative he was suggesting. Was it that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and I should have hired a Committee Room to continue the debate regardless?
  Even after the date set for the close of proceedings in Committee, I applied the usual poetic licence to allow the Minister to make his kind remarks. As is normal and appropriate on such an occasion, he thanked the joint Chairmen for their chairmanship and for their skill in bringing the Committee to an end at 5 pm on 1 February. With all due respect to those two able Chairmen, that had nothing to do with them; we finished on 1 February because the Government said that we should do so.
  The Government did not say at the beginning of consideration in Committee that we should finish on 1 February—they said within days, if not hours, of the Bill being published that that would be the length of the Bill's consideration in Committee. That started as a proposal, and I use that word with some care, that there would be 12 sittings, and we had 12 sittings. Had it not been that rather unexpectedly at the last minute the Liberal Democrats withdrew a group of new clauses, we would not have reached the debate on, or would have finished in the middle of debating, an important new clause that was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry).
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there was no request from the Opposition for the Committee to meet after dinner on any of the evening sittings? Indeed, quite the opposite: the Opposition Whip requested that we should finish early on one occasion.
  Mr. Waterson: I do not recall that, but I do remember that, on one or two occasions, we sat until rather later than 5 o'clock.
  The answer is clear. The Government said, as soon as the Bill was published, that there would be 12 Committee sittings. Then they produced a programme motion which did not change at all. They tried to make out—although I think that the Minister has abandoned this tack—that it was agreed by the usual channels. Nothing could be more wrong. Of course, there were discussions through the usual channels and we tried to be constructive—the Minister was good enough to use that word in Committee and just now—and ensure that most of the Bill was properly debated. If one is given a certain length of string, one is going to make the best use of that length. It is
  932
  unfair and unreasonable of the Minister to say from the Dispatch Box that we had a full discussion of all aspects of the Bill. How does he know what other arguments Opposition Members might have deployed in Committee? By whose definition was there a full discussion of every aspect of the Bill? In some cases, the discussion by Opposition Members was downright perfunctory because we wanted to get on to meatier aspects of the Bill.
  I am certainly not going to take criticism from Ministers if, in the final sitting, we tried to get on to the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon on the important issue of shorthold tenancies. The Minister said, rather grandly, that we would have ample time to debate the remaining stages of the Bill today. I suppose that we should be mildly grateful that we do not have a statement on a weighty matter, but are starting business with the programme motion, debate on which can last for 45 minutes. All of that period comes straight out of the time for Report stage. We will then have Third Reading at the end of the evening. The current proposal is that we limit that to an hour, minus time spent on any divisions that might result from debates before 9 o'clock.
  It is therefore extraordinary that the Minister should claim that there is ample time for debate. How does he know? I see that there is relatively little interest in this issue on the Government Benches. Ministers think that they are running not a democracy, but a Swiss railway system. The Bill will come into the station at 10 pm; that is all that Ministers are interested in.
  Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend is characteristically generous and understates his case with his usual subtlety. If this were a one-off, it would be bad enough, but it is becoming the rule or norm, not the exception, and is happening day in, day out in this Parliament. As a result, proper debate is being truncated and the people of this country are not getting the hearing that they deserve for issues that are pertinent and, in this case, important to them for the reasons given by hon. Friend. This is a serial crime, not a one-off offence.
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes his point with great power and conviction.
  I repeat that the Government are in the business of bringing the Bill into the station on time. They cannot do that with a real railway network, but they seem to be able to do it with their legislation. It does not matter how many issues right hon. and hon. Members wish to raise, they have to fit all of them into the time which the Government have decided is sufficient. I have a shrewd suspicion that not only did they decide from the outset, when the Bill was published, that 12 Committee sittings would be ample—to use the Minister's word—but that they would rush through all the remaining stages in one day, as they are seeking to do today.
  Mr. Andrew Love: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House which parts of the Bill the Committee was unable to scrutinise or, indeed, which amendments tabled by the Opposition could not be debated in those 12 sittings?
  Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. He will remember that there were points of

  933
  order from Labour Back-Bench Members—I think that he was one of the hon. Members, but if not, I do him an injustice—complaining about the amount of time that we were taking in Committee on part 1.
  Let us remind ourselves that part I deals with seller's packs and a transaction entered into by about 1.5 million people every year. It is extremely important to many people. For most people in this country, it is the biggest transaction they will ever undertake, yet hon. Members including, I think, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) were bobbing up and down, complaining about the length of time that we were taking on the matter.
  We took a little longer on part I and probably rather less time on part II than we might otherwise have wanted, and possibly than the hon. Gentleman might have wanted. Paradoxically, because of the procedural situation, the opposite could be the case today. Because of the weight of new clauses, many of them Government new clauses, relating to part II, we may well run out of time to deal with part I if we are not careful.
  Mr. Love: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. If members of the majority side had realised how little the Opposition had to say about part II, we might not have moved procedural motions to end discussion on part I.
  Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman might remember that we spent almost half our time on part II, which I do not complain about. I suspect that he felt a little short-changed, as did some of us, at the way that that came about.
  It is typical of the Government that they have no intention of ensuring that both parts of the Bill are fully debated. Not only are they trying to suppress debate in the House yet again, but throughout the Committee stage they chose to ignore informed criticism, and in some cases to denigrate it. Any informed person or organisation, let alone an hon. Member, who seeks to disagree is dismissed as wrong or worse. Sometimes, perhaps, such people are regarded as being slightly detached—to use a familiar phrase—or unfocused.
  The Law Society was one of the first to fall foul of the Minister's liverishness on one occasion. The Law Society represents some 80,000 solicitors in England and Wales. When the Opposition in Committee quoted—no one on the Government side would do it—the Law Society's concerns about and criticisms of the proposals in part I, what did we get from the Minister? He said:
  "I would take the wider issues of the Law Society with a slight pinch of salt. It may have been preoccupied with different things in recent months and perhaps has not focused"—
  that word again—
  "enough on the local experience of the seller's pack."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 23 January 2001; c. 186.]
  Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will recall what I told him in Committee: that the chairman of the Law Society in Bristol—where the seller's pack pilot took place—was one of the strongest supporters and advocates of the seller's pack. I suggested to the Opposition, who seemed to have difficulty understanding this, that it was probably
  934
  better to listen to people with practical, on-the-ground experience than to others perhaps defending a vested interest.
  Mr. Waterson: Ah! Now we are getting to that. The Minister will no doubt remember what I said in Committee: that of course the president—we have nothing so humble as chairman in the legal profession—of the Bristol Law Society is an enthusiast. I said to the Minister, and I repeat the invitation, that if he would like to give £360,000 worth of taxpayers' money to the Eastbourne legal profession, I can guarantee him that the president of the Eastbourne Law Society will be a convert. The only problem is that the Minister cannot go round the entire country running pilot schemes in every town and city.
  We will deal in more detail with the seller's pack, and I do not want to stray beyond the bounds of this debate, but if the Government are handing over such money to a local Law Society, and giving a great shot in the arm at taxpayers' expense to the local legal profession and local estate agents, of course they will all have smiles on their faces, just as the people who participated in the scheme have smiles on their faces—they were given their seller's packs, including their surveys.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman realises that he is going beyond the scope of the programme motion.
  Mr. Waterson: I allowed myself to be led down another path, there, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. John Bercow: For the benefit of the taxpayers who pay our salaries, will my hon. Friend confirm that there are no fewer than 74 new clauses and amendments to be considered? Will he also confirm that, on the assumption that we take one hour to debate Third Reading, the Government have the audacity to expect us to devote fewer than four minutes to the consideration of each new clause and amendment?
  While my hon. Friend is about it, will he also provide an invaluable lesson on the British constitution to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who seems fondly to imagine that just because the Standing Committee considered matters in some detail, that somehow discharges our obligation to do so? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the importance of this occasion is that the Standing Committee's deliberations are being reported to, and may be pronounced on by, the rest of the House?
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes two very important points, and he is absolutely right. The Government do not think that people such as my hon. Friend should be in the Chamber debating all these new clauses and amendments—let alone those that have already been considered, albeit only by the Standing Committee. The Government think that Back Benchers should be either in their constituencies trying to get re-elected or sitting in their offices dictating into machines. That is the role of Back Benchers under this Government.
  Mr. Bercow: Well, it is not my role.
  Mr. Waterson: I know that it is not my hon. Friend's approach, and all credit to him for that.

  935
  My hon. Friend touched on an issue that I have mentioned only in passing. That is the weight of the new clauses and amendments tabled not only by the Government but by the Liberal Democrats. It is important that there should be the opportunity, on Report, to have a rethink and to take stock. Progress on the Bill has been made at a gallop since it was published just before Christmas; it is now only the beginning of February.
  It is right for people—even, perhaps, the Government—to have an opportunity to table new clauses and amendments, but the Government must allow such proposals to be properly debated when appropriate. There is an exact parallel with the debate on the original programme motion—to which I think this is a supplement or amendment—in that the Government had already decided on the length of time needed in Standing Committee before a single amendment or new clause had been tabled. That is precisely the same attitude as we see today.
  Before I was led down the path that took me slightly off the subject a moment ago, I was saying why I thought that debate on the Bill was being suppressed. I gave as an example not only the way in which the matter has been dealt with in the House, but the way in which major, serious bodies, organisations and individuals—I shall come to an example of that in a moment—have been dismissed out of hand by Ministers during the course of these debates.
  I mentioned the Law Society earlier. Another good example came from Mr. Nigel Holt, the director of the Independent Association of Estate Agents. That is not some little group of eccentric estate agents out of kilter with the rest of the profession; it is a body that represents 18,000 estate agents across the country. When Mr. Holt had the temerity to write to me, I had the even greater temerity to read out some of his views.
  Mr. Raynsford: Lack of judgment.
  Mr. Waterson: Let me come to that very issue. Mr. Holt is perfectly entitled to comment on this part of the Bill, not only as an individual but as the representative of 18,000 fellow members of his profession. However, the Minister's comment on Mr. Holt was:
  Opposition Members often dredge out some extraordinary people who have written long letters, possibly in green ink.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 23 January 2001; c. 187.]
  Mr. Holt obviously has a sense of humour, because he has since written to me using green ink. However, he is not at all impressed with the Minister. It is hopeless if we are trying to have a serious debate that affects a lot of people—both parts of the Bilk in their different ways, affect many people—and Ministers are not prepared to take seriously the views expressed in a constructive fashion by people such as Mr. Holt, bodies such as the Law Society, and others.
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman now tell the House what led to my comments? Will he confirm that Mr. Holt's letter accused the Government of behaving like Mussolini? If that is the case, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he agrees with that judgment—and whether he
  936
  agrees with another ill-judged comment, by an Opposition Front-Bencher, who described local authority trading standards departments as being like the Gestapo?
  Mr. Waterson: We shall come on to what I have termed the conveyancing Gestapo in due course. It is true that Mr. Holt made a passing reference to Mussolini, which I took to be jocular; but it was in the context of the application of a set of criminal sanctions to people who failed to get together their seller's packs in time. We consider that to be one of the most objectionable parts of the Bill.
  Mr. Holt is perfectly entitled to express his views, and perfectly entitled to express them in trenchant terms. It certainly caught the Minister's attention, and he has been banging on about it ever since—but Ministers are not paid to dismiss the views of professionals and others with genuine opinions as simply the views of people with an interest in these matters.
  Mr. Hayes: The comparison with Mussolini does not, in fact, bear much scrutiny: Mussolini made the trains run on time, whereas the Government have done precisely the opposite. Leaving that aside, however, may I suggest that it is organisations of that type—independent outside bodies—that look to the Report stage of a Bill for the raising and debating of their considered views by Members? That is not always possible in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out, Report stage is vital if the House is to take into account that broader appreciation.
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend puts in a nutshell the role of the various stages of scrutiny of legislation. It is up to us not simply to make points that may occur to us, but to act as a conduit through which organisations and individuals can make their concerns known. The Government have not made it easy for outside bodies to comment; they published the Bill just before Christmas and it went straight into Committee on 8 January, when we returned from the recess. Some organisations were caught very much on the hop.
  I shall not labour the point because we dealt with it at length in Committee; but the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which represents some 98 per cent. of lenders dealing with properties, also received the ministerial treatment. It was clearly hectored and bullied by Ministers into withdrawing many of its objections to the Bill.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made the case with the gentleness and restraint for which he is renowned in all parts of the House. On the subject of arrogant authoritarianism, however, will my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) confirm that in the Programming Sub-Committee he specifically asked the Government for an additional seven hours of debate in the final Standing Committee sitting, and that the Sub-Committee—meeting hole-in-corner, in private—chose to vote down that proposed change in the timetable on the strength of a Government-whipped vote?
  Mr. Waterson: I was about to deal with the issue of the Programming Sub-Committee. My hon. Friend, I believe, has his own experience of these strange new bodies that meet in secret and are barred to hon. Members

  937
  who may wish to participate, other than those who are members of the bodies concerned. Not even all members of the Standing Committee are entitled to attend. Moreover, no record is kept of their proceedings.
  It is true that we tried to extend the scope of the sittings motion. We spoke of the complexity of the Bill, and made a number of points on which I have already touched. We also stumbled across the fact that a secret deal had been made between the Government and the Liberal Democrats to limit the time spent on debate.
  One of the major points we made was that an awful lot of the powers to be taken under the Bill would be taken by way of regulations. The Minister has been unable to produce draft regulations, which one sometimes has available. In fairness, he produced a document that set out some of the thinking behind some of the possible regulations, but even that shopping list was added to as the Committee went on.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the main thrust of his argument is that he wants more opportunity for genuine debate on those issues? If that is the case, why has he occupied more than half the total allocated time for debate on this issue?
  Mr. Waterson: I do not know why the Liberal Democrats are taking up that matter with us. They should take it up with their friends on the Government Benches, instead of kowtowing at every possible opportunity to the Government and doing little deals behind the scenes to reduce the amount of debate. I am not surprised. I doubt whether we will see many Liberal Democrats during this debate, no matter how long or short it is.
  I have set out the history. There has been no delay, filibustering or anything remotely close to it by Conservative Committee members. The Minister was good enough to describe our contributions as constructive. We ended up spending less time on part II than part I, which was contrary to the wishes of some Labour Members. We have many additional Government amendments and new clauses to deal with. As I have said, because of the quirk of our procedure, we could run out of time to debate part I, which will occupy the minds of some 1.5 million people a year. Sixty-nine per cent. of the population are owner-occupiers.
  Mr. Raynsford: In view of the hon. Gentleman's response to the question from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), will he tell the House why, on the penultimate day of the Committee, he personally wrote to the Government Whip to ask that we should agree to try to get to the end of clause 26 on that day and finish then or at 7 pm, whichever was earlier? If that was his view in Committee, how can he come out with all that synthetic indignation about a lack of time for debate?
  Mr. Waterson: It is simple. It seemed to be for the convenience of Committee members to finish that part of the Bill and start afresh. It was clever of the Whip to keep the note, but the Minister seems to be trying to say that he wants those matters to be debated in the middle of the night. Is that what he is saying? We are not going to take any lessons from Ministers. They think that we have had ample time to debate all the issues in Committee. They think that we have ample time today. We sensibly
  938
  allocated the time as much as possible within the limits of the original programme motion. The Minister is trying to make much the same point that he began with—that the Committee finished on 1 February. Of course it did. It had to finish on 1 February. It had to finish at 5 pm on 1 February because that is what the programme motion said.
  At least there is no suggestion from the Minister that this has all been agreed between the usual channels. Agreement subject to duress is no agreement at all. That was our attitude at the beginning of the Bill, it has been our attitude throughout, and it is our attitude today. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the motion.
  4.3 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am pleased to be given the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), but I have to correct him on three points. First, there was no secret deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Government. Secondly, there was a deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives: we voted for the motion to extend by seven hours the business of the Committee, as the hon. Gentleman will have to acknowledge. I see the Conservative Whip, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), nodding. Thirdly, no one could accuse the Government of being like Mussolini—the trains do not run on time.
  All hon. Members who have participated in this short debate have had the disadvantage of not being a member of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. I have been a member of it and have been involved throughout in the discussions on the way in which we should seek to make our business more business-like.
  The Minister and the hon. Member for Eastbourne have completely missed the point. Although the Government are entitled to pass their business if they have a majority in the House, which they clearly have, and to set what they believe should be the target date for completion of that business, they have no right to set in stone the way in which that business should be considered in Committee or on Report.
  In our report to the House, which it accepted, the Modernisation Committee proposed that programme motions should be used as I have just described, but that has not happened in this case or in several recent cases. Consequently, my colleagues and I have voted against those motions. Liberal Democrat Members are still very much in favour of programming our business, but the Government have imposed those motions on the Opposition parties rather than allowing us to say precisely how we should consider each of the Bills.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: No, I shall not take any interventions. There is very little time because of the long interventions by the hon. Gentleman and the long speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson).
  This programme motion raises another issue. As has already been acknowledged, the Bill is an important measure with two very important parts. The first part deals with changes to the overall procedure by which we buy and sell houses, which is very important to our fellow

  939
  citizens. The introduction of seller's packs is extremely important to individual citizens. Although there might a good case for introducing some elements of the provisions as suggested, other elements are still extremely controversial. I am sure that that view is shared by Members on both sides of the House. Liberal Democrat Members oppose, for example, the idea that the failure to have a seller's pack should be a criminal offence. Such a provision seems outrageous.
  The second part of the Bill—it has had insufficient attention until now, but it will certainly require attention today—deals with the preparation and implementation by local authorities of homelessness strategies. Those provisions will require very careful consideration.
  As hon. Members have said, the time being provided to discuss eight groups of amendments—74 amendments and new clauses—is insufficient. I really do wonder why the Government thought that it was necessary to complete this business by 10 pm. Liberal Democrat Members would be quite happy to be here until midnight. The business that we are considering is extremely important. It is far more important than some of the debates that we have had to listen to, when the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has kept us here on intrinsically less important issues.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Tyler: No.
  Of the 74 amendments, 28 are Government amendments, demonstrating the Government's acceptance that the measure is unfinished business. Although we may welcome many of those amendments, we do not welcome others and believe that they should be carefully considered.
  Previously, the Minister has referred to the measure as work in progress. It is unsatisfactory that, all too often, the House does not complete proper consideration of its legislation and sends that unfinished business to the other place. That is intrinsically inefficient and not a good way of handling our business. This motion does not reflect the Bill's importance, and my colleagues and I shall vote against it.
  4.8 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have not been following the Homes Bill in great detail, but I have been following in considerable detail the Government's practice of tabling programme motions. I have spoken to five or six such motions since the practice began and I wish to renew my protest.
  The House will have only four and a half hours to consider the Bill on Report. There are eight groups of amendments. On any view of the matter, some of those amendments are important. There is no point in the Minister saying that some or most of the amendments are but a reflection of what was said in Committee. Although that may be true, this is the first opportunity on which the House as a whole will have an opportunity to discuss the amendments. It is quite wrong that a practice should be adopted by which the House as a whole does not have the opportunity either to discuss or to vote on a number of substantive amendments.
  940
  Although I do not usually agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), he is right on this issue. The consequence of this programme motion is that some substantive amendments will be discussed first in the other place and will return to this place, if at all, essentially as Lords amendments. That cannot be right. It is an abuse of the process of democracy.
  My final point is one that I have made before, but it is of cardinal importance. Democracy depends on the electorate believing that legislation has been carefully scrutinised by their representatives in Parliament. That is the assumption on which the political compromises of life stand. If parliamentary representatives are not able to carry out that scrutiny, that assumption falls. If we fail in our duty of scrutiny of legislation and the consequences of Government action and policy, we undermine the basis of accountable government.
  4.10 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: The Minister has repeated Ministers' habitual refrain—that our obligation is merely to tidy up the Bill and engage in a little minor drafting. We are also told that the Government amendments have been tabled to meet Opposition concerns expressed in Standing Committee or on Second Reading.
  Mr. Raynsford: That is not the case.
  Mr. Bercow: The Minister chunters from a sedentary position, but he appears to be in disagreement with himself. Members of the Government often disagree with each other; more often than not, Ministers disagree with Conservative Members, and it is not entirely unprecedented for members of Opposition parties to disagree with each other. However, when a Minister on the Treasury Bench disagrees with himself, it signals a new departure. The Minister said that the amendments cover relatively minor matters accommodating drafting changes and Opposition concerns: for him to deny that is, even by the Government's standards, spectacularly foolish and contradictory.
  Mr. Eric Forth: One group of amendments deals with energy efficiency. The amendments concerned strike me as bureaucratic, interventionist and regulatory nonsense. I should not be surprised if they had been penned by Friends of the Earth. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate this rubbish and vote against it.
  Mr. Tyler: They are Conservative amendments.
  Mr. Forth: I know. I simply want to illustrate the point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—that the assumption that our task involves merely routine and trivial tidying up could not be more wrong. The amendments contain some real nonsense, to which we should give detailed attention.
  Mr. Bercow: There are important matters to be considered, and much nonsense. There is probably a superfluity of nonsense in the Bill, for the simple reason that it has been devised by a discredited, nanny-state, interventionist, mollycoddling Labour Government of the worst variety.

  941
  I apologise sincerely to the House for my understatement. My abiding problem is that I do not speak clearly or loudly enough so that my message is unmistakeable. I am sorry if my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) thinks that I have displayed a certain inhibition and wetness in what I have said, but he will know that I do not propose to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), even to the extent of the dotting of an i or crossing of a t.
  As a member of the Conservative Front-Bench team, I sign up with enthusiasm and alacrity to the principle of collective responsibility. Therefore, it is to be assumed that I am in agreement with my Front-Bench colleagues in every particular and at all times. However, I am but one small and humble—[Interruption.] Whether or not I am humble, I am certainly small. I am only one of the 659 hon. Members in this House, and I repeat the important point that other hon. Members should be able to consider the amendments—Government, Conservative and Liberal Democrat—that have been tabled. That is especially true for hon. Members who did not have the privilege of belonging to the Standing Committee. I feel sure that my right hon. Friend has views on each of the 74 new clauses and amendments, and he should have at least a modest opportunity to express those views.
  It is both salutary and illustrative of the attitude of the new robots who pepper the Labour Benches that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who said that we need not trouble ourselves with any significant consideration because these matters had been debated in detail in Committee, has—entirely appropriately, in one sense—absented himself from the Chamber. He was apparently on the Standing Committee, and we congratulate him on the status he thereby acquired. He thinks that the Government have got it right. He thinks that there has been enough discussion. He thinks that his assessment should suffice as the assessment of the House as a whole.
  If other right hon. and hon. Members take a different view, what do the Government propose? Do they seek to persuade and convert by power and argument? No. What are those pigs I see flying before my eyes? Instead, they propose to ram through their intended truncation of debate on the strength of a whipped vote, with all the new robots going through the Lobby on the strength of the payroll vote, the knuckle-crunching, the threats, the favours, the offers and the denials that are within the power of the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—the Patronage Secretary—and her underlings on the Treasury Bench.
  The majority of Labour Members of Parliament are probably aware of, at best, one tenth of the contents of the Bill—generosity tends to get the better of me. The betting is that they care about an even smaller proportion of the provisions than that. Some of us do care about the provisions, however. Some of us are inclined to pursue—it is relevant to homes, the involvement of local authorities and the state of local government expenditure—the implications of measures that the Government might take for the state of local finances.
  I would welcome the opportunity to express a view and to hear that of the Minister on, for example, the effect of the change in the rules governing the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses on the size of interest repayments on local authority debt. I might be tempted to expatiate on that subject because it is important
  942
  to council tax payers, the future of housing provision, the credibility of local government and the relationship between local and central Government. About that, I suspect, unless the Government reconsider their draconian proposal, we will have very little opportunity, if any, to say much of significance.
  The Government's attitude is, "We have our view; we have the majority; we simply do not care what you think." I emphasise that whenever we mention the public, who might be interested in our proceedings, the unfailing reaction of Members on the Government Benches is to snort and say, "How many?". They do not think that members of the public are interested in our debates. If they are not, it is because of the sheer disdain, indifference and contempt with which this anti-parliamentary, new Labour, quack Administration treat right hon. and hon. Members. Quite frankly, their attitude is plastic, supercilious—
  It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
  The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 169.

  Division No. 109]

  [4.19 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Alexander, Douglas

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Austin, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bailey, Adrian

  Colman, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Connarty, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Cooper, Yvette

  Battle, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beard, Nigel

  Corston, Jean

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cox, Tom

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cranston, Ross

  Benton, Joe

  Crausby, David

  Berry, Roger

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Betts, Clive

  Cummings, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Jim (Cos'try S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Blizzard, Bob

  Darvill, Keith

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Borrow, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Denham, John

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Edwards, Huw

  Casale, Roger

  Efford, Clive

  Caton, Martin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Cawsey, Ian

  Ennis, Jeff

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Etherington, Bill

  Chaytor, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Church, Ms Judith

  Fisher, Mark

  943

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McIsaac, Shona

  Flint, Caroline

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Foster, Fit Hon Derek

  McNulty, Tony

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Foulkes, George

  McWalter, Tony

  Galloway, George

  McWilliam, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Grogan, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hain, Peter

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hanson, David

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

  Healey, John

  (Aberavon)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mudie, George

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mullin, Chris

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Heppell, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hesford, Stephen

  Norris, Dan

  Hill, Keith

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hoey, Kate

  Olner, Bill

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Rapson, Syd

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Raynsford, Nick

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Robertson, John

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Rogers, Allan

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  Lammy, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Laxton, Bob

  Salter, Martin

  Lepper, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Sawford, Phil

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lock, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Love, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCabe, Steve

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  McDonnell, John

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  944

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Snape, Peter

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Soley, Clive

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Spellar, John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Tynan, Bill

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Watts, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  White, Brian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Stringer, Graham

  (Swansea W)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Wills, Michael

  (Dewsbury)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woolas, Phil

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wyatt, Derek

  Todd, Mark

  Touhig, Don

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mr. David Clelland.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fallon, Michael

  Allan, Richard

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Amess, David

  Flight, Howard

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Baker, Norman

  Fraser, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Garnier, Edward

  Ballard, Jackie

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Beggs, Roy

  Gibb, Nick

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gidley, Sandra

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bercow, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gray, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Green, Damian

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brady, Graham

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hammond, Philip

  Brazier, Julian

  Hancock, Mike

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Harvey, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hayes, John

  Burnett, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Burns, Simon

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Burstow, Paul

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  (NE Fife)

  Horam, John

  Cash, William

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Collins, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Johnson Smith,

  Cotter, Brian

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cran, James

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Key, Robert

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Duncan, Alan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lansley, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Leigh, Edward

  Fabricant, Michael

  Letwin, Oliver

  945

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Lidington, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Livsey, Richard

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Loughton, Tim

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Steen, Anthony

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Stunell, Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Swayne, Desmond

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Syms, Robert

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Thompson, William

  Moore, Michael

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Townend, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trend, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Tyler, Paul

  Oaten, Mark

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Öpik, Lembit

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Page, Richard

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Pace, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Willetts, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Willis, Phil

  Prior, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Rendel, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ruffley, David

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Homes Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8th January 2001:

  Consideration and Third Reading
  1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

  2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock.

  3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

  4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

  Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords
  5. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

  (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or

  (b) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day
  Homes Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Homes Bill
    New Clause 15

      APPLICATION OF PART VI OF 1996 ACT TO EXISTING TENANTS
      'For subsections (5) and (6) of section 159 of the 1996 Act (application of Part VI of that Act to existing secure and introductory tenants, to existing tenants of registered social landlords and to certain other tenants) there is substituted—
      '(5) The provisions of this Part do not apply to an allocation of housing accommodation to a person who is already a secure or introductory tenant unless the allocation involves a transfer of housing accommodation for that person and is made on his application.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.33 pm
      The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 46.
      Amendment No. 56, in clause 27, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
      '() In any scheme, the local housing authority shall state its policy for ensuring that people in need of a move on any of the grounds listed above, and who are existing tenants shall, all other things being equal, have prior claim to new built property over those who would be first time tenants of the local authority, provided that first time tenants can still be offered adequate accommodation.'.
      Government amendment No. 51.
      Mr. Raynsford: Government amendments Nos. 46 and 51 and new clause 15 seek to simplify the provisions in the Bill that ensure that existing tenants in the social housing sector who seek a transfer of accommodation from a housing authority must have their application considered under the allocation scheme. In other words, they have a right to have their application considered, a right for reasonable and additional preference to be considered, and a right to seek a review of decisions about their application.
      The policy intention has not changed, but we have identified a simpler way of achieving it. Amendment No. 46 removes clause 24, which is unnecessarily complex. It is replaced by new clause 15, which in turn substitutes for the current subsections (5) and (6) of section 159 of the Housing Act 1996 a new subsection (5).
      Amendment No. 51 will make a minor consequential change to schedule 3.
      Under amendment No. 56, tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), existing tenants would be given priority over new tenants in the allocation of new-build accommodation. I find it extraordinary that he considers such detail appropriate to the Bill. We are setting up a robust framework in which local authorities can operate choice-based lettings

      947
      schemes. The framework will provide authorities with the discretion to make local decisions, based on local knowledge, and appropriate to local circumstances.
      The framework sets out the principal issues that authorities should take into account in drawing up their priorities and preferences. They are, in the main, closely related to need, but the framework is not prescriptive—nor should it be. Local authorities should have discretion. It makes no sense to direct every nuance, to insist on every detail and dot every i and cross every t. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats' suggestion is curious because considerable discretion would be removed from local authorities by amendment No. 56, yet the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) speaks frequently about diktats from Whitehall and the Government's centralising tendency.
      Hon. Gentlemen should be clear about their objective. Do they wish to allow local authorities more discretion, or do they wish to be centralisers? I am afraid that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey shows himself to be a centraliser, and amendment No. 56 is inappropriate. I hope that he will not press it to a Division, and that the House will support new clause 15 and the Government amendments.
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: I do not wish to detain the House. I shall deal first with amendment No. 56, tabled by the Liberals. For once, I agree with the Minister. The amendment would include in the Bill an incredibly detailed, micro-managed proposal, despite the Minister's reluctance to include many other proposals that we think should be in it. However, the last thing I want to do is to intervene in an argument between the Government and their Liberal Democrat allies. Of course, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will make his own case in a moment.
      As for the unlamented demise of clause 24, we agree that new clause 15 represents a much less clumsily drafted approach to what the Government want to achieve. We have no difficulty with new clause 15 or Government amendments Nos. 46 and 51—the second of which is a drafting amendment, so far as I can tell—and we shall not therefore seek to divide the House on any of them.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall speak to amendment No. 56. There is of course no difference of opinion between my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and me, on any occasion, in any circumstance. The Minister knows that that is true, but he likes making the odd bit of mischief, so I shall forgive him.
      I represent—I still think that the figures are accurate—more council tenants as a proportion of my constituents than any other English Member of Parliament. Therefore, this debate and these provisions are of crucial interest to my constituents and me. The Minister may not have spotted the fact that amendment No. 56 was not intended to determine what the policy should be, but to ensure that local authorities state their policies. I am keen to ensure that each local authority puts out its policy clearly in the shop window.
      948
      The objective of the proposal is slightly different from the one that the Minister suggested. Importantly, amendment No. 56 deals with
      "people in need of a move on any of the grounds listed"
      elsewhere in the Bill. There is no argument about those grounds. People may need to move if they are overcrowded, or on medical grounds, or whatever. However, when existing local authority tenants need to move,
      "all other things being equal"—
      that is an important phrase—they shall
      "have prior claim to new built property over those who would be first time tenants".
      The reason why I tabled the amendment—I shall not press it to a Division—was to get the Government to think about such issues, and to ensure that local authorities are required to address the controversial question of how they choose between long-standing tenants who live in accommodation that is inadequate by the local authority's own definition, and people who would be new tenants.
      From his experience in his present constituency, and from the one that he previously represented—they are both in inner London—the Minister will know of one of the great complaints that tenants who live in overcrowded and damp accommodation frequently make. They desperately need to move because they are ill, or they live in an upstairs flat with no lift. However, people then come off the housing list; the existing tenants do not begrudge those people being housed, but they move into brand new properties. Meanwhile, the existing tenants remain on the fourth floor of a block with no lift, or in a flat that is damp, overcrowded and inadequate for them. They have no chance of moving into the new properties, and that is the cause for their complaint. It is a matter of equity.
      I accept that this is not the time and place to be over-prescriptive, and that local councils should be able to exercise their discretion. That is why people vote councils in and out; they choose between policies. I merely ask that the local authority publish its policy on this matter, so that people know what its policy is, and can decide whether to vote against the party in power at the next election. I ask for clarity so that we can remove one of the major causes of grief, aggravation and concern that existing tenants, many of whom have paid their rents for 20 or 30 years, feel towards local authorities.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: Like my hon. Friend, I represent many council tenants, and many of them have great problems understanding the housing policy that governs their ability to transfer. My hon. Friend's amendment is a good one, apart from the use of the words
      "all other things being equal".
      The point is that things are not equal, and there is not a great deal of transparency. Most housing authorities fail to explain the transfer system, what the criteria for existing tenants are, and how new applications are dealt with.
      Mr. Hughes: I know my hon. Friend's constituency quite well, and I have visited the flats there when supporting his election campaigns. We are all the same boat, in that we are dealing with people who are trapped in a home and want to move.

      949
      The purpose of the debate is to get the Government to consider the issue, and I accept my hon. Friend's proposition. Provided that adequately sized accommodation with adequate facilities is offered, the best system would not offer the best properties to first-time tenants. They should start with the old property and work their way up the quality ladder. Long-serving tenants should get the new properties as a reward for their years in the old property wilderness. That is a matter of equity, irrespective of people's background, culture or anything else.
      The Minister understands that I do not intend to divide the House on the amendment, but I hope that he will consider the issues involved.
      Mr. Hancock: People find themselves in a trap when, having been on a housing waiting list, they are made an offer of accommodation. The problem is particularly difficult for homeless people who, in the main, are made only one offer. Invariably, they take the first available property, and in many instances, it is not suitable. They remain in that property for several years, and inevitably, their family circumstances change. However, they are trapped in a property that they have little or no hope of leaving.
      My local authority has a housing transfer list nearly as long as its housing waiting list. Fifteen years ago, it had 30,000 council properties at its disposal, but it has fewer than 18,000 today. As one can imagine, the vast majority of good properties have been sold off and the rump that remains is, in the main, made up of pre-war properties that require major renovation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, many families have been trapped in a property for a long time, with little or no hope of ever getting out. That is because—quite rightly in some respects—the housing authority believes that they are adequately housed. However, many authorities refuse to recognise the conditions in which many of those families live.
      Surely the Minister has a responsibility to recognise that the Bill should offer hope to people who are trapped in properties while their children grow up. I hope that when he replies, he will tell us that the Government are considering the issue realistically and sympathetically, and that they intend to do something to help.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: This short debate has identified two main issues. First, it has shown the importance of simplifying the provisions, which is what the Government amendments will do. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) for his support. Secondly, the debate has highlighted the position of existing tenants against that of new tenants.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) emphasised that there were two parts to amendment No. 56. First, the council should state its policy. The Bill provides for exactly that. It requires authorities to prepare a detailed policy that will apply to people who seek transfers. The measure gives them greater involvement in the allocation of accommodation than is currently the case.
      The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) both made an important point about the respective needs
      950
      of existing tenants and new tenants. We all know the sense of extreme injustice that many existing tenants feel when they are trapped in properties in poor condition, yet see new tenants getting more attractive properties ahead of them. That is worrying. We therefore want to make two important changes to the allocation system.
      First, we want to ensure that, unlike what happened under the Housing Act 1996, the allocation process takes full account of the needs of those who want a transfer. Secondly, we want to make a significant shift from bureaucratic allocation systems in which officials make the decisions, often with little regard for the feelings and interests of the tenants, to a more choice-based system. We acknowledge the constraints that are inevitable in areas of high demand. Nevertheless, we want to try to involve those who apply for council or housing association homes more in decisions about their future.
      It is important to give more choice to the public and more respect to their views. That will probably lead to the results that the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Portsmouth, South want. When the public exercise more choice, the system has to respond to the wishes and aspirations of people who are aggrieved about the current arrangements. I hope that both hon. Members realise that the Bill is in line with their objective, but that we do not propose to achieve that objective through centralising diktats from Whitehall. We are providing the framework, but each local authority must develop its own system.
      Mr. Hancock: The Minister has made a helpful point, provided that local housing authorities take note of the framework and intend to introduce transparent policies. An existing tenant has the right to know that his or her application for transfer has been considered according to proper criteria. Tenants should also have the right to know why applications are rejected. How does the Minister intend to ensure that local authorities effect that policy?
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is fairly new to the debate; he was not a member of the Standing Committee. We had detailed debates in Committee about methods of ensuring that the new allocation policies were made available and that people had an opportunity to appeal against the assessment of the facts on which their allocation had been determined. It is not appropriate for every allocation to be subject to an appeal; that would not be feasible. However, every applicant must be confident that the basis on which his or her priority is being assessed can be challenged. We have provided for that.
      We have invited bids from local authorities for imaginative new choice-based lettings systems. We have received substantive bids from 94 local authorities, and we will make decisions in the near future about the allocation of the £11 million in funding to support those initiatives.
      Mr. Hughes: Will it be possible for the Department to state the new policy in simple, easily accessible form? Anyone who wants to take part in a tenants organisation debate on the subject can then obtain from a common website details of comparable systems, and be well informed for a local discussion. Tenants will be able to

      951
      say, "This is what we've got at the moment, but we'd like you to do what Leicester, or Liverpool, does." Can the information be readily accessible?
      Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman two undertakings. First, we certainly want to ensure that the new policy introduced by the Bill is fully understood, and we will arrange for appropriate publicity to ensure that tenants groups, local authorities and registered social landlords throughout the country are aware of the new arrangements.
      Secondly, one issue that is exercising us at the moment is how we ensure that, with the great interest that I have described—94 bids for new innovative choice-based lettings schemes—information is shared throughout the country, and good practice in one area can be understood by others. We are giving a great deal of thought to that, but we have not yet reached conclusions about how best to achieve it. I hope that, having heard that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will accept that his amendment is flawed and agree to withdraw it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Mr. Waterson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may recall that a week or two ago we had a debate in this House on the Government's new regulations on secrecy in local government, on a prayer tabled by Conservative Members. The Liberal Democrats tabled a prayer in the Lords, which we supported, and which was to be debated tomorrow. It has just come to my attention that the prayer has been withdrawn. I wonder whether you have had a request from the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to come to the House to make a statement as a matter of urgency, explaining the Government's attitude, and whether this is another example of Lib-Labbery in action.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have had no such information, and in any case this House cannot be concerned with procedures in another place.

    New Clause 16

      PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE HOMELESS WHO ARE AT RISK OF VIOLENC
      '(1) In section 177 of the 1996 Act (cases when it is reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation)—

      (a) in subsection (1), after "domestic violence" there is inserted "or other violence"; and

      (b) for the words following paragraph (b) of subsection (1) there is substituted—

      "(1A) For this purpose "violence" means—

      (a) violence from another person; or

      (b) threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out;

      and violence is "domestic violence" if it is from a person who is associated with the victim."
      (2) In section 198 of the 1996 Act (conditions for referral of case to another local housing authority), for subsection (3) there is substituted—
      "(2A) But the conditions for referral mentioned in subsection (2) are not met if
      952

      (a) the applicant or any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him has suffered violence (other than domestic violence) in the district of the other authority; and

      (b) it is probable that the return to that district of the victim will lead to further violence of a similar kind against him.

      (3) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (2A) "violence" means—

      (a) violence from another person; or

      (b) threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out;

      and violence is "domestic violence" if it is from a person who is associated with the victim.".'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Whether it is reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation—
      '( ).—(1) Section 177 (whether it is reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows.
      (2) After subsection (1) there is inserted—
      "(1A) It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to violence on racial or other grounds against him, or against—

      (a) a person who normally resides with him as a member of his family, or

      (b) any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him.

      For this purpose "violence on racial grounds" in relation to a person, means violence from another person by reason of a person's race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, or threats of violence from such a person which are likely to be carried out.".'.
      Mr. Ainsworth: In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) moved an amendment aimed at strengthening the homelessness safety net in respect of people forced to leave their homes through no fault of their own because of racial harassment.
      This is a matter of genuine concern and I undertook to review the current provisions in part VII of the 1996 Act and table an amendment to make it clear that a risk of violence towards someone, or threats of violence which were likely to be carried out, would be grounds for a decision that it would not be reasonable for that person to continue to live in their current home.
      The current legislation provides in general terms that a person is to be treated as homeless if it would not be reasonable for them to continue to live in their present home. There is specific provision concerning people who would face a risk of domestic violence if they continued to live in their present accommodation. The latter provision, introduced by the 1996 Act, is important, since every support must be given to those who are vulnerable because of domestic violence. However, on reflection, it could perhaps be construed rather narrowly as implying that while it would not be reasonable for someone experiencing domestic violence to remain in their home, it might be reasonable for someone to do so where faced

      953
      with a different kind of violence. Of course that would be nonsense, but the possibility of that construction is a weakness in the current provisions.
      All forms of antisocial behaviour ruin people's lives. The Government are committed to tackling the unacceptable level of antisocial behaviour in our communities. Through crime and disorder partnerships we are working with local authorities and the police to achieve that, and encouraging best use of antisocial behaviour orders and injunctions. We are combining effective prevention with tough enforcement.
      At the same time, we want to provide adequate protection for victims of antisocial behaviour, including racial harassment. As part of that, it is important to make it absolutely clear that it would not be reasonable for anyone to remain in their home if continued occupation would bring with it a real risk of any kind of violence, or a threat of actual violence. That must include not only domestic violence but all other forms of violence, including racially motivated violence. That is what new clause 16 does.
      The clause will amend section 177 of the Housing Act 1996 to make it clear that it is not reasonable for someone to continue in their present accommodation if to do so would result in violence or a real threat of violence towards them. As with the current provisions concerning applicants at risk of domestic violence, the new broader provision will apply whether there is a risk of violence, or threat of actual violence, to the applicant himself or to a member of his household.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow moved an amendment that would have amended section 198 of the 1996 Act with the aim of ensuring that people who flee from harassment in one area and make a homelessness application in another are not referred back to the area where they would be at risk.
      There are specific provisions in the 1996 Act that prevent such a referral taking place if the applicant, or a member of his household, would run the risk of domestic violence in the other area. Currently, there is no provision to prevent referral where there is a risk of some other form of violence in the other area. The new clause will make that necessary provision.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) tabled new clause 19, which has the same broad intention as new clause 16, although his proposal focuses rather more specifically on racially motivated violence. As I have said, the Government's proposals will embrace all forms of violence, and that must be the right approach. That includes racially motivated violence, which unfortunately is far too often the type of violence that hounds people out of their homes.
      In light of the fact that we have tabled new clause 16, I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will withdraw new clause 19.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: All parties in the House and individuals will be grateful to the Government for responding positively to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) by bringing forward a new clause. That is welcome. The Minister was right to say that the general thrust of new clause 16 is in the same direction as new clause 19, which I tabled. I accept that the Government's new clause goes
      954
      further than mine because it amends both sections 177 and 198 of the Housing Act 1996. Properly, in my view, the Government have added to the domestic violence provision, which gave protection before, the wider violence category, which is described in the new clause. I welcome that and I am grateful. The intention was exactly the same from my perspective, from that of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and from that of the Government.
      We are dealing with a huge and real issue. Far too many people are receiving threats in their own homes. These are most frequently threats of a racial character or are the result of a domestic dispute. Occasionally, there are other sorts of threat. There are occasional threats—happily, they are not made nearly as often as the others—of homophobic violence. Every year since I have been a Member of Parliament, people have come to me and said, "I cannot stay in my home. I am being persecuted on the ground of my race"—or of their sexuality or for some other reason. I am grateful to the Government for responding positively.
      I am keen to ensure that the tenant, the normal resident, is covered. I have also included,
      "a person who normally resides with him as a member of his family"—
      and, because it raises a specific issue,
      "any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him."
      I ask for that to be included, again from practical experience. On two recent occasions, the threat has been not to the tenant but to the tenant's partner. In one case, the tenant was safe while alone, but when the partner, who was of different race and had a home elsewhere, came to stay at weekends, the violence occurred. The other case is familiar to us all, and occurs when there is shared custody or responsibility for children. Occasionally, difficulties and threats arise because of a domestic breakdown in the past. People may feel that, if the child of the family stays with them, they will be under attack because the other partner has never accepted the child's right to stay with that parent or grandparent.
      5 pm
      I am happy not to press my new clause, but I am keen that, by end of the process of getting the legislation right, we should have covered the tenant, the normal resident and people who, perfectly properly, come to stay. Ministers will understand that it is fine and good to protect the tenants themselves, but if their sons, daughters, parents, partners, wives or husbands are under attack when they come to stay, then a tenant's right to stay and to be protected is no good. Tenants need protection for their household, which should be properly defined. I am therefore keen to make sure that the legislation covers the household in all circumstances in which there is a threat of violence, whether domestic or otherwise.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: In common with other speakers, I welcome the enlargement of the provisions in new clause 16. However, there is an issue that I would like to raise with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Some of my constituents have suffered from domestic violence, racial harassment or harassment because of their sexual preferences. They feel strongly and deeply that they are being made to move from their

      955
      home and from an area which they and their children know well and—certainly in cases of domestic violence—where the children are attending school and have made links with other children.
      While welcoming the potential for a place of safety for people who suffer the worst excesses of mindless violence, I should like to raise with my hon. Friend the need to examine the possibility of ensuring that the victims of violence can be properly protected in homes in which they may have lived for a considerable period. There should be rather more joined-up action across what I acknowledge is a wide range of statutory responsibilities, to ensure that those who would do those people harm are precluded from doing so.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I wish to make a brief point. The Under-Secretary will know that I did not have the opportunity to serve on the Standing Committee, and my point—which, I hope, he does not think pedantic—may have been dealt with exhaustively then. As I understand it, new clause 16, which I support, amends section 177 of the Housing Act 1996, by adding the words "or other violence" after the words "domestic violence". It then goes on to define what violence—not "other violence"—means.
      Why is it necessary to add those words—I fully agree that the concept should be added—rather than deleting "domestic"? The new clause could just refer to violence, which could be domestic, racial or any other violence. I have a little campaign to try to ensure that legislation is no longer than it need be. In this case, that small point may just help.
      Mr. Waterson: May I begin by congratulating the Under-Secretary on what, I think, is his first ministerial appearance at the Dispatch Box? Of course, he was promoted during the Bill's Committee stage—one of the many events that enlivened our debates.
      We support new clause 16. There was a debate on the general subject in Committee and there was general cross-party support for the proposal that we should be clear that we are addressing all types of violence. We agree with the Under-Secretary that it is certainly possible to put a narrow construction on the existing wording. As the hon. Gentleman said, it would be quite wrong for people to be disadvantaged in housing priority terms if they were in genuine fear of violence, whatever the cause of that violence was said to be. We heard an eloquent speech in Committee from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on the issue.
      Whether we represent Bermondsey, Eastbourne or anywhere else, we all know of the problem of violence and the threat of violence in social housing in some parts of our constituencies, and of the fact that people can be systematically terrorised over a long period. We recognise that there are different types of violence and different reasons for it.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) noted that the reasons for the violence may be domestic, and that all too often, the flash-point is access to or custody of children, or marital discord. Equally, the reasons may be racial or homophobic, or we may be talking about neighbours who
      956
      simply do not like each other. We will discuss later the so-called neighbours from hell. That issue should be addressed more than it has been in the Bill.
      Antisocial behaviour bordering on the violent, and sometimes turning into violence, is an increasing problem in estates, blocks of flats and so on across the country. We agree that no distinction should be made between different types of violence.
      It is bad enough that people may be forced to flee their homes because of violence or the threat of violence, but it would be absurd if they then found themselves at the back of the queue for housing. I doubt whether there are housing authorities that apply the rules so narrowly, but the Minister is right: we should not leave it to chance. We are therefore happy to support new clause 16.
      Mr. Hancock: I welcome new clause 16, but I see in it problems that could persist into the future. Those of us who represent large numbers of council tenants have encountered cases involving all types of violence. Sadly, domestic violence is usually one of the easier cases, as it is clear who is perpetrating the violence and who is on the receiving end.
      Other types of violence are not so straightforward—for example, the threat of violence from the drug dealer in the block of flats against other tenants. I have a block of flats in my constituency where the Post Office has refused to deliver mail because of the intimidation and the hypodermic needles that are discarded almost daily around the block. It is a scandal that people in the block knew what was going on, but were so frightened to come forward because of the fears of violence that the matter went unattended to for a considerable length of time.
      There are many instances in which the threat of violence is a compelling reason for people not to say anything about what is going on, and to allow the criminal elements and the neighbours from hell to continue to make other people's lives a misery.
      A further issue is the malicious claim of violence. On more than one occasion, people have come to me with a fairly plausible story about a threat of violence, in the hope that that would be sufficient to get them rehoused. It is extremely difficult to prove such a thing, and the assertion was subsequently shown to be malicious. The people concerned were simply trying to work a scam to get rehoused. People may be desperate, but that is not acceptable.
      There should be a mechanism that allows people who have a genuine fear of violence to ask the local housing authority to move them because they are at risk. The housing officer may ask what proof they have and how often the police have been called. In most cases, the mere fact of the police turning up would be enough to ensure that violence ensues—perhaps not that day or the next, but within a short period.
      We need to assist local authorities in obtaining proof of what is going on, and we should give them some guidance about how to collect evidence of the violence that has supposedly been threatened. That is a very difficult issue that must undoubtedly be addressed. How right the Government are to have tabled new clause 16, but that will not be the end of the process. Sadly, the problem is going to get worse. On some estates, the threat of violence has become an epidemic, and is an essential part of the way in which those estates are run. We must find a mechanism to free people from the fear of violence.

      957
      Any hon. Members who grew up on council estates where violence was the norm will know how awful it is to live with that fear hanging over them. Fear accompanies people on their journey home from school; parents worry about whether their children will arrive home, because of the threat not of abduction but of violence being dished out; people come home late in the evening and are afraid to go upstairs: some go and stay the night somewhere else because they are afraid to enter a block of flats and go up four flights of stairs, because gangs of violent youths are sitting on those stairs. The police cannot respond to every phone call from someone asking to be escorted home. We must find a mechanism to deal with the problem. New clause 16 starts the process but, sadly, does not end it.
      Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked whether other people in a household would be covered by the measure. He will find the definition that he seeks in section 177 of the Housing Act 1996, which the new clause will extend. The present definition includes
      "(a) a person who normally resides with him as a member of his family, or
      (b) any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him."
      The definition that the hon. Gentleman asked for is therefore covered by the original Act and by the extension proposed in the new clause.
      The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) asked why we could not simply use the word "violence", rather than the terms "domestic violence" and "or other violence". The reason is that we have to comply with the requirement for referrals under section 198 of the Housing Act 1996, in circumstances in which it applies to domestic violence. It is far easier to identify the perpetrators of domestic violence—and their places of abode—than other perpetrators of violence, so there is a different procedure in such cases.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) largely spoke on the same subject. On that issue, we are proposing that a person living in a home where they have been subjected to violence or are clearly under threat of violence—no matter what the reason or motive—can be classified as homeless and given priority if it is necessary to move them from their home.
      Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate, will know that a complaint we often receive is that the victims of violence, rather than the perpetrators, have to be moved. Furthermore, there is always an issue of proof. The Government are trying to introduce other measures to deal with those problems. In relation to that, we must consider the adequacy and enforcement of tenancy agreements and the use of antisocial behaviour orders.
      The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South clearly illustrated that it is not always possible to prove allegations of violence. Sadly, it is all too often necessary to move the victim out of the way of the threat because the allegations against the perpetrator cannot be proved.
      Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister also agree that another important strategy—to which more publicity
      958
      could perhaps be given—is the role of third parties in giving evidence, to preserve the anonymity of a neighbour who might otherwise have to give direct evidence, with all the consequences that that might have?
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Ainsworth: Some of the measures that the Government introduced recently were designed to introduce a working relationship between police and local authorities, to enable third parties to give evidence in many cases of this kind. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: The point I wanted to make is that in some areas an individual local authority cannot tackle the problem. In the case of certain acts of violence, there should be a strategy involving several authorities.
      When one local authority tenant visits violence on another tenant of the same authority, although the difficulties that have been enunciated are very real, it is in some ways easier for the authority to deal with the problem. When the violence is perpetrated by a tenant of a contiguous authority, however—or even an authority further away than that—there should be a strategy that a group of authorities can define.
      Mr. Ainsworth: What my hon. Friend says is inevitably true. Wherever possible, we are trying to encourage cross-border co-operation between authorities, as well as co-operation within them.
      As we all know, this is a difficult issue. It is often not possible to prove violence or threats of violence, which means that victims go on suffering needlessly. We are introducing a provision enabling such people, in extremis, to be classed as homeless, and to move away from the threats or the actual violence that they face.
      Ms Jackson rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has probably finished.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      CO-OPERATION BETWEEN REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORDS AND LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITIES
      '.—() For section 170 of the 1996 Act (co-operation between registered social landlords and local housing authorities) there is substituted—
      "Where a local housing authority so request, a registered social landlord shall co-operate in offering accommodation to people with priority under the authority's allocation scheme, if to do so is compatible with their constitution and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions".'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies—
      '().—(1) Section 213 (co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows.
      After subsection (1) there is inserted—
      "() Where a local housing authority request a registered social landlord to assist them in the discharge of their functions under this part, the landlord to whom the request is made shall co-operate in rendering such assistance in the discharge of the functions to which the request relates, if to do so is compatible with their constitution and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions."
      (2) In subsection (2)(a) the words "a registered social landlord or housing action trust" shall cease to have effect.".'.
      Amendment No. 57, in clause 16, page 10, line 27, at end insert—
      '(8) In formulating its homelessness strategy, a local authority shall be required to show that its policies meet housing needs before meeting housing demands.'.
      Amendment No. 18, in clause 17, page 10, line 30, after "homelessness", insert "including rough sleeping".
      Amendment No. 19, in clause 18, page 11, line 45, after "organisations", insert—
      'people living within the authority's area including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.'.
      Amendment No. 15, in page 11, line 46, at end insert—
      'to include organisations recognised by the Secretary of State as specialists in representing people with physical and mental disabilities.'.
      Mr. Foster: We are now dealing with the important issue of the strategies and reviews of homelessness for which local authorities are to be responsible. As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, Liberal Democrats are very supportive of the Government's proposals, although I am sorry that they were not prepared to accept the importance of uniting authorities housing and homelessness strategies.
      In Committee, we made a great deal of progress in determining what should be the content of the reviews and strategies. The new clauses and amendments are intended to make further improvements. I shall not comment on the Conservative amendments, but I commend them—particularly amendment No. 15, which suggests that consultation during the development of strategies should include consultation with organisations representing people with mental and physical disabilities. We discussed that issue in Committee. Amendment No. 19 concerns another issue that we discussed then: the importance of involving homeless people in the development of strategies. I especially commend amendment No. 57, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which suggests that the primacy of housing need should be stressed in all allocation strategies.
      New clause 2 and new clause 3, which is intimately linked with it, raise an issue that was touched on during our Committee deliberations. However, because it was linked with many other issues, we perhaps did not have the opportunity to give it the attention that we might have liked.
      The Committee became aware during its deliberations, as I am sure the House is aware, that the registered social landlord sector is playing an increasing role in the
      960
      provision of affordable housing. As we discovered from information provided by various organisations, by 2004, because of continued progress by local authorities in selling their council houses to RSLs, the majority of affordable houses will be in the control of RSLs. Therefore, if a local authority's homelessness strategy is to be successful, it is important that there be an intimate relationship between the local authority and the RSLs in its area.
      The existing legislation, the Housing Act 1996, requires co-operation between RSLs in a local authority's area and the local authority, but the problem is that, within that legislation, the nature of that relationship is largely based on the RSLs deciding what it shall be reasonable for them to do in respect of that co-operation.
      Clearly, if an RSL is not prepared to co-operate in the provision of affordable housing for people in need in a local authority's area, there can be serious consequences. Some people will stay longer in temporary housing. It could mean that some people are in less satisfactory housing. It might even mean that some people are not housed at all. The test, however, is whether that co-operation is deemed by the RSL to be reasonable. It is clear that the RSL would decide whether the relationship was reasonable. Indeed, the Minister, in relation to advice and assistance given by a local authority, said:
      "the legal advice that I have received is quite clear that the courts would be likely to take such 'advice and assistance as is reasonable..' to be reasonable in the eyes of the local authority."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 February 2001; c. 429.]
      Under the current legislation, co-operation between the two is expected, but it is for RSLs to decide whether the level of co-operation that they are providing is reasonable.
      Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Foster: I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose contributions we so enjoy.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that unsought compliment.
      If a local authority changes its social housing priorities in the course of one financial year, either because of a change of administration or for any one of a number of possible reasons, how quickly will the hon. Gentleman expect a registered social landlord to respond in terms of the provision of accommodation?
      Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It raises a more complicated point than I suspect even he is aware of. A large number of local authorities have transferred their housing stock to RSLs. At the time of the transfer, it was assumed that the RSL would abide by the allocations and priority procedures of the local authority. Over time, however, as local authorities change, registered social landlords have not been required to change their procedures. Therefore, there is not even a requirement for RSLs to change their procedures, let alone to change them quickly.
      I acknowledge entirely the concern that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) may have that registered social landlords will be required to make changes overnight. Consequently, if he carefully reads new clause 2, he will see that I have included various

      961
      caveats to ensure that although registered social landlords will be required to co-operate more fully with the local authority, they do not have to do so if that is against their constitution or if they can demonstrate that it would in some way subvert their main purpose and key activity. I am grateful to him for making that point and allowing me to expand on it.
      Some people may argue that registered social landlords will certainly want to co-operate. In a majority of cases, they do want to co-operate. Unfortunately, however, evidence from across the country has shown that some RSLs are not as co-operative as one might hope. In Committee, we heard of research done by Shelter that demonstrated that of the 61 large-scale and partial transfer authorities with which it was in discussions, 26 per cent. said that, after the stock transfer, it was less easy to house homeless households and people on the register. Interestingly—although I do not think that we should make too much of that relatively small sample—89 per cent. of the authorities surveyed said that they would favour greater statutory powers in the matter.
      The purpose of the two new clauses is clear. They would strengthen the current statutory arrangements for registered social landlords to co-operate in offering accommodation under the authority's allocation scheme and assisting in the discharge of the authority's homelessness function. As registered social landlords are an increasingly important part of the affordable housing sector, that relationship is vital. That relationship needs to be strengthened, and the new clauses propose ways of doing just that.
      Mr. Tim Loughton: I should like to speak first to new clauses 2 and 3, and then to our own amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 15.
      The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is right to recognise the increasing importance of housing associations and other non-local authorities in providing housing. He is also right to welcome, as Conservative Members do, provisions that provide homelessness strategies and encourage local authorities to take a more preventive approach to homelessness. Our objection to the Liberal Democrats new clauses is their rather vague—I probably should not be surprised at that—way of approaching the relationship between local authorities and registered social landlords. We do not know why we need provisions "to strengthen co-operation", as the hon. Gentleman describes it, between registered social landlords and local authorities. We trust registered social landlords to decide what is reasonable.
      I echo the concerns expressed by the National Housing Federation about new clause 2. It states
      "Whilst it is right that RSLs offer assistance in meeting local housing needs, it is also important that they remain able to offer housing to people in need through other routes. By offering referrals to specialist agencies, RSLs are able to ensure that a wider spectrum of needs is met. Vulnerable single people or couples on low incomes, for example, are often helped into affordable housing in this way.
      It is also vital that RSLs are able to consider whether a property on offer is suitable for the applicant, given their household's needs and the available support."
      We want to avoid a move towards sink estates, and so cannot support the new clause.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Don Foster: I agree on all the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. There is great diversity among registered social landlords, and it is important to allow them to have regard to their constitution and key purposes. The new clause provides that those criteria can be used as exceptions, enabling RSLs not to co-operate if they believe that to do so would not be in their interests.
      Mr. Loughton: I do not disagree with much of that, but the new clause would not guarantee that local authorities could not press registered social landlords to act in a way that would be unreasonable and prejudicial to the provision of housing for other potential tenants. We believe that section 170 of the Housing Act 1996 is adequate for the task. It states:
      "Where a local housing authority so request, a registered social landlord shall co-operate to such extent as is reasonable in the circumstances in offering accommodation to people with priority on the authority's housing register."
      Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the emollient advocacy of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and his helpful reference to the caveat in the new clause that a registered social landlord should not be obliged to prejudice the discharge of its other functions, it is important to know who will arbitrate disputes when they arise? As yet, that is unclear.
      Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The flow of complimentary language between him and the hon. Member for Bath is most unseemly and unexpected. However, Conservative Members will not support the new clause.
      Far more important is the matter of the three amendments that we tabled in Committee. The Government greeted them with warm words then, but do not appear tempted to make those warm words more explicit in the Bill. We therefore feel it necessary to tease from Ministers more action and commitment than they have so far offered.
      Amendment No. 18 would add rough sleeping to homelessness as a requirement for housing authority reviews. In Committee, we discussed at length the problems faced by rough sleepers, which are different from those faced by other homeless people. Rough sleepers' problems include dependency on drugs or alcohol and difficulties with social services, and their requirements with regard to the housing authority's review policy should be included in the Bill.
      In Committee, we also discussed the role of the rough sleepers unit. We used the example of the rough sleepers initiative so ably introduced by my right hon. Friends the Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) when they were housing Ministers in the early 1990s. They did a great deal to tackle the problem of rough sleepers.
      We believe that devoting a budget of £200 million to a quango filled with well-paid people is not the best way to concentrate resources on rough sleepers, and that it would be better to endow local authorities with the task. That is why we want the Bill to specify that rough sleeping should be part of a homelessness strategy. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his unwillingness to accept the amendment. We are not convinced by the reasons that he has produced so far.

      963
      Amendment No. 19, which is perfectly sensible, deals with homelessness strategies and whom local authorities should consult. The issue was covered in Committee at some length, and we congratulated the Government on the more holistic—that ghastly word, which we all vowed not to use—and comprehensive approach to including other partners in formulating homelessness strategies and using partnerships to execute policies to deal with homelessness. We thought it was simply an error or drafting omission that nowhere in the Bill is there an undertaking that when formulating or modifying homelessness strategies, the very people those strategies are to help—homeless people—should be consulted.
      I mentioned in Committee the work done by organisations such as Shelter, which we all congratulated. It has been very supportive with regard to the homelessness measures in the Bill. Its report, "Closing the Gap", is a prime example of good practice and the way in which needs are translated into action. For that report, Shelter consulted the victims of homelessness. To consult homeless people seems a straightforward proposal. I should be grateful if the Minister explained to the House why he has not felt able to include such a provision in the Bill thus far.
      Amendment No. 15 deals with local authorities consulting specialist organisations that represent people who have physical and mental disabilities. As chairman of the Conservative disability group, I spoke with some concern in Committee. I think that what we are trying to achieve fits in neatly with what the Government are trying to achieve and with the spirit of the Bill. I cannot see why such a provision has not been included.
      Statistics show that more than 40 per cent. of homeless people, including rough sleepers, are over the age of 50. They are therefore much more vulnerable to the mental and physical effects of poor accommodation or rough sleeping and have a higher proportion of physical or mental disabilities. They have less easy access to mainstream advice services.
      In terms of physical accommodation, it is straightforward stuff—wheelchair and door access, ramps and rails. People in wheelchairs should not be put in flats on the fifth or 15th floor of a tower block, making them prisoners in their own home. We have all seen people at our surgeries who have been offered wholly inadequate accommodation.
      It is also a question of the area in which physically disabled people are housed. They need accommodation where an eye can be kept on them—where sympathetic neighbours, be they wardens or others, will look out for them or provide them with companions.
      When people with mental disabilities are able to go back into the community, where they are placed and whom they live next to are very important. Families with young children will be less understanding and sympathetic to their situation. Organisations such as Mencap raise the problems of the resettlement of people with learning disabilities who remain in long-stay hospitals due to the absence of suitable accommodation for them when they come out—another form of bed blocking, effectively.
      964
      The Local Government Association report, "No Place Like Home", made certain proposals. It stated:
      "Social services and, where relevant, health authorities should be involved in the allocation plan for households deemed to be in particular need of settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds in order to ensure that the need for support is both assessed and provided as part of the allocation process … Housing, social services and health authorities should jointly agree hospital discharge planning arrangements … Local housing authorities should maintain a register of wheelchair adapted properties in the council and housing association stock and, where feasible, in the private sector."
      So on, and so forth. We agree with those proposals.
      In Committee, we were given undertakings that argument A, which was cited by the hon. Member for Bath right at the beginning of the Committee proceedings, would not be trotted out as the all-encompassing excuse for not including measures such as those proposed in the new clause and amendments in the Bill. Argument A is essentially that if we mentioned certain groups of people, we would have to mention everyone—but we are talking not about a small special interest group, but about a large proportion of the population.
      According to DSS figures, up to 8.5 million people have disabilities of varying severity. That is one in five adults. Even if we think that that is too broad a qualification, we should remember that there are 700,000 wheelchair users in England and Wales alone. That is 700,000 people for whom special accommodation must be provided. If it is not, they will have varying degrees of problem in gaining access to and egress from the homes allocated to them.
      Why the Minister cannot concede on reinforcing the necessity to have regard to people who are specialists in dealing with people who have mental and physical disabilities, I do not know. We do not want to place enormous restraints on housing providers; nor are we asking for an enormous amount of extra resources. All we are asking for is that the Bill should state that regard must be had to the particular needs of a large part of the population—possibly the largest special interest in the population.
      During our consideration of people with mental disabilities, the Minister quoted the Housing Act 1996. That Act was panned by the then Labour Opposition when it was introduced. It was remarkable how much of it the Minister was able to cite as the reason why our amendments should not be accepted. He said that our points were already adequately covered by the 1996 Act. The Minister said that mental illness was a priority category under the 1996 Act. We are talking about delivering strategies on including physically and mentally disabled people—not just acknowledging as a priority that they exist.
      Our amendments are straightforward and not contentious. We mostly agree with the thrust of what the Bill is trying to achieve. However, we cannot see why the Minister, despite the warm words that he trotted out in Committee, has not felt able to stipulate in the Bill first, that the victims of homelessness should be consulted, and secondly—and perhaps more important—that local authorities should have greater regard to disabled people of various descriptions in formulating their homelessness strategies. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was kind enough to refer to the amendment in my name. I should be grateful to know whether the Government support the view that local authorities should be required to meet housing need before housing demand. I shall give an example that prompts my concern.
      Local authorities own land. There is often pressure on them to sell it to realise the value of the land. Land is often needed for social housing, whether it is owned by the council or by a registered social landlord. I often get the impression that the Government are putting pressure on local government to get rid of housing and land. The result is that housing for those who need it, which does not bring the dowry that housing built by developers might bring, is squeezed out because land is developed for houses for those who may love them, but do not need them. Second and third homes should never be a priority when housing need remains unmet. When about 14,000 people are on the waiting list, as they are in Southwark, we should not be developing land in the borough for second or third homes.
      I have a question about the perfectly acceptable Conservative amendment No. 18. Under the Bill, or under the amended Bill if the amendment is accepted, will local authorities have to take into account the circumstances of people who, because they are single adults or are not rough sleepers, are not priority homeless? I offer two examples of people in my constituency who have fallen through the net in the past three months. The first was a young, single woman, aged 21, who was sleeping in a car. She was training as a nursery nurse. She did not have housing priority as a homeless person. As she could find nowhere to live, her training was at risk; training and undertaking placements when one has to sleep in a car every night are hardly an easy life style. During the wet and cold winter period, she was extremely vulnerable.
      5.45 pm
      The second case involved a young man, aged 19, who was also sleeping in a car, in Camberwell. He was holding down a cleaning job for four hours a day—his first job. He was unable to live in his home with his mother and her new partner because the partner would not accept him. He was unable to stay at his girlfriend's home because he had once committed self-harm there—a suicide attempt, or a call for help. Understandably, the family were nervous about that and told their daughter, "No, you can't have your boyfriend here".
      Neither of those people had priority for local authority housing, nor did they qualify under the rough sleepers initiative, because they were not unemployed and had not been rough sleepers for six months. We must ensure that we do not leave that category of people in such a predicament.
      When I went back to the local authority, it accepted, to its credit, that the case of the young man was a priority. As someone whose father and uncle had committed suicide and who had himself attempted self-harm, he should have been categorised as vulnerable and thus given priority need status. Thankfully, he has now been awarded that status—at my request—and has been given accommodation while his needs are assessed properly.
      Sometimes, however, going through those hoops for six months, three months—even one month—might be too much for such people. Both those people were in dire
      966
      circumstances. My colleague in my constituency office, who daily copes with such cases—as do the constituency staff of many parliamentary colleagues—will testify to the acute urgency of ensuring that people in such desperate circumstances are not left homeless, because of the great risk of suicide and other problems.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: I declare an interest inasmuch as I am the adviser on homelessness in the cabinet of the London Mayor—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"]
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) describes his amendments as unconten-tious. As he is a member of a party that, in government, was almost singlehandedly responsible for the huge explosion in the number of rough sleepers on the streets of London and for the large number, within that group, of people with serious mental health problems, and as that party constantly turned its face away from creating any rights for people with disabilities, I find much of his argument unbelievable. I am delighted that perhaps he is beginning to acknowledge that those matters warrant everyone's consideration. As in so many matters that have to do with compassion, the Conservatives are late to the party, but if they have arrived, that is good.
      Mr. Loughton: The hon. Lady can be forgiven as she was not a member of the Standing Committee, but perhaps she will acknowledge the figures that were eventually accepted by Ministers. Between 1991 and 1996, under the Conservative Government's rough sleepers initiative, the number of rough sleepers in central London alone fell from more than 1,000 to 286. Does she agree with those figures? If so, her argument is completely bogus.
      Ms Jackson: I did not serve on the Committee, but I have read all the Hansard reports of its proceedings, and it seems to me that what was essentially wrong with the previous Conservative Government still characterises the Conservatives' approach. They still get bogged down in putting their faith in figures that, in the main, compare unlike with unlike, which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) were so keen to do. No, I do not accept the reading of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham of the policies that the Conservative Government instituted to try to tackle the problem that they had created—too little, too late and, in my view, grudgingly.
      I am astonished by the hon. Gentlemen's grudging response to what the present Government have done, and especially to the work of the rough sleepers initiative. If they are worried about this issue, they should offer firm thanks to Louise Casey and that initiative, who are on target to reduce rough sleeping in the capital by two thirds by the date that they have set.
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham argues that the additional funding that the Government have given should be returned to local authorities when the RSI winds up in 2002. That would simply increase the burdens of rough sleeping that are borne, in the main, by only four boroughs in this city. We should consider ways to prevent, not encourage, rough sleeping.
      I heard the story about the two constituents of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who had to sleep in their cars. I was

      967
      surprised that the first example that he cited was not immediately recognised by his local authority as requiring prioritisation on the grounds of vulnerability.
      I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are holes in the fabric. They result from the previous Government's failure to replace, or to allow local authorities to replace, housing stock that had been lost, and their failure to allow local authorities to enter into partnerships or even to repair and maintain their existing stock. We have too few affordable properties in this city. In the medium and long term, steps must be taken, but there is also a need in the short term.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey does not need my advice, but he might be interested to know that organisations that have received contracts from the rough sleepers initiative tell me that an increasing number of young people who are coming into the centre of London—thank God, no longer from other parts of the United Kingdom, but certainly from the outer London boroughs—are under the misapprehension that if they take up rough sleeping they will be prioritised for housing. We must make it abundantly clear that that is not, nor will it be, the case. The purpose of the rough sleepers initiative was, rightly, to prioritise the most vulnerable of those who are on our streets. The initiative is working effectively and well, and that is the strong view of the majority of those long-established charities that have worked in the area for many years.
      However, in London at least, there will have to be an integrated policy that takes account of the fact that, in many instances, rough sleeping by people who are particularly vulnerable, either as a result of mental illness or physical disability, is not a problem exclusively of bricks and mortar. It is also a problem of maintaining people when they eventually achieve a form of permanent housing.
      In my constituency it is not unusual for a person who has been rough sleeping, and for whom one has eventually managed to find permanent housing, to run away when the first electricity or gas bill arrives, because they cannot yet take absolute control of their life. It is not unusual for those in the older category of rough sleeper especially—many of whom have been in the armed forces, so they have been used to camaraderie and a life in which the individual does not necessarily have to take day-to-day responsibility for living—to be overwhelmed, when they are in their own property, by the sheer loneliness. Someone said to me the other day, "You look at a wall at 4 o'clock in the morning and there is no one to talk to; I go back to the street."
      For that reason, there is great need for a pan-London strategy, to ensure not only additional affordable housing but additional support. I am not arguing, and those organisations that already have excellent schemes in place would not argue, that the most vulnerable people must have someone living in their flat or bedsit 24 hours a day, to ensure that they know how to turn the gas off and the light on, pay the bills and wash themselves. I am arguing that there are schemes that work well and that, as has been said at other stages of the Bill's progress, it is important that central and local government start to disseminate across a much wider field examples of best practice so that we do not go through the pointless, time-wasting and expensive process of reinventing the wheel. Equally, to
      968
      return to the point that I made in response to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I am arguing that to disburse the additional funding that the Government have put into the rough sleepers initiative among, in the main, the four local authorities that carry the largest rough sleeping burdens is not the way that we can most actively and cohesively prevent people from returning to our streets.
      In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I do believe that there will be difficulties for local authorities, because in some there will be an element of nimbyism. They may not necessarily want people who have been rough sleepers, who may be recovered alcoholics or recovered drug users, in their locality but, speaking exclusively from the perspective of a London Member of Parliament, we simply must ensure that there is a cohesive, integrated strategy that ensures that we never again have people with nowhere to rest their head other than a shop doorway, and that those who are mentally ill are properly supported: a long-term strategy that ensures that we create truly integrated communities where local authorities, registered social landlords and anyone and everyone that we can attract into this field will provide the housing that, at least in London, we desperately need.
      Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Our proposals for homelessness reform require local authorities to take a more strategic approach to tackling and preventing homelessness. Such a strategic approach will be effective only if it harnesses the efforts and activities of all the organisations operating in each authority's area that provide services and assistance to homeless people.
      We have made it clear that a partnership approach is central to our proposals. We require local housing authorities to take a multi-agency strategic approach to preventing and responding to homelessness. There is a logical corollary: other agencies, statutory, voluntary and private, will have to play their part, and the voluntary sector includes registered social landlords.
      Registered social landlords will be central to the development and implementation of homelessness strategies. In some areas, they provide the majority of social housing, and the transfer programme is increasing their importance in delivering services to tenants and in supporting local authorities in the performance of their statutory duties.
      The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) quoted what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said in Committee, but he quoted him on a different point. Registered social landlords are subject to the Housing Corporation. If registered social landlords do not co-operate with the strategies drawn up by local authorities, the Housing Corporation can ensure that they do.
      New clauses 2 and 3 seek to strengthen the statutory duties on registered social landlords to co-operate with local authorities in offering accommodation to people with priority under the authorities' allocation scheme, and to assist authorities in the discharge of their homelessness duties by depriving them of their discretion to consider what is reasonable in the circumstances. We have covered that ground pretty thoroughly now and in Committee. Registered social landlords are already under a duty to co-operate with local authorities to such an extent as is reasonable. That allows some discretion, but the provision is given teeth by the sector's regulator—the Housing Corporation.

      969
      6 pm
      In guidance and through its policies on investment, the corporation can influence and provide incentives to associations to ensure that they work constructively with authorities. The corporation is reviewing its guidance and will ensure that local authorities' strategic roles are highlighted and that registered social landlords should endeavour to help authorities to deliver that role.
      Registered social landlords serve an important social purpose, but they are independent, voluntary bodies even if regulated and monitored under statute. I do not believe it appropriate, or necessary, to prevent them from exercising their discretion in relation to their statutory duties. It is essential that we respect their independence, but we certainly will look to them fully to support local housing authorities in the development and implementation of homelessness reviews and strategies, and the Housing Corporation will strengthen its guidance in that respect.
      It is odd that those hon. Members who generally welcome the greater freedoms that we are giving to local authorities in carrying out their functions are seeking to place stronger statutory duties on registered social landlords. There is real value in the sector's independence and diversity. That has come about not by Government diktat, but by steady evolution, with associations informing and voluntarily supporting and contributing to the social housing agenda. Independence allows self-motivation, greater innovation and a vision that goes beyond statutory duties. In seeking to limit that vision, the hon. Member for Bath risks losing much of what is best in the sector. I believe that new clauses 2 and 3 would do more harm than good, so I ask him to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Don Foster: I apologise to the Under-Secretary for not joining the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) in congratulating him on his first outing at the Dispatch Box, but many of us in Committee had the opportunity to congratulate him on his promotion. Having said that, I found this outing rather disappointing, because he claims that, under new clause 2, some of the freedom and flexibility of registered social landlords would be removed, which would be appalling, and that we should respect the sector's diversity and flexibility. However, at the same time, he categorically told me that I need not worry because, in fact, all registered social landlords were under the control and dominion of the Housing Corporation.
      The Under-Secretary admitted that such landlords were regulated by statute and that they have statutory duties, but he now tells us not only that the Housing Corporation will issue new guidance but that there will be strengthened guidance. I want to provide a mechanism to strengthen the relationship between local authorities and registered social landlords. However, having told me that I could not do that, he now describes an alternative by which that will be done. Of course, in doing so, he generously answered—so avoiding my having to do so—the question about who would have control over such issues, asked by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The answer is that those who hold the purse strings control the issues. Given that the Under-Secretary has given that response, I intend to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I confused him; I certainly did not mean to
      970
      do so. I thought that he wanted to intervene, so I gave way to him. Although I am new to the Dispatch Box, I hope that I never fall into the habit of making such long interventions.
      Mr. Foster rose—
      Mr. Ainsworth: Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene, or does he want to make a speech?
      Mr. Foster: I am most grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way now. I assumed, by the way in which he ended his previous remarks, that he had finished his speech and was seeking to persuade me to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Ainsworth: It is not at like the hon. Gentleman to be so self-centred; he should realise that the group contains other amendments, which have been tabled by other hon. Members.
      Amendment No. 57 is misconceived. It would set up false alternatives and suggests that meeting need is not compatible with meeting demand. However, meeting need does not preclude promoting choice. For example, facilitating transfers within an authority's stock does not increase demand for social housing, but it does increase choice. Offering choice to homeless applicants is not incompatible with meeting need—they can occur together. The Bill will establish a robust framework for prioritising claims on social housing. It will allow need to be met and choice to be promoted.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) cited a couple of examples from his constituency. He will be aware that we are extending the priority categories to cover all 16 and 17-year-olds and all 18 and 19-year-olds leaving care. I should have thought that those categories, as well as a properly used definition of vulnerability, could cover those examples in a reasonable, caring and thorough local authority and that such people should be considered in those priority categories.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
      Mr. Ainsworth: At least the hon. Gentleman makes it clear that he wishes to intervene.
      Mr. Hughes: On the Under-Secretary's response to amendment No. 57, in the Government's view, should local authorities meet need before demand?
      Mr. Ainsworth: As I have said, we do not see a contrast. Local authorities must not only meet need, but provide choice. That is the core purpose of our proposals. We do not believe that there is a conflict between those matters.
      Under amendments Nos. 18, 15 and 19, we need, yet again, to consider what should, and should not, be included in the Bill. We expect local authorities to seek the views of tenants, residents and those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, including rough sleepers. Their views will be central in informing, from a consumer perspective, the homelessness reviews and in helping to draw up the strategies. We expect local government to engage people in the area, to work in partnership and to

      971
      be customer focused, but such matters need not be stated in the Bill. Homelessness includes rough sleeping, so adding rough sleeping, as suggested under amendment No. 18, would be meaningless. There is no need to imply, by including one group, that its needs were necessarily more pressing than another's.
      I share hon. Members' concern about the welfare of those with mental health needs, but we shall ensure that such needs are carefully addressed in the code of guidance. I repeat that, no matter what problem a group faces, or how large the group may be, it is not necessary to state every detail in the Bill. Indeed, that is not always desirable, as we have discussed elsewhere.
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) refers to the fact that such people are not mentioned in the Bill, but the Housing Act 1996 states that they are exactly the people who need to be looked after. Section 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 defines exactly the categories of people that he wanted to include in the Bill. The issues are covered, and I hope that he will accept that assurance.
      Mr. Loughton: The Minister appeared to be perorating, but I wish to intervene on his reference to section 189(1)(c) of the 1996 Act. That section refers to identifying people in priority need, but it has nothing to do with consulting specialist groups that represent people with mental and physical disabilities on the best strategy for dealing with them. As I pointed out in Committee, they are two entirely different issues, so my point is not covered by referring to a section in the 1996 Act.
      Mr. Ainsworth: In drawing up their strategies, local authorities will be obliged to consult groups representing those with priority needs. As the hon. Gentleman can see, the groups are identified in section 189(1)(c). As he rightly said, we are back to what was known in Committee as argument A. If we include one group in the Bill, that might relegate the priority given to every other group. That might be an unforseen consequence of including one group without making the broader provision that is needed.
      Mr. Bercow: In the context of amendment No. 18, and assuming the veracity of the Minister's words about local discretion, how can he seriously suggest that the inclusion of the words "including rough sleeping" would either circumscribe that discretion or, still less, prove justiciable?
      Mr. Ainsworth: Homelessness is covered and rough sleeping is a part of homelessness. To mention it separately in the Bill would be superfluous and would achieve absolutely nothing. On that basis, I hope that that amendment will not be pressed.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: There is an obsession with the phrase "rough sleeping", although I accept it gives rise to real needs. Many rough sleepers have multiple needs, and one could argue that they could be covered by every single category that one might care to name. However, the bottom line is that they are homeless.
      Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. Rough sleepers are already covered within the category of homelessness. As I said, to include them separately in the Bill would be superfluous and would achieve nothing.
      Mr. Don Foster: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 4

      DUTY TO PERSONS WITH PRIORITY NEED WHO ARE NOT HOMELESS INTENTIONALL
      '.—() In section 193 of the 1996 Act (duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally) after subsection (7) there is inserted—
      "(7A) an offer of accommodation under Part VI is a final offer for the purposes of subsection (7) if it is made in writing, states that is a final offer for the purposes of subsection (7) and states that the offer shall remain available to the applicant for not less than three working days from the date of the offer, or such longer period as the authority consider reasonable in all the circumstances.".'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Right of review of eligibility for allocation of housing accommodation—
      '—() If a local housing authority decides that an applicant for housing accommodation is ineligible by virtue of subsection (3) and (5) of section 160A for an allocation by them, they shall inform him of his right to request a review of the decision and of the time within which such a request must be made.'.
      New clause 6—Interim duty to accommodate in case of apparent priority need—
      '().—Section 188 (interim duty to accommodate in case of an apparent priority need) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows.
      (3) After subsection (3) for the words "The authority may continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a decision on a review" there is substituted—
      "The authority shall, if the applicant requests a review of the decision, consider whether to continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant pending a decision on a review, and shall take into account all the circumstances and in particular—

      (a) any new information provided by the applicant since the authority's decision was notified to him;

      (b) whether a decision not to continue to secure that accommodation is available for his occupation will substantially affect his ability to pursue his request for a review;

      (c) the merits of the request for a review, as they appear to the authority at the time the request is made.".'.

      New clause 7—Right of appeal to county court on point of law—
      '.(1) Section 204 of the 1996 Act (right of appeal to county court on point of law) is amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (2), after the words "decision on review" there is inserted "or such longer period as the authority and the applicant may agree or as the court may allow.".
      (3) For subsection (4) there is substituted—
      "(4) where the authority were under a duty under section 188, 190 or 200 to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation, they shall consider whether to continue to secure that accommodation is so available—

      (a) during the period for appealing under this section against the authority's decision, and

      (b) if an appeal is brought, until the appeal (and any further appeal) is finally determined

      and they shall take into account all the circumstances and in particular—

      (a) any new information provided by the applicant since the authority's decision was notified to him;

      (b) whether a decision not to continue to secure that accommodation is available for his occupation will substantially affect his ability to pursue his request for a review;

      (c) the merits of the request for a review, as they appear to the authority at the time the request is made.".

      (4) After subsection (4) there is inserted—

      "(5) A county court may, in any case where an applicant appeals under this section, require the authority to continue to secure that accommodation is available until the appeal (and any further appeal) is determined.".'.
      New clause 10—Guidance by the Secretary of State—
      '.—() In section 169 of the 1996 Act (guidance by the Secretary of State) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
      "(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) of this section, a local housing authority or social services authority shall exercise their functions relating to the allocation of housing accommodation in accordance with such directions as may be given to them under this section by the Secretary of State.
      (4) Directions under this section—

      (a) shall be given in writing; and

      (b) may be given to a particular authority, or to authorities of a particular class, or to authorities generally.".'.

      New clause 11—Guidance by the Secretary of State (No. 2)—
      '.—( ) In section 182 of the 1996 Act (guidance by the Secretary of State) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
      "(3) Without prejudice to subsection (1) of this section, a local housing authority or social services authority shall exercise their functions relating to homelessness and the prevention of homelessness in accordance with such directions as may be given to them under this section by the Secretary of State.
      (4) Directions under this section—

      (a) shall be given in writing; and

      (b) may be given to a particular authority, or to authorities of a particular class, or to authorities generally.".'.

      New clause 12—Provision of advice and assistance—
      '().—(1) The Secretary of State may by order specify matters to be taken into account in providing (or securing the provision of) advice and assistance under sections 190(2)(b) and (3), 192(2) and 195(5) of the 1996 Act, and make provision as to the procedure to be followed in the provision of that advice and assistance.
      (2) Before making such an order the Secretary of State shall consult with such associations representing relevant authorities, and other persons as he considers appropriate.
      974
      (3) No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      New clause 17—Persons with priority need—
      '—() In section 193 of the 1996 Act (entry to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally) after subsection (7) there is inserted—
      "(7A) An offer of accommodation under Part VI is a first offer for the purposes of subsection (7) if made in writing, states that it is a first offer for the purposes of subsection (7) and states that the offer shall remain available for five working days from the date of the offer or such longer period if the authority consider reasonable and shall include an opportunity for the person receiving the offer and an independent adviser to inspect the property.".'.
      New clause 18—Independent review—
      '.—( ) If a local housing authority decides that an applicant for housing accommodation is ineligible by virtue of subsections (3) and (5) of section 160A for an allocation by them, they shall inform him of his right to request and receive an independent review of the decision and of the time within which such a request must be made.'.
      Amendment No. 52, in clause 20, page 12, line 31, at end insert—
      '(6A) People unable to stay in or who are obliged to leave the previous home owned or rented solely or jointly by them and where after relationship breakdown it is agreed that they are the partner to leave the home and the other partner will continue to live in the home are not to be held intentionally homeless.'.
      Government amendment No. 47.
      Amendment No. 16, in clause 27, page 17, line 24, at end insert—
      'to include particularly families with dependent children'.
      Amendment No. 60, in page 17, line 24, at end insert—
      'in particular, to provide for those who need to be allocated new accommodation, whether or not they have previously been local authority tenants, either on the grounds that they are at risk for their mental or physical safety or that their rehousing is a precondition of them being able to give evidence in criminal proceedings.'.
      Amendment No. 53, in page 17, line 24, at end insert—
      '() It shall be the duty of the local housing authority to provide or secure accommodation for people who need it for their personal protection within 28 days of a request by the police for such accommodation to be provided.'.
      Amendment No. 21, in page 17, leave out lines 25 to 40 and insert—
      '(2A) A local housing authority may defer an allocation of housing accommodation to a person falling within section 160A(2) of this Act where they have reasonable grounds to believe that—

      (a) an allocation of housing accommodation to that person would cause significant hardship to other persons;

      (b) if allocated housing accommodation, a person would fail to comply with his obligations as a tenant, having regard to resources and services which may be available to that person in the authority's district (whether available from the authority or otherwise);

      (2B) An allocation of housing accommodation shall not be deferred in accordance with subsection (2A) above where to do so would be unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances and to the need of the person for an allocation.'.
      Amendment No. 17, in page 17, line 34, at end insert—
      '() any record of behaviour of a person (or a member of his household) which has affected the terms of a previous tenancy he has held.'.
      Amendment No. 55, in page 17, line 34, at end insert—
      '(d) the length of time people have been occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing, or otherwise living in unsatisfactory conditions, or that they have needed to move on medical or welfare grounds, or who need to move to another locality.'.
      Amendment No. 20, in page 18, line 12, at end insert—
      '(2G) The authority shall be able to suspend subsection (3) where it can reasonably show that to operate its term would have a detrimental effect on the provision of local housing needs.'.
      Mr. Foster: The time that it took you to read out the items to be debated, Madam Deputy Speaker, shows just what a long and complex group of amendments and new clauses this is on the subject of housing applications and allocations.
      The group covers three themes. First, some of the amendments and new clauses seek to ensure that the law is applied in practice, and in ways that meet policy intentions. Secondly, others seek to apply minimum standards to ensure that bad practice improves, and that there is more consistency, where appropriate, between local authorities. Thirdly, others seek to achieve a proper balance between local authority discretion and meeting housing need.
      6.15 pm
      Some of the new clauses and amendments are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), but others have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I shall draw the House's attention to some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend's amendments that were not discussed in Committee.
      For example, amendment No. 52 deals with the level of support that should be given when a relationship breaks down and one party is left without accommodation. Equally, amendments Nos. 60 and 53 raise the important issue of the level of support that should be given to people whom the police believe need protection because they have reason to fear violence to their person. No doubt my hon. Friend will air those issues should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      New clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and myself. New clause 4 deals with the minimum time that a homeless person should be given to consider the final offer of accommodation made by a local authority. The issue was debated in Committee, and I pointed out that a homeless person, when presented with a final offer, needs time to consider the offer and to take into account the implications of accepting it for working arrangements, and the effect on the arrangements for his children's education. He also needs to be given time to find out whether the local authority is prepared to carry out any repairs to the property that might be required.
      During our deliberations, the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Under-Secretary suggested that they would not accept such an amendment. However, the Committee clearly took the view that the practice of many local authorities, which allows only 24 hours for a homeless person to make a decision, was unacceptable. We referred to several authorities, including my own, that operate such a 24-hour policy. The Under-Secretary described it as unreasonable and said:
      "in the overwhelming majority of cases, three days is too short a period in which to expect a person to decide on a final offer."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c. 356.]
      976
      His argument was that if three days appeared in the Bill as a minimum period, it would in many cases become the maximum.
      I do not accept that argument. Many of us might prefer a longer period, and in new clause 17, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggests a minimum period of five days. That suggestion is attractive. However, a minimum of three days, provided that it is backed up with strong guidance making it clear that it is a minimum, will at the very least ensure that the practice of allowing only 24 hours, which is currently followed by far too many authorities, is outlawed.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. He said that it proposed a period of five days, but did not explain why that relates to the first, not the final offer. Why do Liberal Democrats believe that five days should be allowed for a first offer but only three days for a final offer? Can the hon. Gentleman explain that curious logic?
      Mr. Foster: That is a matter for my hon. Friend. Indeed, we look forward to his explanation. However, it will not have escaped hon. Members' attention that all too often, the first offer and the final offer are the same. Too many local authorities do not provide homeless people with the range of choice that the Minister would like. Perhaps my hon. Friend will make that point when he replies to the Minister's question.
      New clause 5 deals with the right of review. I place on record our gratitude to the Minister for agreeing, under pressure from Liberal Democrat Members, to include a review period in the Bill. We have tabled new clause 5 to clarify the Minister's exact intentions for the review. In the original measure, people's eligibility for housing assistance and the priority that they would receive were not subject to review. It provided for the local authority to decide; there was no review period to deal with cases in which someone did not agree with the decision and did not believe that the correct information had been used to make it. The Government have now acceded to our request for a review.
      Did the Minister mean what he said in Committee when I asked whether the review period covered eligibility? He replied:
      "The right of review provided by the amendment will extend to such a decision, which will have to be the first decision that an authority makes in the process of deciding whether to allocate accommodation to an individual applicant."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 February 2001; c. 419.]
      I took that at face value. I hope that I am right, and that it means that the review process covers eligibility.
      Decisions about eligibility are made under clause 25 whereas the right of review has been included in clause 27, which covers priority. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the same opportunity exists for reviewing eligibility as for ascertaining the priority of an eligible homeless person. Such a clear statement would persuade me not to press new clause 5, at least.
      New clause 6 deals with another issue that we discussed briefly. What happens to homeless people during the review period? Will the local authority ensure that they are given accommodation? Section 188 of the 1996 Act provides that local authorities have the power, but not a

      977
      duty, to provide accommodation for a person who is undergoing a review. In most cases, the power is not exercised. When I raised that in Committee, the Minister said that requiring local authorities to provide such accommodation in all circumstances would place too great a burden on them. I hope that he has noted that I have taken his anxieties about my earlier formulation into account in new clause 6, which would place a less stringent duty on local authorities. It would require them at least to consider whether to accommodate the individual who is undergoing a review. Given that significant watering down, I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.
      New clause 7 relates to a review or an appeal in a county court. It deals with the length of time that should be allowed before an appeal is made to a county court, accommodation during the appeal and the period for the appeal. Under the 1996 Act, those who are dissatisfied with a decision about support from a local authority can take the matter to a county court, but must make the appeal within 21 days. I do not intend to repeat the lengthy debate that we had in Committee, but there are good reasons why a 21-day period may not be long enough for a person to assemble the details that are required for an appeal to be heard, let alone to succeed.
      Mr. Bercow: Notwithstanding the brickbat that I received from my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) for my tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I genuinely enjoy his advocacy of the argument. However, given the preponderance of cases in which local authorities choose not to provide accommodation pending the outcome of an appeal, what assessment has he made, in his constituency or more widely, of the financial and logistical burden that falls on others?
      Mr. Foster: Thereby hangs an interesting tale. It is difficult to make such a calculation because current arrangements, whereby local authorities often do not even provide accommodation for the period of the review, let alone for the time required to develop an appeal, mean that many people cannot prepare for a review or an appeal because they have to worry about the more urgent matter of trying to get a roof over their heads.
      Research shows that few appeals have taken place. It would be difficult in current circumstances to assess the increase in the number of appeals and thus in the cost. I regret that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. However, he knows that there will be hundreds of appeals throughout the country. If accommodation is to be provided for a few weeks in each case, he can calculate the approximate magnitude of the figure. He has made an interesting point, which shows that a 21-day time limit can put people off.
      The Minister was worried about over-prescription. He will note that new clause 7 shows much greater flexibility than a previous amendment that I tabled. Under current legislation, it is not possible to extend the period beyond 21 days even if both parties want to do that. At least new clause 7 provides for an extension with the agreement of both sides. It also deals more flexibly with providing accommodation during the appeal period.
      978
      6.30 pm
      As for new clauses 10 and 11, I suspect that the Minister has been honing his quotes to demonstrate how my hon. Friends and I frequently stress the importance of giving freedom to local government. No doubt he has a third quote up his sleeve. He will say that the problem with the new clauses is that Liberal Democrats want to impose things on local government, which is contrary to what we say on other occasions.
      The new clauses would give the Secretary of State the power to issue directions to housing and social services departments to ensure that there is an adequate level of service, and consistency in key areas of practice. New clause 10 would apply to the allocation of social housing by an authority under part VI of the 1996 Act, and new clause 11 would apply to a local authority's homelessness functions under part VII.
      During our deliberations in Committee, the Minister referred frequently to the crucial importance that he attached to the guidance that will be issued by the Department. Yet he will acknowledge that where the law is incredibly complex, as it is concerning homelessness and allocations, guidance is a vital instrument for implementing policy intentions. Unless there is direction on some of the specific issues contained in the Bill, there is a real danger that some authorities will ignore the guidance. In some authorities, therefore, the quality of provision would be well below a minimum acceptable standard.
      Before the Minister tries to jump down my throat to tell me that it is wrong to issue directions and guidance to local authorities, I ask him to be careful. Were he to say such a thing, I would remind him of occasions when the Government have done just that, not least with social service departments. Were he to challenge me, I would say that often such directions are given to social service departments without any additional resources being provided to enable them to carry out the functions demanded of them.
      Finally—the House will no doubt be pleased to know—I shall talk about new clause 12, which deals with the importance of setting out a basic minimum set of standards in regulations, to ensure that the provision of advice and guidance to certain groups of homeless people by a local authority is acceptable. That is a key issue.
      In Committee, the Minister was more than willing to accept that the level and quality of advice and guidance offered by local authorities varies enormously. He acknowledged that the research findings in reports undertaken for the Department, and by organisations such as Shelter, have demonstrated that huge variability. I hope that, as it has been accepted that this should appear in the Bill as one of the duties of a local authority, he will also accept that it would be sensible specify minimum standards of service delivery.
      I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House, for having taken a fairly long time to introduce the new clauses. I am sure that you will be aware that there are many important issues involved. The House will be aware that there are more to come, and no doubt we shall be hearing about some of them from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for dealing so fully—I might almost say exhaustively—with his various new clauses and amendments. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not express a view on every one of them—at least not in any detail.
      Mr. Bercow: Go on.
      Mr. Waterson: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is eager to do just that.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Bath has not been persuaded by any behind-the-scenes deal not to press new clause 4 to a vote. If he does press it, as I hope he will, we shall be supporting him. That is not because the new clause represents an earth-shattering change to the Bill. It is because, if we divide on it, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be able to register our support for those of our amendments that are included in this group. If we do not, they will fall, and will have to be voted on later under the programme motion, taking up time that might otherwise be used in debate.
      Mr. Don Foster: I have always believed that our procedures mean that we listen to the debate before deciding whether to press a matter to a Division. However, having heard the Minister's response to similar amendments in Committee, I doubt whether I shall be persuaded to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Waterson: Let us hope that the Liberal Democrats stick to that resolution. They will have our support in the Lobby if they do so.
      Dr. Brian Iddon: That is a back-room deal.
      Mr. Waterson: It is a front-room deal. It could not be more open—though it has been said that the best way of keeping something secret is to make a speech on it in the House. I am sure that, even these days, that is untrue.
      I will be speaking to amendments Nos 16, 17 and 20. Before doing so, I shall comment briefly on two of the more significant new clauses that the hon. Member for Bath has tabled. In Committee, when we debated the substance of new clause 4, I think everyone was horrified at the prospect that authorities were giving people 24 hours to make up their minds on a housing offer. The Minister took the view that that was unreasonable, and so did we. It is perhaps not untypical of the Liberal Democrats that they seem to be proposing two different periods, one of three days and one of five. We seem to be in period inflation. If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has the opportunity, I have no doubt that he will explain the merits of five days. I shall not trespass on that internal argument among Liberal Democrats.
      Turning to new clause 5, people such as Chris Holmes, the director of Shelter, and the London Government Association have expressed their concerns about removing rights of review and rights of appeal. In Committee, we consistently supported the argument that these rights should be preserved in such circumstances.
      980
      We said that the Government could be going too far in sweeping away the position that is set out in the Housing Act 1996.
      It will be most useful if I touch on amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 20, which feature a range of concerns that we debated in Committee. It is right that we should return to those issues on Report because the Minister did not take them on board in Committee. I know that there are Members in the Chamber who were also members of the Committee and who may wish to speak on these matters.
      Amendment No 16 to clause 27 would insert the words,
      "to include particularly families with dependant children."
      I know the argument that the Minister will advance. I can almost hear it now. He will say that we should not be too prescriptive in Bills, particularly when dealing with categories of people who are given priority. However, we felt strongly that messages should be sent out. In Committee, the debate on allocations and priorities, for example, was driven by a series of press leaks by the Department to the effect that released prisoners would be given some sort of priority in terms of homelessness.
      Mr. Raynsford: Not true.
      Mr. Waterson: The Minister made that clear in Committee; that is why there is not an amendment that touches directly on the matter. We are taking the Minister's assurances at face value, as is only right. We are pleased that there has clearly been a rethink on the issue within the Department, and that the Government have backed off, no doubt having received much critical comment. This matter has featured in the media on at least two occasions. I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance that that was nothing to do with him but, as the Government think they are good at the art of spinning, somebody obviously thought that it was worth spinning.
      Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman accept, once again, my clear and categorical assurance that not only is there no intention to give prisoners a direct priority in housing allocation—a point I have made repeatedly—but there was no leak from the Department on the issue? If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will probably recall that one bout of press speculation followed a press release that he himself put out making that unfounded allegation. When we are thinking about where press stories come from, Conservative central office is probably the answer.
      Mr. Waterson: I do not think the Minister can get away with that. First, I have accepted his assurance, but if it makes him feel better, I will say again that I acknowledge that that is not now the Government's intention. Whether it ever was is perhaps academic. We certainly did not think the issue up; it featured in the media, which is why we commented on it. In fairness, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions said in a debate in the House that, if the matter was going to be spun, it was an odd thing for the Government to spin. Sometimes, though, as we have seen in recent weeks, spin doctors get out of control. In any event, we are delighted that, at this point, the proposition does not form part of the Government's proposals. Perhaps we can leave it at that.

      981
      We still think, as we did in Committee, that we should not move away from a principle set out in the Housing Act 1996. The Minister will say that this is an opportunity to simplify matters in the light of that Act, which we accept. Under the Act, authorities are required to produce allocation schemes that give "reasonable preference" to numerous categories, including families with dependent children. I say again that I see the argument for making some simplification. However, we take the view that if only one category is to be singled out, it should be families with dependent children. Parliament is entitled to send that sort of message.
      I referred in Committee to the useful work of the Catholic Housing Aid Society. I shall not refer to it again in any detail, except to say that, among other things, it shows that, of all local authority acceptances of priority need, nearly 60 per cent. are households with dependent children. That chimes with my mailbag and surgery and is a perfectly legitimate issue which could be included in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 17 raises the important issue of so-called neighbours from hell. There was near unanimity in Committee that perhaps the most difficult sort of issue in which we are asked to get involved as Members of Parliament concerns people who behave antisocially. It is often significantly easier to deal with the problem if such people are in social housing rather than in private housing. Having said that, we all face such problems in our constituencies. The Bill should send out a much clearer message that people should not and cannot behave antisocially.
      Earlier, we talked about violence and the threat of violence, and the effect that that can have on neighbours. We are now talking about a range of activity from the mildly antisocial through to genuine violence, which encompasses people breaking windows or making a lot of noise and encouraging their children to be noisy and difficult with certain neighbours. Such activity may even involve repairing cars and motorcycles on the front lawn or hanging out washing in a certain area. All those things can make a difference to a neighbourhood and to people's neighbours. There are also problems of racial abuse and other issues, which we have already discussed in relation to a different group of amendments. Such activity is one of the biggest causes of unhappiness in many estates throughout the country.
      6.45 pm
      Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 gives landlords grounds to evict people from shorthold tenancies. Section 162 of the 1996 Act gives local authorities the power to apply for injunctions against antisocial behaviour. The Government have introduced antisocial behaviour orders but, on any view, their use to date has been disappointing. I will not repeat the experience of the Irwell Valley housing association in Salford, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) dealt with it at length in Committee. The association's approach, which involves being tough with antisocial people and trying to reward those who behave as good neighbours, produces high levels of customer satisfaction and low levels of arrears, and so on.
      982
      The Committee also discussed a scheme by Wandsworth council—so often the trailblazer in these matters—for contracts between it and its tenants to cut down on criminal and immoral acts in council housing.
      Mr. Andrew Love: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the difficulty that many local authorities face with the kind of tenancies that he described. There was considerable cross-party agreement on that in Committee. However, does he not accept that the wording of amendment No. 17 is rather woolly and open to interpretation?
      Mr. Waterson: Like everything in this Bill or in any other piece of legislation, the amendment is subject to interpretation. We hope that local authorities will apply the measures reasonably. However, the point of the amendment is that we need to give them a steer so that they can—and should—take account of people's previous behaviour.
      If people have a record of bad behaviour, rent arrears or whatever—we went into that in detail in Committee, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) will remember—that could and should be taken into account. That does not mean taking into account a criminal conviction such as a speeding fine, as some councils do. It means taking into account the fact that there are genuine grounds for concern that tenants who have behaved badly vis-à-vis their neighbours in the past may well do so again.
      Mr. Bercow: It is right that my hon. Friend should focus, as the Committee did, on obviously antisocial and, in some cases, even criminal behaviour. In that context, will he take the opportunity to distinguish between behaviour which, we all agree, should be denounced and counteracted by public agencies—and, possibly, be the subject of police investigation—and cases of honest disagreement and dispute between neighbours? On the latter, would he not commend the important contribution to the resolution of those conflicts that can be made be mediation services, of which there is an excellent example in Aylesbury?
      Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is another excellent example in Eastbourne. We discussed in Committee—and I am sure that this will have wider resonance across the House—the problem of receiving one set of neighbours at one's advice surgery one week and then, to one's horror, seeing on one's list of appointments the next the people about whom they were complaining. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my experience: we are seen as arbiters of these problems, which are extraordinarily difficult to resolve.
      Mr. Bercow: They are invidious.
      Mr. Waterson: Indeed. We should set aside the situation in which two perfectly respectable and responsible sets of neighbours, neither of whom are behaving criminally or particularly reprehensibly, simply do not get on with one another. Whatever they do, there will always be a dispute about something—whether an overhanging tree, an uncut lawn or a badly parked car. We all know of such cases—I certainly have experience of them—which have gone on for years, blighting the

      983
      lives of both sets of neighbours and sometimes costing them an enormous amount in legal fees and causing other problems to no eventual purpose.
      Finally, I wish to speak briefly to amendment No. 20 which, on the face of it, would provide a dramatic power for an authority effectively to suspend the operation of a certain provision when it can show that continuing to operate it would have a detrimental effect.
      I explained in Committee, but perhaps I should do so again, that we have in mind the clear distinction that exists between authorities that have an excess of supply over demand in respect of social housing, and those where the opposite is the case. I understand that there are parts of the country, particularly but not exclusively in the north, where someone looking for a new flat or house will go to the local council and be shown two or three nice options that afternoon.
      I discussed the situation in Eastbourne recently with Councillor Mrs. Ann Murray, who is the lead cabinet member for housing under the new and highly successful Conservative administration of Eastbourne borough council. The average wait in Eastbourne can be three to four years, which is phenomenal. When people contact me and come to my surgery, it is extremely depressing to write off to the housing department knowing that one will get a letter back stating that those people will have to wait three to four years.
      The council hopes to reduce the waiting time to two to three years, which may not seem like a great leap forward, simply by changing the rules so that children can be put into council flats, which has not been allowed so far.
      May I take the opportunity to remind the Minister that Eastbourne is one of the 90-odd authorities that have applied for the pilot scheme for choice-based allocations? As I recall, the arithmetic was rather depressing. It seemed that only about a third of those that had applied would be eligible for the scheme. None the less, it is an interesting concept. We had a longish discussion in Committee about the so-called Delft system. Closer to home, Harborough is ahead of the game, having undertaken a particular pilot scheme.
      My only comment—and this is the point of our amendment—is that a choice-based system is all very well and up-to-the-minute and trendy, but how is it to operate in a place such as Eastbourne, where there is a vast excess of demand over supply? I can see that it would make a difference in some cases. That is why I am particularly keen that Eastbourne should be successful in becoming part of the pilot scheme and getting some of the dosh out of the Minister—we get precious little else in Eastbourne.
      It will be fascinating to see how the scheme would work in such places. If I were the Minister trying to decide on a wholly dispassionate basis how to allocate the resources for the pilot schemes, I would consider Eastbourne a particularly good example of one end of the scale, where there is great demand and a thoroughly inadequate supply. I hope that the Minister will look warmly and encouragingly on the Eastbourne bid, although there is a more serious general issue at stake.
      Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman encourage the Minister also to look favourably on the bid from Bath
      984
      and North-East Somerset, where there is a much greater mixture of housing provision than I imagine is the case in Eastbourne?
      Mr. Waterson: Before we get to that stage, I recommend that the hon. Gentleman's local council electors do what the voters of Eastbourne have done, and get rid of a thoroughly incompetent, inept Liberal Democrat administration. I shall not go further down that path, as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, probably would not allow me to do so. There are questions about how a choice-based system would work in areas such as Eastbourne. That is the point of the amendment.
      I commend our three amendments to the House. As I explained, because of the quirks of our procedures, it is unlikely that we shall press those amendments to a Division. Hence my support—breaking the habit of a lifetime—for the Liberal Democrats' new clause 4.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to be called, and I shall speak to the new clauses and amendments in my name.
      However, I begin by observing that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) started his speech by having a go at my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for speaking for 20 minutes on seven new clauses. The clock shows that the hon. Member for Eastbourne spoke for 20 minutes on three amendments. We must take care not to be over-critical of colleagues doing their job.
      On new clause 17, the Minister again sought to make mischief, but I shall disappoint him. Unless the Minister responds positively, I shall happily support new clause 4 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, and I am glad to hear that the Conservatives will do so too.
      New clause 17 is entirely compatible with new clause 4, for three reasons. First, unfortunately—because of my own bad handwriting, I concede—the text as printed is not the same as the text as drafted. It should have read "final offer", not "first offer". We always speak of the final offer in this context, so I hope that the Minister will accept my explanation.
      Secondly, new clause 4 refers to a minimum of three days for an offer to be considered. I suggest in new clause 17 that a period of five days should be set. That is not inconsistent. The important thing is that there should not be a 24 or 48-hour turnaround. People are often on a list for a long time, and the offer may come with no warning. They may be away, visiting family or on holiday, so they must be allowed a reasonable period within which to receive the offer and respond to it. That should be at least three days, potentially five days, and possibly longer, if the local authority considers that appropriate, after consultation with tenants.
      In many cases, people receive only one offer. The Minister must know from his personal experience that it is entirely unfair to give them a ridiculously short time within which to accept it. I hope that he will be positive and accept the new clause moved by my hon. Friend.
      The third specific point that I included in new clause 17—I had seen new clause 4 before I drafted it—allows people to inspect the premises with an independent adviser. It is no good expecting them to accept the offer without looking at the premises, or, if they are allowed to

      985
      go in, to be accompanied only by the housing officer, who will clearly be determined to tell them that the property is acceptable and that that is the only offer that they will get. People must be allowed to inspect the premises, to be accompanied by an independent adviser and then to judge whether the offer is reasonable.
      That leads to new clause 18, which would require the local housing authority to inform applicants of their right to request a review, independently of the local authority, if they are told that they are ineligible for housing. One of the great causes of complaint is that people make an application, the local authority decides and that is the end of the matter.
      I have tabled four amendments, all of which derive from issues regularly raised by people who come to my surgery and to others. It is often the case that people who experience a relationship breakdown in a home that they rent or, much more frequently, in a home that they own are told that they cannot be housed by the local authority and that they are intentionally homeless.
      If, for example, people bought their home under the right-to-buy scheme and the marriage comes to an end, one partner will usually stay in the home. The other partner may leave, possibly with some finance. However, it may not be possible to raise any finance. The partner staying in the home cannot raise it, so there is no money available at that moment.
      I ask Ministers to accept that, when the family home can no longer be the family home, the person who leaves should be able to look to the local authority for housing. Such people may or may not have children, but if they are parents, they may want the child or children to stay with them for a weekend, the school holidays or whatever, yet they find that they have nowhere to go. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to those amendments.
      7 pm
      Amendments Nos. 53, 55 and 60 relate to a later part of the Bill.
      Mr. Love: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments on the new clauses and amendments that he has tabled separately from those of his Front-Bench colleagues. Given that there is no Liberal Democrat Whip available in the Chamber at the moment, will he answer the question that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) passed over to him as to why he is tabling a separate set of amendments? Is this another example of Liberal Democrat anarchy?
      Mr. Hughes: I knew that I should not have given way to what was clearly going to be a silly intervention.
      People are entitled to table amendments from the Back Benches. Our Front-Bench colleagues do their job and all my hon. Friend's new clauses and amendments have my support. However, I represent more council tenants than any other Member of Parliament in England, including all the Labour Members, and I hope that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) will accept that these issues are of huge interest to my constituents. I have tabled amendments, as the hon. Gentleman could have done, although I notice that he did not.
      Mr. Don Foster: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Committee, a number of amendments were tabled by
      986
      Labour Back Benchers? That seems to be a perfectly appropriate way for all hon. Members to contribute to the debate.
      Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend must have been blessed in that Committee, because I have served on many Committees in which not a peep comes from Labour Back Benchers and they all happily toe the Government line.
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to make the point that it is legitimate for Back Benchers and Front Benchers to table amendments and new clauses. If the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) is unfamiliar with that basic constitutional fact after spending nearly four years in the House, it is about time he became aware of it.
      Will the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) at least accept that, while there is a case for the three-day period and for the five-day period, it is stretching a point to say that they are not incompatible with each other? Will the hon. Gentleman, who is rather self-effacing, accept from me that his preference for a five-day period proves that, by comparison with his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), he is simply more liberal?
      Mr. Hughes: Those are judgments that must be made by others.
      The Government have a policy that all the Opposition parties find unacceptable. The good thing is that they now have two alternative proposals that they could buy off the shelf. One contains a word that was misread, and the other has the endorsement of those on the Conservative Front Bench. The Minister has no excuse for saying that he has no choice, and I sincerely hope that he will buy one of our options. I seriously look forward to that happening.
      The other amendments relate to serious matters, and have been referred to supportively by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath. Some people need personal protection, often urgently. I am trying, with the help of my local authority, to have someone in that predicament re-housed. Indeed, four families who are trying to get re-housed are on the books in my constituency office, having visited my surgery.
      I would like it to be the law that, when the police say to a local authority that people must be moved for their own safety, and that their safety cannot be guaranteed where they are because there is a serious risk to their life, the local authority must have a duty to move them within 28 days. That should have an priority overriding other responsibilities. I know that such a proposal would have the support of the police, who get very frustrated in these circumstances, as do local authority officers trying to juggle all kinds of competing priorities.
      Amendment No. 60 is linked to that proposal. The issue of people at risk from violence has been dealt with and we have received a positive response from the Minister. However, people whose mental or physical safety is at risk sometimes need to be moved. Those circumstances might involve threats rather than actual violence.
      I am dealing with a case at the moment involving a serious assault that took place not far from the Elephant and Castle. The youngster who was seriously injured is not able or willing to give evidence if he still has to live in the area in which he was assaulted. That is perfectly

      987
      reasonable. The family will not support him in giving evidence, and the police understand that. The Crown Prosecution Service's clock is ticking away, and it insists that there is a date by which it will have to decide whether it can proceed. The prosecution will not be able to proceed without the evidence of that individual. My proposal is that, if re-housing is a precondition of someone's being able to give evidence in criminal proceedings, he should be re-housed within the time limit required by the criminal justice system.
      Amendment No. 55 relates to the circumstances in which councils have to juggle competing priorities—as they all struggle to do—and requires that they assess the length of time someone has been in a particular category of need, in their list of considerations. They would have to form their own view about that; I am not trying to dictate to them. For example, account should be taken of the length of time someone had been ill, suffering from the after-effects of a stroke, and therefore been unable to go up and down stairs, or of the length of time that a family of seven had occupied a one-bedroom flat.
      The amendments relate to practical matters, and I hope that the Minister will give a positive response to all of them. I also hope that he will accept a new clause in the form of—or similar to—that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath.
      Mr. David Heath: I support the amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in so far as they are compatible.
      I want to raise a specific point with the Minister, relating to agricultural tied cottages and the effect that the Bill will have on them. A couple came to see me in my constituency surgery in Wincanton last week—my constituency could not be further removed in character from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Mr. Brice and Ms Parsons came to see me because they had been served notice to quit an agricultural tied cottage. Mr. Brice had previously been made redundant from his post at a farm.
      The difficulty in the case is that the landlord is trying to introduce a market rent, having given notice to quit in the interim. The local authority would normally have a duty to re-house the couple as homeless, and there is some urgency about the situation because the lady in question is due to give birth within two weeks. However, they cannot be re-housed because the matter has to be reviewed by the agricultural dwelling homes advisory committee under the terms of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. The notice to quit is not valid until that review has taken place.
      That is a conundrum to which the Minister may not have an answer immediately and, if that is the case, I would be glad if he wrote to me on the matter. It seems perverse that a provision intended to give protection to tenants is, in this instance, doing precisely the reverse by preventing the local authority from doing what is clearly necessary—that is, re-housing a couple in need as priority cases because they are effectively homeless. I would be grateful if the Minister gave the matter his consideration.
      Mr. Raynsford: We have had an interesting debate involving a considerable number of amendments and new
      988
      clauses, and a number of speakers. I shall try to do justice to all of them in the shortest possible time that I can. However, I hope that the House will forgive me if I take a little time to deal with the large number of issues raised.
      On the point raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), he will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases but I will look into the circumstances surrounding the issue and write to him.
      New clauses 4 and 17—there are some interesting textual problems here—return to an issue discussed thoroughly in Committee. As I said then, I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment to ensure that people accepted as unintentionally homeless and who are temporarily accommodated by a local authority have a reasonable period in which to consider a final offer of an allocation under Part VI. That is important because by making it a final offer the authority will have in effect given notice that they intend to bring the homelessness duty to an end.
      Applicants will need time to give the offer careful consideration. If they are not immediately taken with the offer, they may well feel that they want to consult with family, friends or, in some case, their legal advisers. They should be given a reasonable time in which to do so.
      As I said in Committee, my genuine fear is that specifying a minimum of three or perhaps five days would make that period the yardstick according to which many authorities might decide to operate. It could, in effect, be construed as a Government-approved maximum period for consideration, which, in my view, would be an unhappy outcome. In some cases, three or five days will not be enough. Flexibility is required, so that account can be taken of the circumstances of individual cases: the situation does not lend itself to narrow prescription.
      I shall not comment on the lack of clarity on the part of the Liberal Democrats, who have specified both three and five days. If I had not understood from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that he had intended his new clause to refer to a final offer, I would have asked him why he thought it reasonable for a time limit to be placed on a first offer but not on a second or third offer.
      New clause 5 requires authorities to notify applicants of a right to request a review of a decision that they fell within an ineligible group, and of the time allowed for the making of such a request. The Bill gives applicants the right to request a review of any decision about the facts of their case. That includes decisions about eligibility based on the applicant's personal circumstances, including immigration status.
      I can tell the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that there is no confusion about the scope of the review. As I made clear in Committee, the eligibility issue is covered. There cannot, of course, be a dispute about circumstances in which someone is validly deemed ineligible, but the basis on which the decision is reached—the facts of the case—will be open to the review.
      The hon. Gentleman's proposal would take that two steps further. It would ensure first that when an applicant was made aware that he had been deemed ineligible he would be informed of his right of review, and secondly that a time limit would be imposed on that right. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's intention, but I would like to consider further whether the ends we both wish to achieve might be better achieved through an

      989
      amendment or through guidance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his proposal, in return for my undertaking that I will give further thought to the issues that it raises.
      As for new clause 18, I have begun to wonder whether, as a child, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was ever caught copying at school—and copying rather sloppily too. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Bath seem to agree strongly about some things, but not about everything. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is clearly keen to assert his independence, and appears to be trying to shift his party's housing policy from the policy to which his shadow Home Office responsibilities relate.
      Amendment No. 18 seeks to give applicants a right to be informed when a decision on eligibility has been made, but also requires such a review to be independent. Let me say a little about the conduct of reviews. When undertaking a review, a local authority must provide for a proper or appropriate review in the light of the circumstances. It must take into account the laws relating to human rights and to judicial review; it must pay attention to what rights it is considering, and what procedures are appropriate. Having considered all those matters, it will be able to decide what is right in the circumstances. In his amendment, the hon. Gentleman seeks again to determine the minutiae of arrangements. We think it right to leave the authority a measure of discretion, and I therefore do not propose to support the amendment.
      New clause 6 provides for circumstances in which a local housing authority has decided that it no longer owes an interim duty to accommodate, and notifies the applicant. It would place a specific duty on the authority to consider continuing to secure accommodation for those seeking a review of the decision.
      The current legislation gives authorities powers to ensure that accommodation remains available to applicants pending a decision on a review, but does not place an obligation on them to do so. It is for an authority to consider—on the basis of the facts of the case, and with regard to the resources available—whether to exercise those powers. The authority must exercise its discretion reasonably and with consideration, but the new clause seeks to specify in some detail how it should exercise its discretion.
      7.15 pm
      In Committee we discussed, on many occasions and in different contexts, the need to strike the right balance between giving authorities discretion in the carrying out of their functions and specifying in detail what they must do. It is never easy to draw the line, but our approach in the Bill has been to establish a clear framework in which authorities can make their own judgments, informed by local knowledge—knowledge of the facts of individual cases, in the context of the many pressures that authorities have to balance. I believe that, ultimately, the exercise of local judgment will lead to better outcomes than detailed, inflexible instructions set out in statute.
      It is not that the issues for consideration specified in the clause are inherently implausible; they are not. They could be incorporated in guidance to authorities on issues that they may wish to take into account. Important factors have been missed out, however—not least the other
      990
      pressures on accommodation in an authority's area. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will probably be more aware of those than most hon. Members.
      The new clause would also have unwanted and adverse effects. It would perversely encourage appeals against authorities' decisions even when there was no realistic chance of success, simply because that would guarantee a continuation of accommodation for the period of the appeal. It would have resource implications for authorities, which could in some cases result in cases of lesser need gaining priority over those in greater need.
      As I have said many times, it is a question of getting the balance right, and we do not believe that the new clause gets it right. It is too prescriptive; it would encourage vexatious requests for reviews; it would add to bureaucracy; and it would take away an important discretionary power from local housing authorities.
      In a recent press release headed "Whitehall tanks are still on town hall lawns", the hon. Member for Bath said:
      "Whitehall tanks are still on town hall lawns. Labour's centralising tendency is undermining local democracy."
      I must say to the hon. Gentleman "Get your Liberal Democrat tanks off local government lawns".
      New clause 7 seeks to amend the provisions on right of appeal to the county court on a point of law under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996. It would allow an extension of the current appeal period of 21 days. Like new clause 6, it would place a detailed duty on authorities to consider continuing to ensure that accommodation was available to applicants who sought a review of the decision under section 202.
      I have just dealt with the issue of consideration, and I believe that the arguments here are the same. Authorities should be given the tools with which to do their job and discretion to make difficult judgments, and they should be accountable for those judgments.
      We dealt in Committee with the proposal to extend the appeal period beyond 21 days. As I made clear then, I do not think that the current 21-day period is unreasonable, and it is important for appeals to be dealt with quickly. The new clause, however, raises one point that I think merits further consideration. Part VII of the 1996 Act introduced a right of review of homelessness decisions, and a right to appeal to the county court on a point of law if the applicant was not satisfied with the authority's decision on review. The aim—rightly, in my view—was to allow grievances concerning homelessness decisions to be heard locally by the county courts, rather than the applicant's having to go through the more costly and remote processes of judicial review in the High Court.
      My understanding is that in considering appeals against homelessness decisions by a local authority, the county court has powers equivalent to those of judicial review by the High Court in every respect, save the power to require an authority to accommodate the applicant pending the appeal. That means that applicants are required to make a separate claim for judicial review to the administrative court in London, if they wish to seek an injunction requiring their local authority to accommodate them on an interim basis.
      As I have said, authorities currently have discretion to decide to continue to accommodate pending an appeal to the county court, if they wish. Any court would need very

      991
      clear evidence that an authority had acted unreasonably before granting a mandatory injunction; indeed, it would be inappropriate for a court to do otherwise. Nevertheless, there will always be a number of applicants who seek leave to apply for judicial review, and the court must give careful consideration to such cases. I should like to consider whether there is a case for giving the county court power to require an authority to accommodate, so that consideration of homelessness cases need not be taken to the High Court. As I am sure the hon. Member for Bath will appreciate, that will require discussions with colleagues in other Departments, but I undertake to engage in such discussions. On that basis, I invite him to withdraw the motion.
      New clauses 10, 11 and 12 seek to provide the Secretary of State with the power to give directions to local authorities on the exercise of their powers in relation to homelessness. Again, that raises the question of how to balance local discretion against central policy. I am surprised that hon. Members are so attracted to provisions that give powers to the Secretary of State to determine how local authorities shall conduct their business. I have already referred to one quote from the hon. Member for Bath. I give him one more:
      "Our problem derives from the decision by the current Government and the previous Conservative Government to adopt a model that is designed to keep as many hands on the tiller as possible, denying local authorities freedom."—[Official Report, 31 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 369.]
      Get those Liberal Democrat hands off the tiller. Give local authorities more discretion.
      On amendment No. 52, the breakdown of a relationship can be one of the most distressing and traumatic events in a person's life. If children are involved, it may be especially wretched—for each partner and, above all, for the children—but whether, on break-up, either partner is intentionally homeless is surely a matter of particular circumstance. Relationship breakdowns vary in their emotional impact, their financial impact and in the way they impact on each partner. Some can be amicable, but not all are, as we know. That surely is the point. No two cases are alike and there is a need for each circumstance to be assessed on the individual merits of the case.
      I do not agree that it should necessarily fall to the local authority to accommodate one of the partners in every case of relationship breakdown, particularly where the relationship may have been a casual one and has not lasted for any length of time, but that would be the effect of the amendment. It would place an unacceptable and unreasonable burden on local authorities and send the wrong signals to people who were experiencing difficulties in their relationships, but were capable of resolving their problems and housing themselves. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will accept that the amendment is not appropriate.
      On Government amendment No. 47, one of the Bill's aims is to facilitate the development of allocation schemes that can be framed so as to give more choice to applicants. That should include, wherever possible, more choice about the properties that they wish to apply for, and more choice to make a trade-off between holding out for a more desirable property and opting for something perhaps less desirable, but more easily available.
      992
      For applicants to be in a position to exercise that choice, letting schemes will need to offer as much transparency as possible. People in the housing queue, particularly in areas of high demand, should be given an idea of how long they are likely to have to wait for particular properties in particular areas.
      To facilitate that, it will be important that authorities provide as much feedback as possible about the level of priority and length of waiting time of successful applicants. That will help others to make a judgment about how long they may have to wait for a similar property. Such feedback can, of course, be couched only in the most general terms. It is essential that there are safeguards against the release of confidential and sensitive personal information.
      As drafted, clause 26 does not quite achieve that policy. That amendment will allow authorities to let applicants have general information about those households who have been successful in their application. It will not, however, allow authorities to divulge the fact that someone is currently applying for accommodation. The Data Protection Act 1998 will ensure that authorities cannot divulge sensitive personal information.
      At first sight, amendment No. 16 seems reasonable, although a little thought rapidly shows it to be flawed. It seeks to give additional preference to families with dependent children. Its effect would be always to place the needs of families with dependent children above those of the elderly, the disabled or other groups. In Committee, we heard the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) make an eloquent plea for the needs of elderly people to be met. In the House, we have heard the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) make a passionate plea for the needs of people with disabilities to be met. We recognise the wide range of needs. I hope that they will recognise that, if we give additional priority to one group, by definition, it downgrades the others. Many families with children are not in need. Many affluent families with children would not deserve priority over a poor or disabled household. Therefore, it is not appropriate to pursue the amendment.
      I am sympathetic to the intention behind amendments Nos. 53 and 60, which are to ensure that authorities respond quickly to the immediate rehousing needs of people whose personal safety may be at risk. However, the Bill already facilitates that. Clause 27 requires that allocation schemes must be framed, so that reasonable preference is given to people who need to move on welfare grounds. That will include people who need to move to alternative accommodation because they are at risk or are under police protection. The clause also gives authorities the power to give additional preference to particular descriptions of applicants who fall within the reasonable preference categories.
      The provisions will ensure that authorities continue to be in a position to respond promptly to requests for housing assistance from the police. I would be very concerned if an authority did not respond positively to a formal request from the police to assist in the rehousing of someone whose safety was known to be at risk, whether as a result of agreeing to testify in proceedings, or otherwise. From my experience in my constituency, there was close and quick collaboration between the police, the local authority and the Home Office to rehouse the families whose identity was unintentionally and unfortunately revealed in the annexe of the Stephen

      993
      Lawrence inquiry report and who might have been put at risk by that disclosure, so I know that the arrangements can work. I would be alarmed if they were not working. I invite hon. Members who have evidence that they are not working to let me know.
      Amendment No. 21 addresses the case of an applicant whose behaviour is so unacceptable that an authority, taking account of the rights of other residents, refuses to allocate accommodation. I make it clear that the Bill, as amended in Committee, already provides authorities with the right to refuse an application in such circumstances. Section 167(2A) to (2D) will make it clear that such a person need not be awarded any preference whatever. Therefore, there is no need for any further amendment.
      Amendment No. 17 seems superfluous. It proposes that account be taken of any record of behaviour that has affected the terms of a previous tenancy. That is already covered by subsection (2A)(b), which deals with behaviour that affects a person's suitability to be a tenant.
      Amendment No. 55 seeks to place further statutory prescription on allocation schemes. It would add a fourth factor to the three already specified in the Bill. We know that unsatisfactory housing conditions or medical or welfare considerations are currently taken into account a great deal by local authorities, which already consider the length of time that applicants have been waiting. It is probably one of the most common factors used by housing authorities throughout the country. Because of that, it is not necessary to make particular provision to make it clear that that factor may be incorporated by local authorities. It is already widely known by authorities that they may do so.
      Amendment No. 20 is unnecessary and, if accepted, would be open to abuse. It would, in effect, allow an authority to suspend the framework for allocating preference and priority to needy groups and to individuals within those groups. I am not sure that that was the intention in tabling the amendment—I sincerely hope it was not. Although some authorities in high-demand areas face real challenges in managing applications, all are still able to allocate some housing through the register. Under the Bill, transfers within the authority will be handled through the provisions of the allocations or lettings schemes. I cannot think that hon. Members want to remove that sensible framework. Therefore, we cannot support the amendment.
      I apologise for the length of my response, but the number and detail of the amendments made that necessary. I hope that hon. Members recognise that the amendments are unnecessary and that none should be accepted, with the one exception of Government amendment No. 47, which I commend to the House.
      Mr. Don Foster: I congratulate the Minister on that tour de force, but there would have been no need for him to rush if we had had a decent programme motion. I thank him for his willingness at least to reconsider aspects of new clauses 5 and 7. However, I am completely horrified by his lack of confidence in the Government's legislation, which is such that he believes that provision for a minimum of three days could be interpreted as the Government agreeing to a maximum of three days. If that shows the faith that he has in this Labour Government, it is all the more reason why we should press the new clause to a vote.
      Question put, that the clause be read Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes151, Noes 255.

      Division No. 110]

      [7.29 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Allan, Richard

      Hayes, John

      Amess, David

      Heald, Oliver

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Horam, John

      Baker, Norman

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Baldry, Tony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Johnson Smith,

      Bercow, John

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Key, Robert

      Blunt, Crispin

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Boswell, Tim

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Lansley, Andrew

      Brady, Graham

      Leigh, Edward

      Brake, Tom

      Letwin, Oliver

      Brazier, Julian

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lidington, David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Livsey, Richard

      Burnett, John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Burns, Simon

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Loughton, Tim

      (NE Fife)

      Luff, Peter

      Cash, William

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      (Chipping Barnet)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Chope, Christopher

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Clappison, James

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Maples, John

      Mates, Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cotter, Brian

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Cran, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Norman, Archie

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Öpik, Lembit

      Duncan, Alan

      Ottaway, Richard

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Page, Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Fabricant, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Fallon, Michael

      Prior, David

      Flight, Howard

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Rendel, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Ruffley, David

      Fraser, Christopher

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gibb, Nick

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gidley, Sandra

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gill, Christopher

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gray, James

      Spring, Richard

      Green, Damian

      Steen, Anthony

      Streeter, Gary

      Greenway, John

      Stunell, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Syms, Robert

      Hammond, Philip

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hancock, Mike

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      995

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Willetts, David

      Willis, Phil

      Townend, John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Tredinnick, David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Trend, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Tyler, Paul

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mr. Adrian Sanders and

      Whittingdale, John

      Sir Robert Smith.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Ainger, Nick

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Allen, Graham

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Austin, John

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Banks, Tony

      Denham, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Barron, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      Battle, John

      Dowd, Jim

      Beard, Nigel

      Drew, David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Edwards, Huw

      Berry, Roger

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Betts, Clive

      Ennis, Jeff

      Blackman, Liz

      Etherington, Bill

      Blizzard, Bob

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Borrow, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Flint, Caroline

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Flynn, Paul

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      (Dunfermline E)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foulkes, George

      Browne, Desmond

      Galloway, George

      Burden, Richard

      Gerard, Neil

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Chaytor, David

      Grogan, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hain, Peter

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Heppell, John

      Clelland, David

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hill, Keith

      Connarty, Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Corbett, Robin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cox, Tom

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cranston, Ross

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Crausby, David

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hutton, John

      Cummings, John

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Darvill, Keith

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      996

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Primarolo, Dawn

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Rammell, Bill

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Rapson, Syd

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Robertson, John

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lammy, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Laxton, Bob

      Salter, Martin

      Lepper, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Sawford, Phil

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Love, Andrew

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCabe, Steve

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Macdonald, Calum

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Snape, Peter

      McIsaac, Shona

      Soley, Clive

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Spellar, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McWilliam, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stringer, Graham

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Martlew, Eric

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Maxton, John

      (Dewsbury)

      Meale, Alan

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Merron, Gillian

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Timms, Stephen

      Miller, Andrew

      Tipping, Paddy

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Todd, Mark

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Touhig, Don

      Morley, Elliot

      Trickett, Jon

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      (Bham Yardley)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      (Aberavon)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Tynan, Bill

      Mudie, George

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Norris, Dan

      Watts, David

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      White, Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Olner, Bill

      (Swansea W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Pearson, Ian

      Winnick, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Woodward, Shaun

      Pike, Peter L

      Woolas, Phil

      Plaskitt, James

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Pope, Greg

      Wyatt, Derek

      Pound, Stephen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question according negatived.

      DEFERRED DIVISION
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.
      On the motion on Companies, the Ayes were 329, the Noes 7, so the motion was agreed to.
      [The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Homes Bill
  New Clause 13

    ENERGY EFFICIENCY REPORT (No. 1)
    '. The Secretary of State shall by regulations bring Schedule (Energy efficiency reports) into effect within twelve months of the passing of this Act.'.—[Mr. Loughton.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    7.43 pm
    Mr. Loughton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 14—Energy efficiency report (No. 2)—
    '. The Secretary of State may by regulations bring Schedule (Energy efficiency reports) into effect within twelve months of the passing of this Act if in his judgement it would assist, or provide information relevant to, the marketing of residential properties in England and Wales.'.
    Government amendments Nos. 22 and 23.
    New schedule 1—'Energy Efficiency Reports—

    '1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, it shall be the duty of any person in whose favour a mortgage of any legal estate in a dwelling is granted (in this Schedule referred to as "the lender") to ensure that, if any qualifying survey of the dwelling has been undertaken by him or on his behalf in connection with that mortgage—

    (a) a report on the energy efficiency of the dwelling (in this Schedule referred to as "an energy efficiency report") has been prepared by or on behalf of the lender in accordance with regulations under paragraph 5 on the basis of the physical inspection undertaken for the purpose of the qualifying survey, and

    (b) the person granting the mortgage (in this Schedule referred to as "the borrower") has been provided, before the grant of the mortgage, with a copy of the energy efficiency report.

    (2) No duty arises under sub-paragraph (1) unless—

    (a) the mortgage relates only

    (i) to a single dwelling, or

    (ii) to a single dwelling together with premises occupied or intended to be occupied for business purposes,

    (b) the loan to which the mortgage relates was made in pursuance of an application made to the lender by the borrower, and

    (c) the dwelling is occupied by, or is intended for occupation by, the borrower as his residence.

    (3) The lender may, in fixing the amount of any fee to be charged for a qualifying survey, take into account any additional costs reasonably incurred in preparing the energy efficiency report, but the duty in sub-paragraph (1) arises whether or not the borrower has paid, or agreed to pay, any such additional costs.

    (4) In sub-paragraph (1) a "qualifying survey", in relation to a dwelling, means any survey or valuation which includes a physical inspection of both the exterior and the interior of the dwelling.

    2. The duty in paragraph 1 does not arise in relation to any dwelling which was provided (by construction or conversion) less than three years before the date on which the borrower applied for the loan to which the mortgage relates.

    999

    3. The duty in paragraph 1 does not arise where, before the grant of the mortgage, the borrower has obtained, or been given a copy of, a report which—

    (a) relates to the dwelling,

    (b) complies with regulations under paragraph 5, and

    (c) was prepared less than twelve months before the date on which the borrower applied for the loan to which the mortgage relates.

    4.—(1) The duty in paragraph 1 does not arise where—

    (a) the lender is a member of the borrower's family and is not lending in the course of a business carried on by the lender, or

    (b) the lenders are the trustees of a trust created by an individual for the benefit of members of his family and their descendants.

    (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) a person is a member of another's family if—

    (a) he is the spouse of that person, or he and that person live together as husband and wife, or

    (b) he is that person's parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.

    (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b)—

    (a) a relationship by marriage shall be treated as a relationship by blood,

    (b) a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood, and

    (c) the stepchild of a person shall be treated as his child.

    5.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations specifying the requirements which must be met by the lender in relation to the preparation of an energy efficiency report.

    (2) The regulations may, in particular, require a report to include—

    (a) information as to the presence or absence in the dwelling of specified measures for improving energy efficiency, and

    (b) a statement recommending measures which could be taken for the purpose of improving energy efficiency.

    (3) Regulations under this paragraph may make different provision for different cases and different areas.

    (4) Regulations under this paragraph may not require an energy efficiency report to contain any information in respect of the dwelling which is not readily ascertainable on a visual inspection of so much of the exterior and interior of the dwelling as is accessible without undue difficulty to the person undertaking the inspection.

    (5) Regulations under this paragraph may not require an energy efficiency report in respect of a flat to contain information about the common parts of the building in which the flat is situated.

    (6) Before making regulations under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult—

    (a) such mortgage lenders or persons appearing to him to represent mortgage lenders as he considers appropriate, and

    (b) such other persons as he considers appropriate.

    (7) In making regulations under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the cost of preparing an energy efficiency report.

    (8) Regulations under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

    (9) In this paragraph—

    "common parts", in relation to a building, includes the structure and exterior of the building and common facilities provided, whether in the building or elsewhere, for persons who include the occupiers of one or more flats in the building;

    1000

    "flat" means a dwelling which is a separate set of premises, whether or not on the same floor, divided horizontally from some other part of the building;

    "mortgage lender" means a person who, in the course of a business, lends money secured by mortgages of dwellings.

    6.—(1) If the borrower suffers loss by reason of the failure of the lender to comply with his duty under paragraph 1, the borrower is entitled to compensation for that loss from the lender.

    (2) In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether the borrower has suffered loss as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) and, if so, the amount of that loss, a court—

    (a) shall assume that the borrower would have taken every measure that would have been recommended in a report complying with paragraph 5,

    (b) shall have regard to the cost that would be likely to have been incurred in taking those measures if they had been taken immediately after the grant of the mortgage,

    (c) shall determine the likely expected life of each measure and apportion that cost rateably over that life, and

    (d) shall calculate the savings that would have been made during the relevant period if the measures had been taken.

    (3) In sub-paragraph (2) "the relevant period" means the period beginning with the day on which the mortgage was granted and ending immediately before the sixth anniversary of that day or, if earlier—

    (a) in relation to any measure falling within sub-paragraph (2)(a) which has in fact been taken by the borrower, with the day on which the taking of the measure is completed.

    (b) in a case where the lender provides the borrower with, or with a copy of, an energy efficiency report complying with paragraph 5 prepared not less than 12 months before the day on which it is provided, that day,

    (c) the day on which the borrower ceases to own any interest in the dwelling,

    (d) the death of the borrower, or

    (e) the day on which any proceedings under this paragraph are first determined by a court or by the award of an arbitrator.

    7. In this Schedule—

    "the borrower" and "the lender" shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 1;

    "dwelling" means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, outhouses or appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it, but does not include a mobile home;

    "energy efficiency report" shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 1:

    "mobile home" means a caravan within the meaning of Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (disregarding the amendment made by section 13(2) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968);

    "mortgage" means any mortgage or other charge on property for securing money or money's worth which is made by deed.

    8.—(1) Paragraph 5 and this paragraph shall come into force on the day on which regulations made under section 7( ) take effect.

    (2) The remaining provisions of this Schedule shall come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes or different areas.

    (3) The power to make an order under sub-paragraph (2) includes power to make such transitional provisions and savings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

    1001

    (4) The Secretary of State shall consult the National Assembly for Wales before making any regulations under this schedule which relate to Wales.

    (5) This schedule extends to England and Wales only.'.

    Mr. Loughton: At long last, we reach the part of the Bill that deals with the seller's pack. There has been great cross-party consensus on the matter, although not unanimity. Some progress has been made. The Committee as a whole—including the Minister for Housing and Planning—supported the proposals regarding energy efficiency. We discovered that the right hon. Gentleman had been a member of the Environment Select Committee and that, long before this Bill came along, he had endorsed the idea of energy efficiency ratings for buildings.
    It was all the more strange, therefore, that the Minister was unable to support the points made by Labour Members about energy efficiency on Second Reading and in Committee. However, at this late stage, two Government amendments have mysteriously appeared, and they are very welcome. There is room in the heaven that is the Homes Bill for every sinner who truly repenteth. We congratulate the Government on amendments Nos. 22 and 23, which we will support, but we want the Minister to go further.
    Conservative Members claim no small amount of credit for having cajoled, bullied and pushed the Minister to come up with these last-minute amendments. We are therefore reintroducing new schedule 1. To make it easy for the Government to accept that, we are also proposing the multiple options presented by new clauses 1 and 14.
    The subject of energy efficiency was the source of great debate in Committee, and it has a long pedigree in the House. The energy efficiency measures that we propose had their origins in the 1980s, when my noble Friend Lord Walker of Worcester was Secretary of State for Energy.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend referred to the multiple options presented by new clauses 1 and 14. However, new clause 1 deals with social security. Did my hon. Friend intend to refer to new clause 13? Will he later explain the consistency between new clauses 13 and 14?
    Mr. Loughton: I am not sure whether I misspoke, or whether my hon. Friend misheard me. However, I am dealing with new clauses 13 and 14. New clause 1 does not feature in this group of amendments. I will explain why we are proposing two slightly similar new clauses contingent on new schedule 1.
    7.45 pm
    The pedigree of energy efficiency goes back to a private Member's Bill first introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). The subject was then taken up in this Parliament by the hon. Members for Eltham (Mr. Efford) and for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). The subject has a cross-party pedigree, although there are one or two exceptions among hon. Members.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Thank you.
    Mr. Loughton: It is also slightly mysterious that, although Conservative Members were happy to put our
    1002
    names to new schedule 1 in Committee, when it was tabled by Liberal Democrat Members, Liberal Democrat Members have not seen fit to add theirs to the new schedule 1 under consideration today.
    New schedule 1 is supported by many people—by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Association for the Conservation of Energy and other groups concerned with energy efficiency, and by the many hon. Members who have signed early-day motions on the subject. In his written answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on 21 December, the Minister made it clear that he supported the proposal.
    The proposal in new schedule 1 is also a hot favourite in Denmark, a country to which the Minister alluded several times on Second Reading. Denmark was held up time and again as the place where the seller's pack is an enormous success. I have been there with the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, and have seen that some success has been achieved with the energy rating of buildings. It has led to a reduction in carbon emissions as part of Denmark's Kyoto targets.
    In his written answer, the Minister told the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton:
    "It is currently intended that Regulations prescribe the inclusion of an energy report in the seller's pack, and that this will include generic advice on measures to improve energy efficiency, and an indication of the cost and pay back period of each of those improvements."—[Official Report, 21 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 313W.]
    We have not quite got that, and such provisions did not exist in the Bill when we considered it in Committee. However, the two Government amendments in the group are a start in that direction.
    Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I gave a clear and categoric assurance, in the House and in Committee, that an energy efficiency report along the lines that he has set out—including indications of how energy efficiency could be improved and the pay-back period—would be part of the home condition report? That has always been the Government's intention. It was part of the trial in Bristol, and there has been no change. We are absolutely committed to the proposal, and the amendments simply give effect to a policy intention that has been clearly stated.
    Mr. Loughton: There was no promise to include the proposal in the Bill. In Standing Committee, the Minister was asked to do so, and he replied that the matter was extremely complex, involving strong differences of opinion among technical experts, including those involved in house construction and renovation. He said that there was a potential conflict with other building regulations, not least those on noise transmission between properties. He added that those facts were matters of concern, and that it would be inappropriate to proceed over-hastily with measures that might have both desirable and undesirable consequences. The definition of "over-hastily" in the Minister's lexicon would appear to be "less than three weeks".
    Mr. Raynsford: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the comments that he has read out referred to a quite different debate. We were discussing the reasons for the delay in issuing part L of the building regulations, which are to do with energy efficiency, and I was

    1003
    explaining the interrelationship between those and the part that deals with the sound separation between buildings. The issuing of building regulations is very different from the provision of a home energy efficiency report in the seller's pack. There is a distinction between the two, and I hope that now that the hon. Gentleman has checked Hansard, he will recognise that he was wrong.
    Mr. Loughton: My recollection of the debate is that the Minister was using that as an example of how he could not be rushed into producing energy efficiency measures. That said, we now have them—just under three weeks after the hon. Gentleman led us to believe that we would not have them—and we welcome that. We welcome the fact that the Bill refers to energy efficiency and that it will be a desirable part of a seller's pack, if we are to have such packs.
    Because of the Government's amendments, we did not wish to appear churlish by tabling again amendments that we originally tabled in Committee. They added greater detail to what was required of the energy efficiency part of the seller's pack. We hope that the Minister can assure us that these matters will be covered. For example, will the energy efficiency rating for buildings—be it a standard assessment procedure rating—have more detail about comparisons with other buildings? What will the energy saving advice entail? Will it simply be slight and generic advice? Those are key questions, bearing in mind the fact that most authorities have estimated that proper energy saving advice can save an average of £250 per annum for the sort of buildings at which it would be directed. What about advice on the costs and pay-back periods for the improvements? The Minister said that energy efficiency reports were included in the Bristol pilot, although we have received no details. We would like to know how meaningful the information gleaned was.
    We realise the problem with many old buildings in particular, but if the Government are determined to proceed with the seller's pack involving surveys, the best place and time to do it is at the point of sale where the cost would, we hope, be relatively minimal. After all, this is not rocket science. Energy ratings for white electrical appliances, which we discussed in Committee, have been used increasingly for some years. To achieve our Kyoto targets is a key commitment of the Government, and we support it. However, we take issue with the means by which they are seeking to do it and with measures such as the energy tax, which they seem to be using to achieve those targets. We are talking about cavity wall insulation, condensing boilers, loft insulation, the efficiency—or otherwise—of lights and heating, double glazing, damp, and so on.
    Previous Government schemes such as the energy efficiency standards of performance, run by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, have put the structures in place, obliging public suppliers to achieve energy savings. There is a wealth of expertise and advice on the subject. Therefore it is easy to put these measures into effect, and to do so relatively soon. It is also essential to the economic sustainability of people buying homes that they can afford to finance those homes, and one of the key components of expenditure each year is on energy.
    1004
    All that will take time. We are promised that it will take until 2003, at the very soonest, for the seller's packs to come in. There is no reason for not doing something in the interim—hence, new schedule 1 and the two new clauses that we have tabled. The mortgage companies can institute the proposals, which have the support of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, in fairly sharp order.
    I want to touch on some of the Government's previous arguments. They said that the scheme would not cover all house sales, only those with a mortgage where the lender required a survey. That is a ridiculous argument. It is a matter of fact, not argument, that before the seller's pack comes into force, hundreds of thousands of people will buy homes and pay for a mortgage survey or will be required to have a mortgage valuation on the property, yet they will receive no advice on how to save money on fuel bills.
    We have discussed how about 1.5 million properties a year are sold—more than 1 million with a mortgage to back them up. By 2003, more than 3 million properties will have changed hands. The savings on energy that could be encouraged in those properties from day one rather than day 700 is considerable.
    The Government also argue that it would be costly to implement the measures for a short period before the introduction of the seller's pack and that there would be training problems for the surveyors. We have taken issue with training with regard to the survey reports required in the seller's pack, although we agree that the energy efficiency requirements are relatively straightforward and that people can put them into effect sooner rather than later.
    The Government's arguments are mistaken. In Committee, the Minister described two separate training and accreditation schemes running in parallel as "a nightmare". However, it would be an unnecessary nightmare, as the energy efficiency advice given as part of the buyer's survey could be identical to that which would eventually be required in the seller's pack. The same surveyors would do both jobs and would not need training twice.
    The Government also argued that there would be implementation problems for mortgage companies, which would need to set up systems to check that their duties were being fulfilled. That is hardly onerous. Mortgage companies already have very sophisticated systems and there are many providers, thanks to the deregulation of the market for which the previous Government were responsible. Mortgage companies check the survey valuations or valuation on the mortgage and would merely have to ascertain that energy efficiency advice was included, as well as checking the value that the surveyor had placed on the property. So the Government's reasons for not accepting schedule 1 do not hold water and, as I have said, 1.5 million properties a year are involved.
    It is with great optimism and hope that we table new schedule 1 again. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), we are giving the Government two options to make it easier for them, and are prepared to take whatever action the Government choose to facilitate the inclusion of new schedule 1 in the Bill.
    If the Minister is true to his principles about the desirability of energy efficiency reports, he will have no problem in accepting new clause 13. It facilitates new

    1005
    schedule 1 by stating that the Secretary of State shall by regulations bring the schedule into effect within 12 months of the passing of the Act. No ifs, no buts—let us go for it.
    I know that the Minister agrees with that. I know that, in principle, he has done things that would make it difficult for him not to accept new clause 13. However, just in case he is getting cold feet—in case the pressures from civil servants, other colleagues or Back Benchers are getting the better of him—we have provided a multiple choice, in the form of new clause 14, which makes it a little bit easier. It says:
    "The Secretary of State may—"
    not shall—
    by regulations bring Schedule (Energy efficiency reports) into effect within twelve months of the passing of this Act if in his judgement it would assist, or provide information relevant to, the marketing of residential properties in England and Wales.
    That fudges things a bit, but the Government like to do that on issues on which they have to forsake previous principles because this is the hard and fast aspect of Government and legislation.
    We are offering the Government an easy ride and a simple choice. Like the vast majority of Members on both sides of the House, we are keen to see energy efficiency moved up a speed. This is the obvious time to do it. We are keen that the Government should come fully on board. They have done so with two small amendments. I am glad that they have tabled them now. They could have done so earlier, but we realise that the Minister had one hand tied behind his back. Will he put his money where his mouth has been for many years by saying yes to new schedule 1 and adopting whichever new clause he feels more comfortable, or perhaps less uncomfortable, with in order to facilitate it? The vast majority of hon. Members, especially on the Labour Benches, will certainly congratulate him and praise him to the rafters for having had the courage to do so.
    8 pm
    Mr. Don Foster: I rise to give full support to Government amendments Nos. 22 and 23. I suspect that there is no need to go into the detail of the amendments. I am sure that we will shortly hear a detailed exposition of them from the Minister. I hope that he will point out the remarkable similarities between amendments Nos. 22 and 23 and amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and I tabled in Committee.
    I remind the Minister that in Committee he said not only that such amendments were unnecessary but that they could be positively dangerous because they could preclude information relating to other matters such as noise or disabled access. I am delighted that he has seen the light and is willing to change his views. He can be assured of our full support for the two amendments.
    The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) can be assured of our support for new schedule 1 and either new clause 13 or new clause 14—whichever the Minister chooses. He asked why we had not seen fit to put our names to the new clauses and the new schedule. They are rather like a baton in a relay race passed on from one group to another. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the grace to admit that his new schedule is identical to the one that I tabled in Committee.
    1006
    However, even I am honest enough to admit that I was not its originator. The originator could be said to be the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), but if he was honest he would admit that he was not the originator either. He got the idea from my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). Even my hon. Friend would be willing to admit that he was not the originator—the new schedule went back as far as the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo).
    The ideas in the new schedule and new clauses are not new. They have been supported by hon. Members of all parties, and rightly so because they touch on important issues. I am sure that the Minister supports their principle. I suspect that his reason for not accepting them will be the same as the one that he gave in Committee—that he will include energy efficiency reports in the seller's packs, which will come into force relatively quickly, and that there is no need for an interim measure.
    I hope that the Minister will reflect again. All the evidence is that, however keen the Minister is to introduce seller's packs—if they are accepted by both Houses of Parliament—the chances are that it will be a long time before they are fully implemented. The evidence is clear to see. His attempt to introduce the energy efficiency aspect of building regulations has been agreed for only 18 months, yet we know that it has already slipped by a further 18 months. I suspect that the same fate will befall the seller's packs. That is why it is important not only to accept amendments Nos. 22 and 23 but to introduce an interim measure, as proposed in the new schedule. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider it.
    Even if new schedule 1 is defeated today, many Members of the other place are keenly interested in it and have tabled amendments in the same vein, and they will start all over again. The Minister could save a great deal of time and debate by simply accepting the new schedule.
    Mr. Fallon: I am puzzled by the new clauses and new schedule tabled in the name of the Opposition. I assumed that they were some means of lightening the burden of the proposed seller's packs, but after my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) had spoken I realised that they added to the seller's packs. As I said in my intervention, I am a little confused about the consistency between new clauses 13 and 14 and new schedule 1. I understand that new clause 13 requires the Secretary of State to bring the schedule
    "into effect within twelve months of the passing of this Act."
    That seems a little odd.
    Either we believe in this energy efficiency gimmick, or we do not. Why we should wait 12 months to bring it into force, I am not clear. New clause 13 is not compatible with new clause 14. New clause 14 seems to suspend judgment on whether energy efficiency reports are necessary and simply suggests that we do not really know, but that we are prepared to trust the judgment of the Secretary of State. That is an extraordinary way in which to legislate. Either we as a party believe that energy efficiency reports are necessary, or we do not.
    Mr. Forth indicated dissent.
    Mr. Fallon: My right hon. Friend indicates that he does not. I happen to share that view, but we cannot say credibly as an Opposition that we are not sure and that

    1007
    we will leave it all up to the Secretary of State to decide. Neither new clause 13 nor new clause 14, in the multiple choice that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is offering the Government, stands up.
    Mr. Loughton: I thought that I had made it clear that we are offering a multiple choice because there is a long history of frustration of the legislation; we want to make it easier for the Government to adopt something. Even in a weakened form, that is better than nothing. That is the view that we have taken. We are in favour of the Bill and, rather than reject the whole lot, we have tried to make it as easy as possible for the Government to accept something.
    Mr. Fallon: I am no clearer. Either we are in favour of energy efficiency reports or we are not. If we are, we should surely add them to the seller's packs. I am not in favour of doing so, because I am not in favour of seller's packs. My hon. Friends might disagree with me. They might have come round to the idea that seller's packs are a wonderful thing. I have never been convinced about seller's packs, and I certainly do not want to add to them, but even if I did want to add to them, I would like to think that I was clear whether I wanted to or not. It seems perverse simply to leave it to the judgment of the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Bercow: I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend's explanation of the position as he sees it. Is it his understanding that the regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure or simply nodded through the House?
    Mr. Fallon: I am not clear any more about the difference between the negative and affirmative procedures. It seems to me that the House does not have a handle on either procedure any more. I deeply deplore that. If we are to table amendments, we ought to be clear whether we are in favour of them; simply to leave their implementation to a future Secretary of State seems to be fudging the issue.
    Three pages of legislation are proposed in new schedule 1. I have some difficulty with the proposals. First, there is the problem of definitions. The definition of energy efficiency is not clear; it is to be construed under paragraph 1. I have searched that paragraph high and low, but I can find no specific definition of the words "energy efficiency report". If we are to put three pages of legislation on to the statute book, thereby imposing a new burden on every seller of a house, we should be a little clearer about what an energy efficiency report is.
    Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham can tell us. Perhaps he has news from Denmark about what an energy efficiency report comprises. He will have seen that his new schedule states, in paragraph 7, that
    "'energy efficiency report' shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 1".
    I cannot find any definition of those words in paragraph 1. When my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham winds up the debate, perhaps he will assist me. Perhaps there is some definition by reference to another statute, but I cannot find it.
    What I can find, however, is a series of definitions of matters that I had not previously realised related to energy efficiency. There are definitions of half-blood
    1008
    relationships, of the likely expected life of the qualifying measures and of relevant periods. I am not at all clear what the definition of half-blood relationships has to do with energy efficiency reports. If we must legislate on who should be bound to carry out energy efficiency reports, why must we define in paragraph 4(3)(c) that
    "the stepchild of a person shall be treated as his child."?
    I am not clear what that has to do with the definition of energy efficiency or the improvement of the housing market.
    I have some difficulty with the way in which the new schedule has been constructed. I am at a loss to understand the definitions of various terms in it.
    My second difficulty is the catalogue of supporters of the proposal read out by my hon. Friend. In essence, they are lobby groups. There is nothing wrong with lobbying for particular measures, but we should ask why this measure has been frustrated for so long. It is an extremely specialist measure for which some highly specialist lobby groups have campaigned for a long time. I am not at all convinced that it is the role of Opposition Front Benchers to pander to such groups without considering the overall effect—the cost and the additional bureaucracy. After all, that is probably why, when we were in government, our Secretary of State did not introduce such provisions.
    The third of my hon. Friend's arguments with which I have some difficulty is his statement that such provisions have been implemented in Denmark. I am not sure that that offers a persuasive argument for any piece of legislation being presented to the House. Indeed, one might be tempted to ask why these provisions apply only in Denmark and why they have not been implemented in the major European states or in other European countries. I am not sure that we should adopt this proposal simply because it has been done in Denmark. Some things might be done in Denmark of which I do not particularly approve. On the other hand, some things might be done in Denmark whose introduction in this country I should welcome. However, it is not transparently obvious to me that we should support the new schedule simply because "it is done in Denmark". I hope that when my hon. Friend tries to sum up this somewhat miserable new schedule he can do better than that.
    Fourthly, I am not clear about my hon. Friend's central argument: that if we do not like seller's packs, we can somehow make them better by adding to them. Surely, if the Opposition do not like them, we should do our best to minimise the bureaucracy and cost involved and to make the packs as simple as possible, better to aid the functioning and transparency of the housing market.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point on seller's packs. Does he agree, however, that if we are to have them in the mortgage and house-purchase business, they should at least be useful to property buyers? The amendments proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) would at least provide useful information for property purchasers.
    Mr. Fallon: That is a perfectly reasonable point, although I am becoming more and more suspicious of an amendment advanced by my own Front-Bench team that seems to attract support from every party but my own. That does not necessarily distinguish the proposals.

    1009
    The hon. Gentleman's thesis is probably right. If seller's packs are to be foisted on us, let us make them as sensible as possible, but I am not convinced that we would do that by adding to the requirements. On the contrary, it would be perfectly possible to simplify some of the ideas for seller's packs. I am a bit surprised that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have not proposed a series of amendments that would reduce the bureaucracy involved.
    I have made my position clear. I do not believe that the case for seller's packs has been established, but if we are to have them, I do not want them to be added to. I certainly do not want them to be added to by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
    Fifthly, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that the measure was supported by the Council of Mortgage Lenders. That raises the rather important point that if mortgage lenders think that a seller's pack is an essential feature of house buying, it is perfectly possible for them to require it. It is perfectly possible for the House to enable them to make that requirement by ensuring that, if they want to lay down various conditions for a mortgage, a seller's pack could be one of them. However, why that should involve any of the parties in the House making additions to the statute book simply escapes me. If mortgage lenders think that a seller's pack should be a key feature of the loan that they advance, they already have it in their power to make such a requirement or, indeed, the production of any other report, a condition of their lending—as I hope that the Minister for Housing and Planning will confirm.
    None of those arguments justifies the case for adding to legislation. I point out to my hon. Friend that there is a further consideration. Over the next few weeks, I understand that we shall argue that, as a party, we stand for the reduction of bureaucratic requirements—for making it easier for markets to function and for reducing compliance costs. We cannot have our cake and eat it. If we say that we stand for less interference, less government—for not fussing around, requiring people to produce reports—we cannot, in the same breath, produce three pages of laborious detail, including a definition of a half-blood child in the compilation of an energy efficiency report, and expect to be taken seriously as advocates of less government.
    I urge my hon. Friend to think again.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in the debate. I shall now destroy the career of my fellow member of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), by speaking in support of his amendments, but I shall also welcome the Government amendments.
    As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), if we are to have seller's packs and go ahead with this somewhat cumbersome process, let us make them useful for the purchaser and the seller of property and for the mortgage lender, and let them contain information that can be useful to them in deciding what properties they will buy, what work needs to be done on the properties and how much to pay for them. That is a key question, which needs to be addressed here.
    As the hon. Member for Sevenoaks said, mortgage lenders could require energy efficiency reports now, just as they require surveys—I am not aware of any legislation
    1010
    that provides that people must have a survey on their home before taking out a mortgage on it, but lenders insist on that—but they have not done so. The requirement needs to be embodied in legislation, because there are wider Government objectives—energy efficiency, reaching our Kyoto targets and ensuring good housing stock—that could be addressed if the requirement was on the face of the Bill. Although I accept that it could be achieved by permissive legislation, it would be far better if we included provision in the Bill, so that mortgage lenders, purchasers and sellers would all work from the presumption that one should know the energy efficiency of the property that one is considering purchasing.
    I should like all properties—especially new homes, which are easy to assess for energy efficiency—to display something similar to the fridge sticker, enabling purchasers to know straight away how much energy they consume, how much it is likely to cost to run them and how much might need to spent to make them energy-efficient. Enacting such a requirement could be a huge step towards achieving some of the Kyoto targets and improved energy efficiency in this country.
    Most home energy-efficiency measures are relatively cheap. Cavity wall and loft insulation are quite cheap to install. Even condensing boilers are relatively cheap and grants are available for them. Vendors, knowing that their homes would be assessed for energy efficiency, might choose to spend £500 or £600 on home improvements and improved energy efficiency instead of buying a new item of white goods, which would enable them to tell prospective purchasers that the house would save money and energy in the long term. That would contribute to people's increasing awareness when they buy large items such as cars—and homes, these days—of the impact of their spending on the environment.
    The Minister should be congratulated on at least moving at this late stage and agreeing to include energy efficiency on the face of the Bill. Will he tell us what details emerged from the experiment in Bristol and what details can be included in such a report, because new schedule 1 has been criticised for not setting out what the energy efficiency report may cover? That might be a fair criticism at one level, but no one in this country, other than in the experiments in Bristol, has tried to compile an energy efficiency report, so we need at least an idea of what one might cover.
    If the Minister rejects new schedule 1, I should like him to tell us what else the Government are likely to propose. I take it that the Minister will produce regulations, so it is important that the House be given an inkling of what might be in them. As has been said, such regulations are likely to flow through the House and we shall not get an opportunity to view them or scrutinise them.
    What consultation will the Minister undertake with the National Assembly for Wales on the regulations? I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is incorrect. I believe that under part I the Minister will be forced to consult the National Assembly.
    Mr. Raynsford: We are already doing so.
    Mr. Thomas: That is good.
    It is a well-known fact that housing conditions in Wales are worse than those in England, although there are regional disparities in England. Is there a way of using

    1011
    the energy efficiency reports from the purchase and sale of homes to supplement the information in home condition surveys?
    At the moment, home condition surveys are carried out all too irregularly. We have not had one in Wales for more than 10 years. Therefore, much of the housing expenditure in Wales is based on inaccurate statistics, so money might be wasted. Would the format of the energy efficiency reports under the regulations be useful in developing the statistical information on the condition of homes?
    We should either accept Government amendments Nos. 22 and 23—which represent the minimum—or consider the imperfect but considerable virtues of the Conservative party's proposals. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made it clear why we should go down this route. It would be hugely beneficial not only to those purchasing properties, but to the Government's thinking on how they will achieve their joined-up Kyoto and environmental improvement targets. I hope therefore that energy efficiency reports will be included in the seller's packs, irrespective of their final format.
    Mr. Forth: I share the bewilderment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), because I am proud to be a member of a party that espouses the principles of non-interventionism, anti-regulation and opposition to the nanny state. I thought that that was my party's position on such matters. I thought that we were also opposed to old-style patronising paternalism, in which it was assumed that people were generally so cretinous that they required legislation to protect their interests.
    I thought that new schedule 1 contained a printing error—apparently, some of my hon. Friends were its authors. I thought that that could not be so because my party espouses the principles of deregulation and the free market and does not patronise individuals, but it seems to have produced three pages of garbage. I thought that that was a mistake until I heard Conservative Front Benchers say that they were the measure's authors and allege that the party supported it. I shall take new schedule 1 at face value and spend a little time examining it to find out whether it is deregulatory and non-interventionist, whether it measures up to the principles that we espouse and whether it will benefit our society.
    Mr. Raynsford: Perhaps I can shortcircuit this debate and make time available for the other amendments that hon. Members are keen to debate by making it clear that the Government have the greatest reservations about new schedule 1. We do not intend to support it and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman need not fear that it will become part of the Bill. If that helps to overcome the slight difficulty in the Conservative party and allows us to move on to other matters, I hope that the House will have been done a service.
    Mr. Forth: I am pleased that my limited eloquence has already persuaded the Minister of the position to take on new schedule 1, but I want to carry some more of my hon. Friends with me if I can. So despite the Minister's blandishments, I shall take just a few more minutes to deal with some of the measures in new schedule 1, on which, happily, the Minister and I share a view.
    1012
    I welcome him to the world of deregulation and non-intervention, in which we honour the good common sense of the people of this country and assume that they know what is best for them, and do not need the nanny state to guide them.
    Under the proposals, we would interfere in the long-standing relationship between lenders and borrowers, and between the buyers and sellers of property. We would somehow attempt to tell people what it was in their interests to judge when considering a property transaction. The assumption is that something called a report on energy efficiency would add to that process. I am not sure how many people think about an amorphous concept such as energy efficiency when considering the sale or purchase of a house. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said, the concept is defined nowhere in new schedule 1, and is therefore of only limited use, if any.
    I am not sure whether people should take much account of something called energy efficiency when considering the location of a property, or its accommodation, garden, garage, or whatever. They may choose to take account of that, but they may deliberately set it to one side. However, the new schedule would not only make it mandatory for the new process to be interposed in the normal transaction, but its inevitable additional cost would be added arbitrarily, without any choice, to what until now has been a freely undertaken transaction between buyers and sellers.
    8.30 pm
    That disturbs me at a number of levels. It disturbs me because of the assumption that we in this place—and the lobby groups to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks referred—know better than the 1.5 million people who undertake such transactions in this country every year. That assumption is, at the very least, worth querying or challenging.
    Mr. Bercow: For the avoidance of doubt, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, even if he were persuaded that energy efficiency reports were on the whole germane as a factor in the purchase price of properties, he would not think that they should be obligatory on that account?
    Mr. Forth: That is right. We have been told that the Council of Mortgage Lenders is very keen on all this. I do not understand that because—following what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said—if mortgage lenders were as keen as is alleged, they would already make it a condition of loans that something called an energy efficiency report be carried out as part of the transactions that now take place. Why these excellent people do not do that now, yet say that they would like it to be imposed by statute or by regulation, is a question that only they can answer. I cannot answer it for them. I am puzzled by their approach, because it suggests a duality of attitude—I shall put it no more strongly—that requires an explanation.
    Paragraph 1(3) of the new schedule states:
    "The lender may, in fixing the amount of any fee to be charged for a qualifying survey, take into account any additional costs reasonably incurred in preparing the energy efficiency report".
    The trouble is that it appears that even if the buyer and the seller were mutually to decide, for whatever reason, that they did not want an energy efficiency report, they would be obliged to meet the fee set by the lender in accordance with that sub-paragraph.

    1013
    That strikes me as unreasonable. Surely if adult citizens who wish to undertake a purchase or sale mutually agree that it is not in their interests, or not part of their requirement, to undertake this extra cost, they should be free to make that decision. I find the mandatory element of the provision—not to say the assumption that people cannot make their own judgment about how far something known as an energy efficiency report will be germane or relevant to the transaction—utterly offensive.
    The new schedule gets worse than that. In an attempt to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks so sensibly posed, I draw the House's attention to paragraph 1(4), which attempts to be helpful. It says:
    "In sub-paragraph (1) a 'qualifying survey', in relation to a dwelling, means any survey or valuation which includes a physical inspection of both the exterior and the interior of the dwelling."
    That raises a question that runs all through the schedule. If the report is to be a cheap, cheerful and easy estimate of energy efficiency, I doubt its value. If it is to be of real value, I suspect that it should properly be detailed, comprehensive, lengthy and probably fairly costly.
    The whole concept falls at the very first hurdle. If those who support it argue that it would not cost anybody much more, and would not be long or burdensome, I suspect, as a layman, that it would probably not be of much value. Conversely, if an energy efficiency survey were to be of use to the buyer or seller of the property, I would have thought that, in all reason, it would have to be an expert, detailed, lengthy and necessarily fairly expensive business. That suggests a parallel with the surveys that are either for valuation purposes only or for structural purposes.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: I am trying to grasp the contours of the anarchic landscape that the right hon. Gentleman portrays so eloquently. I am sure that he knows that gas safety and electricity safety certificates must be provided for properties. Does he believe that there is no room for assessing safety factors when selling or renting out a property?
    Mr. Forth: That would be my starting point. I would have to be persuaded on a case-by-case basis. I enjoyed lunch with the hon. Gentleman today, and it is good to see him back in the Chamber, albeit not in his usual place. However, he tries to suggest a symmetry between safety and energy efficiency. The two factors are different. Safety is important, and we can legitimately argue, case by case, about whether regulations should try to guarantee it. We cannot make the same argument for alleged or real energy efficiency. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's parallel.
    We are obliged to plough through the new schedule, because that is what Report stage is all about. It gets hopelessly bogged down. I make the point to illustrate the horror of what we are attempting to do, and of what my hon. Friends believe will add to the general joy of life. Paragraph 4(1) states:
    "The duty in paragraph 1"
    that of undertaking a survey or assessment—
    "does not arise where … the lender is a member of the borrower's family".
    I suppose that that shows some flexibility. We are relieved of the burdensome requirement if we make a transaction with someone else in the family.
    1014
    Paragraph 4(2) states:
    "For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) a person is a member of another's family if"—
    and it lists spouses and people living together as husband and wife. It does not refer to "partners"; at least we have not gone that far. I suppose that I should be grateful that the new schedule talks about good old husbands and wives. I am surprised that no one has tabled an amendment to try to make it more inclusive. My hon. Friends have fallen down badly on that; there are no gender or ethnicity points here.
    The new schedule goes on to list:
    "parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece."
    It is becoming more inclusive. It continues:
    "a relationship by marriage shall be treated as a relationship by blood".
    I shall not go into all that in detail; it is becoming gruesome. However, for the avoidance of all doubt, my hon. Friends, who are trying to help those who are buying and selling houses, state in the schedule:
    "a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood".
    This is becoming pretty bloody. It also states:
    "the stepchild of a person shall be treated as his child."
    I assume that my hon. Friends were trying to be helpful. However, the new schedule shows the reasons for the Conservative party's opposition to regulation, intervention and patronising claptrap. We get bogged down in the sort of nonsense that the new schedule represents. We start by imagining that we will help people to buy and sell houses and end by saying that
    "a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood".
    That is desperate stuff. The new schedule is the essence of modernist nonsense.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: By going through the detail of the new schedule, my right hon. Friend may have revealed a weakness, especially in paragraph 4(3)(c), which states:
    "the stepchild of a person shall be treated as his child."
    If the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) had adopted the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), he would have been able to escape the provisions of the schedule when he offered him the loan for the house in Notting Hill.
    Mr. Forth: How much those two were worried about energy efficiency, I shall leave to my hon. Friend's imagination. We had better pass over that fairly quickly.
    I do not want to be diverted, as I am determined to get through the new schedule in the time available, so as to do full justice to it; I would not want my hon. Friends to feel short-changed. It deserves the full attention of the House, and I am trying to be helpful.
    As a deregulatory, non-interventionist party—I note the identities of some of my hon. Friends in whose names the new schedule stands—we provide in paragraph 5 that the
    "Secretary of State shall make regulations".
    It is in the open that the new schedule requires the making of regulations—no doubt all in the best possible spirit and with the best of motives, as such requirements usually are.

    1015
    However, let us be under no illusion about the purpose behind the schedule. The regulations will specify the requirements
    "which must be met by the lender in relation to the preparation of an energy efficiency report."
    We still do not have the details that were asked for earlier, but at least we can understand the mandatory element. The requirement is there for all to see.
    Intriguingly, paragraph 5 adds that these
    "regulations may … require a report to include … a statement recommending measures which could be taken for the purpose of improving energy efficiency".
    Some doubt arises. I shall make a few comments about energy efficiency, and ask whether it is as important as is claimed in respect of taxation measures, because I do not want to be completely negative. I want to try to be helpful. I shall make some suggestions about how things could be tackled better, in the spirit of seeking to improve the life of our fellow citizens.
    The provision before us simply requires a statement that recommends measures. Presumably we shall have a rather expensive analysis—if it is to be any good—of a quick, cheap and cheerful look around. It will say, "We really think that you should have cavity wall insulation or double glazing." The individual will not have to follow that advice, but he might think about it. We shall spend a great deal of money on stating why a building is not energy-efficient, only to say rather mildly, "We think that on balance it might be quite a good idea if you followed our advice."
    The provision falls between two stools. Either we insist on people becoming energy-efficient or we leave them to their own devices, which would be my preference. We are as near as we shall get to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said that he would expect. Paragraph 5(4) states:
    "Regulations under this paragraph may not require an energy efficiency report to contain any information in respect of the dwelling which is not readily ascertainable on a visual inspection of so much of the exterior and interior of the dwelling as is accessible without undue difficulty to the person undertaking the inspection".
    I suspect that that means that someone might not quite make it into the loft. He certainly will not squeeze himself into the cavities of the wall. He may not even get into the basement.
    What will be the use of the provision if the requirement is for someone, even if he is relatively expert, to stroll round the building to have a quick look at it, followed by a quick stroll inside, and then make an assessment of energy efficiency? I fail to see the point. Either the process should be undertaken properly or it should not be undertaken at all. The very words of this long and complicated schedule seem to undermine its purposes at almost every turn.
    The one piece of good news that I have found so far—I hope that this helps my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton)—is that sub-paragraph (7) states:
    "In making regulations under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the cost of preparing an energy efficiency report."
    I suppose we should regard that as moderately good news, but what does it mean? Will the Secretary of State say, "If the report costs more than 25 quid to prepare, I would
    1016
    not do it", or will he say something else? That is the only way in which I can read the provision. If it means anything, it is that if the report is expert, comprehensive and very expensive, we probably should not have it, but if it is cheap and cheerful, that should be all right. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps we shall learn more about such matters in this little debate.
    The bad news returns, because paragraph 6(1) states:
    "If the borrower suffers loss by reason of the failure of the lender to comply with his duty under paragraph 1"—
    that is the beloved bureaucratese—
    "the borrower is entitled to compensation".
    Here we go. There is a serious problem developing in this country with the blame and compensation culture, and the fact that it is encouraged and written into a new schedule—and therefore, potentially, into statute—is to be deprecated and discouraged. I should not like to see much more of that sort of thing.
    8.45 pm
    There is a better solution to the problem. However, I shall pose a question to those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches before giving it. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the Kyoto protocol, which seems to absorb many people for many of their waking hours. Not that long ago—and I say this strictly in the context of energy efficiency—it was argued that the answer to wicked vehicle emissions was to increase tax on vehicle fuel, which would reduce those emissions. At the same time, in some people's book, another argument said that domestic fuel caused even more environmental pollution than vehicle emissions. There was therefore an argument, which the previous Government accepted, for increasing tax on domestic fuel for exactly the same reason as we increased tax on vehicle fuel.
    We did that, and were roundly criticised by the then Opposition, who are now the Government. The environmentalists did not quite know where to stand on the matter: some said yes and some said no. We are now in a curious position. Apparently, it is okay to tax vehicle fuel to reduce emissions—but as soon the Government got in, they reduced tax on domestic fuel. I never understood the logic behind that, and I still do not. If we are to be serious about domestic energy efficiency, there is a good old-fashioned market solution—to increase tax on domestic fuel. That approach is an alternative to the regulatory approach, and I propose it for exactly the same reasons as the environmentalists use when they argue that we should increase vehicle tax.
    Dr. Iddon: Tell the pensioners.
    Mr. Forth: Well, pensioners drive motor vehicles. The hon. Gentleman may not know, but pensioners have been hit hard by the "environmentally justified" swingeing tax on vehicle fuels. If he claims to be an environmentalist, how can he look the environment in the eye, having presumably supported a reduction in domestic fuel tax and, by implication, encouraged pollution by encouraging the wasteful use of domestic fuel? It goes around and it comes around in various intriguing ways.
    The new schedule vaguely attempts, by regulation, to intervene in a market process—a private transaction between freely choosing buyers and sellers. It contains no

    1017
    detail to guarantee that it will deliver the results that it seeks. I fear that my hon. Friends may have overlooked the market solution with which, I would have thought, we were instinctively in tune. All in all, my hon. Friends have a lot more work to do to persuade me that we should support the provision; my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks made a similar point.
    I am aware of the passage of time and the restrictions imposed by the Government's arbitrary and unnecessary time limits on these debates—so, as it appears that the Minister and I are in broad agreement on the proposal before us, I look forward to celebrating that by listening to what he has to say.
    Mr. Raynsford: I hope that I will not disappoint the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I shall come to the same conclusion as him, but for almost exactly opposite reasons. I hope at least to give him a little intellectual challenge.
    On Second Reading and in the debate on clause 7 in Committee, I made it clear that the Government fully support the inclusion of energy efficiency information in home survey reports, and that we intend to make that information part and parcel of the seller's pack. There is an overwhelming argument for making that information available. It is when people purchase a new property that they are most likely to consider improvements and changes, and it is right that they should have information. The measure does not require them to do anything, but the information will be available to enable them to reach an informed judgment about whether it is sensible to carry out improvements to the energy efficiency of the property.
    The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) asked what was included in the Bristol pilot. The energy efficiency survey covered the SAP, or standard assessment procedure, rating for the property; the potential SAP rating—that is, the amount by which the energy efficiency could be improved; the annual heating costs associated with the current SAP rating; and the CO2 emissions, for the benefit of those rightly interested in environmental concerns.
    Crucially, the pilot also included advice on measures that would improve the energy efficiency of the property, including both the estimated installation cost and an indication of the energy saving, and therefore the cost saving, per year, thereby giving people information about the long-term pay-back period for investment in energy efficiency measures. That is a wholly sensible approach providing information to the public at the time when it is most useful to them in helping them reach decisions about whether to proceed to improve the energy efficiency of their home. That is the information that we intend to include as part of the proposed home condition report.
    Clause 7 deals with the seller's pack. The clause gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe the contents of the pack and gives an indication of the sort of information that we believe should be included. Information concerning energy efficiency could be covered by clause 7(4). That was the point that I made in Committee, where I expressed the view that the Bill already provided for that. Because we had shown, through the Bristol pilot, our intention of including energy efficiency information in the seller's pack, there was no need to be prescriptive in the Bill.
    However, to put the matter beyond doubt, we have taken note of the concerns that were expressed in the House and in Committee, not least by the hon. Member
    1018
    for Bath (Mr. Foster). I am delighted that he should take some of the credit. He can send another e-mail home on the subject.
    Having taken note of those concerns, we decided that there should be a mention of energy efficiency in the Bill. Government amendment No. 22 specifies that the energy efficiency of a property is relevant information for inclusion in the seller's pack. Government amendment No. 23 is consequential and ensures that information on energy efficiency can be included in the home condition report. That makes it clear beyond doubt that that is intended and will happen.
    Let me deal with new clauses 13 and 14. I am sorry to intrude on the private grief of the Conservative party in relation to their possible impact. New clauses 13 and 14 are modelled on the private Member's Bills tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), which served an important purpose in raising these issues. However, time has moved on, and we have chosen to adopt a different, more comprehensive and more effective route to achieve the objective that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham sought to achieve.
    New schedule 1 is designed to place an obligation on lenders to commission an energy report when they carry out a valuation inspection for mortgage purposes. In Committee, I acknowledged that the measure could in theory enable an interim partial system to be put in place on a slightly shorter time scale than that for the introduction of the seller's pack, but I pointed out the fundamental objections to that. We believe that the seller's pack, with its comprehensive package of proposals, will provide a more appropriate route to ensuring that energy efficiency information is made available to all home buyers.
    The proposed new schedule would apply only where an application for a mortgage was made and where, as a result, a survey was carried out on the property. However, we know that 25 per cent. of properties are bought without a mortgage. In those cases, the measure would bring no benefit at all. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) asks about the other 75 per cent. He will know, because we debated the matter in Committee, that there is a growing trend among mortgage lenders to move towards desk-top valuation. He will know, because he will have studied carefully the wording of the amendment, which he will shortly have to defend, that there is no provision for the requirement to apply if there has not been a personal inspection of the property. If a desk-top valuation had been carried out, the provision would not bite. Such valuations are a growing trend among lenders and the proportion of properties that would not be covered is likely to increase.
    For all those reasons, we do not believe that the measure would achieve what its promoters hope. We have no objection to energy reports being provided on a voluntary basis as part of the mortgage lending process. The hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) made the point that lenders could provide such reports if they wanted to, and we agree with that and would be perfectly happy for such a proposal to proceed. However, we see no justification for making such provision compulsory, since to do so would be confusing, cumbersome and unduly complicated. It would require sufficient surveyors to be trained and certified to carry out the work, because not all surveyors and valuers currently have the necessary skills to do an

    1019
    energy rating assessment. As that training and certifying would be going on at the same time as the training for home condition report certification, there would inevitably be two separate training and certification processes going on in parallel. That would clearly be undesirable, unduly cumbersome and bureaucratic. We are satisfied that our proposals offer the best way to achieve the objectives that the proposed new schedule seeks to achieve.
    I assure the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that he is not alone in opposing the new schedule tabled by Conservative Front-Bench Members, because we shall not support it either, for the reasons that I have explained. I hope that, equally, I have assured those hon. Members concerned about energy efficiency that we are utterly committed to it and we shall achieve it by a more effective route.
    On the question of the time scale, the hon. Member for Bath expressed the view that the home seller's pack process might be delayed. The one proposal that would be more likely than any other to delay its introduction would be a requirement for an interim scheme, since all the training and certification involved would delay and obfuscate the process of putting in place the necessary certification scheme for the full home condition report.
    There could have been an interim of perhaps only six to nine months—the amendment that was tabled would leave it to the Secretary of State to decide the period—one year after implementation. The schedule itself allows different parts of the provision to come in at different times. No one can therefore tell exactly when it will come into effect. However, it is likely to be a matter of only a few months before the introduction of the seller's pack. Given the risk of a great deal of extra cost, confusion and bureaucracy, it would not make sense to introduce an interim scheme for that short period of time. The Government's proposal is the right way forward and I recommend it. I urge the House to reject the amendment.
    Mr. Loughton: This is not an easy debate to which to respond. I am bitterly disappointed, because I have never seen such a volte face by a Minister executed by the use of the phrase, "Time has moved on." Many of the Minister's colleagues will also feel bitterly let down. The measure that he and other Labour Members supported in Committee—and which the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) introduced in a private Member's Bill—was acceptable to him and to the majority of hon. Members. Under cover of the phrase, "Time has moved on," it has been completely cast aside.
    The Minister made no attempt to respond to the points that I made, because he was still trailing the nonsense, which I thought I had pre-empted, about parallel schemes running together. He merely read out the notes that had been prepared for him before the debate, not having listened to a line of the objections that I made. The Government's mind is utterly closed on this issue and I fear that we shall get no further.
    The great tragedy is that virtually none of part I has been debated on Report, yet we now have just one minute left. Bearing that in mind, I shall sit down so that we can move on to the next group of amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 1

    MEANING OF "RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY" AND OTHER EXPRESSIONS
    Amendment proposed:
    No. 28, in page 2, line 3, leave out—
    'a freehold interest or a long leasehold interest in the property'
    and insert—
    'the freehold interest or the interest under a long lease'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
    Amendment No. 4, in clause 3, in page 2, line 41, at end insert—
    'unless the property is explicitly advertised as being sold "without seller's pack".'.
    Government amendments Nos. 29 to 40.
    Amendment No. 7, in clause 7, in page 5, line 45, at end insert—
    'save that these shall not include local authority searches.'.
    Amendment No. 6, in page 6, line 2, at end insert—
    'save that these shall not include a survey report or home condition report.'.
    Amendment No. 8, in page 6, line 2, at end insert—
    'and the term "characteristics" shall include information about risk of flooding.'.
    Amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 2, at end insert—
    '() an account of the suitability of the property for occupation by people with disabilities.'.
    Government amendment No. 42.
    Amendment No. 9, in page 6, line 24, at end insert—
    '(9) All the documents and information contained in the seller's packs shall be confidential to the seller, a person acting on his behalf as an estate agent and any bona fide buyer or potential buyer.'.
    Amendment No. 3, in clause 13, page 8, line 38, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
    '() A statutory instrument which contains regulations under this Part is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
    Government amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 48 to 50.
    Mr. Waterson: In the 30 seconds that remain, I wish to speak in favour of our eight amendments—
    It being Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day] proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Amendment made.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

  Clause 3

    DUTIES OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON WHERE A PROPERTY IS ON THE MARKET
    Amendments made: No. 29, in page 2, line 42, after "possession" insert "or under his control".
    No. 30, in page 3, line 4 leave out "contained" and insert "included".
    No. 31, in page 3, line 23, leave out "contained" and insert "included".—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Clause 4

    OTHER DUTIES OF PERSON ACTING AS ESTATE AGENT
    Amendments made: No. 32, in page 3, line 41, after "possession", insert "or under his control".
    No. 33, in page 3, line 42, leave out "copy of the".
    No. 34, in page 4, line 11, leave out "contained" and insert "included".—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Clause 6

    DEFENCES
    Amendments made: No. 35, in page 4, line 40, leave out "copy of the".
    No. 36, in page 4, line 40, after "possession" insert "or under his control".
    No. 37, in page 5, line 15, leave out "copy of the".
    No. 38, in page 5, line 15, after "possession" insert "or under his control".—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Clause 7

    CONTENTS OF SELLERS' PACKS
    Amendments made: No. 39, in page 5, line 20, leave out from beginning of line to "must" in line 25 and insert—

    '(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing—

    (a) the documents to be included in a seller's pack required for a residential property by section 3(2) or 4(2); and

    (b) particular information which is to be included in or excluded from any prescribed document.

    (2) A document prescribed under subsection (1)'.

    No. 40, in page 5, line 34, leave out—
    'in relation to a residential property'.
    No. 22, in page 6, line 2, at end insert—
    '(dd) the energy efficiency of the property;'.
    No. 41, in page 6, line 13, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

    '(7) The regulations may require a prescribed document—

    (a) to be in such form as may be prescribed; and

    (b) to be prepared by a person of a prescribed description on such terms (if any) as may be prescribed.

    (7A) The terms mentioned in subsection (7)(b) may include terms which enable provisions of the contract under which the document is to be prepared to be enforced by—

    (a) a potential or actual buyer;

    (b) a mortgage lender; or

    (c) any other person involved in the sale of the property who is not a party to that contract.'.

    No. 42, in page 6, line 24, at end insert—
    '( ) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under this section.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Clause 8

    HOME CONDITION REPORTS
    Amendments made: No. 23, in page 6, line 26, leave out from "document" to "which" in line 27 and insert—
    'dealing with matters mentioned in section 7(5)(d) or (dd) (reports on physical condition or energy efficiency)'.
    1022
    No. 43, in page 7, line 3, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
    '(c) for facilitating the resolution of complaints against members of the scheme;'—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Clause 15

    GENERAL INTERPRETATION
    Amendments made: No. 44, in page 9, line 34, at end insert—
    '(2A) A document which is not in electronic form is only to be regarded as being under the control of a person while it is in the possession of another if he has the right to take immediate possession of the document on demand (and without payment).'.
    No. 45, in page 9, line 36, after "possession", insert "or under his control".—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Clause 24
    APPLICATION OF PART VI OF 1996 ACT
    Amendment made: No. 46, in page 14, line 25, leave out Clause 24.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
  Clause 26

    APPLICATIONS FOR HOUSING ACCOMMODATION
    Amendment made: No. 47, in page 16, line 37, leave out from "person" to "to" in line 40 and insert—
    'is an applicant for an allocation of housing accommodation shall not be divulged (without his consent)'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Schedule 1

    FIXED PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT
    Amendments made: No. 48, in page 21, line 29, leave out "forming part of and insert "included in".
    No. 49, in page 21, line 35, leave out "forming part of and insert "included in".
    No. 50, in page 21, line 39, leave out—
    'comprised in the seller's pack'
    and insert—
    'included in the seller's pack in question'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Schedule 3

    REPEALS
    Amendment made: No. 51, in page 25, line 39, column 3, leave out "Section 159(5)(b)".—[Mr. Raynsford.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    9.1 pm
    Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Unfortunately, our debate has been attenuated because of the divisions in the Conservative party over the issue of energy efficiency, but it has nevertheless covered a number of important issues.
    The Bill fulfils important Government commitments to improve the home buying and selling process, and to strengthen the protection available to homeless people. It is an important part of the Government's strategy to

    1023
    ensure that everyone has the opportunity and choice of a decent home, as has been set out in our housing Green Paper and widely welcomed.
    The Bill improves the housing market for the benefit of the public when they are selling or buying homes, when they seek help because they are at risk of homelessness or have become homeless, when they are in housing need and are applying for social housing, and when they are existing tenants of social housing seeking to move within the social housing sector.
    The proposals in part I form part of a wider package of reforms to help up to 2 million individuals and families who buy and sell their homes each year. We are introducing a modern, more streamlined system that is easier and faster for consumers, avoids unnecessary stress and disappointment and offers value for money.
    In Committee, it was suggested that sellers' packs would add to the cost of selling homes, that buyers and lenders would not trust home condition reports commissioned by sellers, and that it was unnecessary to impose criminal sanctions on those who market homes without sellers' packs. Those concerns are not well grounded. There will be a small additional cost for people who would not normally commission a survey, but we believe that that cost will be more than outweighed by the benefits of a speedier transaction process and reductions in the huge abortive costs of the current inefficient system, which are about £350 million a year.
    In developing the home condition report, we will set up a certification scheme to ensure consistent and high-standard inspections and reports. As we have made clear in recent amendments, inspectors will be liable to sellers, buyers and lenders. We believe that everyone will have confidence in the inspections, will rely on them, and will be able to take action in the event of any defect.
    Sanctions are necessary. Without them, the temptation would be too great for freeloaders to sell their homes without a seller's pack, while reaping the benefits of a pack for the homes that they bought. Just one weak link would break the chain, thus perpetuating the misery of the current system.
    We have looked carefully at the appropriateness of criminal sanctions. As we pointed out repeatedly in Committee, they are consistent with similar sanctions—for example, those in the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, and others applying to landlord and tenant law. Currently, 95 per cent. of home sales are conducted through estate agents. Estate agents would be responsible for having sellers' packs when they were marketing a home, and in the vast majority of cases it would be estate agents who faced sanctions if they failed to comply with the law.
    Additionally, local trading standards officers will have clear discretion—I emphasised this point repeatedly in Committee—to take the action that they regard as appropriate where they find a person marketing a home without a seller's pack. They will have scope and discretion to offer advice, to give a warning, to issue a fixed-penalty notice or, ultimately, to prosecute. Only the option of prosecution would lead to a criminal record.
    We are absolutely clear that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, where an honest and simple mistake had been made, there would be no obligation for trading
    1024
    standards officers to do more than offer advice or give a warning. In the case of any individual householder, there would be little or no purpose, unless there were exceptional circumstances, in doing more than issuing a fixed penalty notice, so the concept of large numbers of innocent individuals being dragged before the courts to face criminal charges is an exaggeration and not properly founded.
    We must, however, have sanctions, including criminal sanctions, to cope with the risk of what I hope would be a very small number of unprincipled estate agents seeking to subvert the whole purpose of the scheme by marketing properties persistently without a seller's pack and paying no heed to initial warnings from trading standards officials. I hope that I have made it clear that we have provided a range of responses to allow a proportionate response depending on the circumstances, and that the fears that have been expressed about sanctions are misplaced.
    I have listened to the concerns voiced by a number of my hon. Friends about low-demand areas and low-value properties. I have made it clear that we are prepared to consider measures where seller's pack requirements would cause particular difficulties. The Bill provides us with a power to make such exemptions, but we must consider that issue carefully. Our research indicates that seller's packs would offer benefits in low-value areas and we must avoid further stigmatising properties in areas of declining demand and value. We are working up a number of options in a paper that I hope to issue for consultation shortly. That will allow us to have a thorough and considered debate about the best way in which to balance the conflicting pressures on that important issue.
    The proposals in part I are based on extensive research and piloting. We will continue to work with the key professionals and consumer representatives in developing the details of our proposals, especially the home condition report and the supporting certification scheme, so that seller's packs can be introduced as planned in 2003.
    Mr. David Lepper: Does my hon. Friend agree that seller's packs could be of particular benefit to potential purchasers in the residential leasehold sector, who currently face service charge and insurance demands that they find baffling and by which they often feel cheated? When looking at the regulations on the content of seller's packs, will he consider, particularly in the light of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which we will examine soon, whether, for example, the last set of certified service charge accounts and information about agencies providing reliable advice to leaseholders and potential commonholders might form part of the packs?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He has been assiduous over recent years in pursuing the interests of leaseholders, who form a significant proportion of the residents in his constituency. Like me, he will be pleased at the progress of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which has had its Second Reading in another place and will bring extensive benefits to leaseholders.
    It is certainly our intention that the seller's pack will contain detailed information that will be of real value and relevance to leaseholders, including information about

    1025
    service charges. I would like to consider the wider issue of the availability of advice because, clearly, there is a question about the appropriateness and reliability of advice offered by different agencies. It is our wish that seller's packs should be primarily factual information and should not be open to any possible misinterpretation. It is certainly our intention to provide detailed information on service charges and other relevant information relating to the management of the lease. I should be more than happy to consult my hon. Friend and other hon. Members as we work up the proposals.
    Part II will enable local authorities to provide better help in finding a settled home for those who each year face homelessness through no fault of their own. Our proposals require local authorities to adopt a more strategic approach to tackling the causes of homelessness and preventing its recurrence. The Bill will require local authorities to review homelessness in their area at least every five years and to put in place a multi-agency strategy for preventing homelessness, ensuring that adequate accommodation and support are available.
    The Bill will encourage a more co-ordinated approach by requiring housing and social services authorities to take the homelessness strategy into account when meeting their responsibilities. We are also removing unnecessary restrictions that can limit local authorities' abilities to find sustainable housing solutions and offer real choice to homeless people, to others in housing need and to existing tenants, thereby helping to create more sustainable communities and tackling social exclusion.
    Evidence demonstrates that a high proportion of homeless people who end up sleeping rough come from institutional backgrounds, and we are adding to the priority-needs groups some new categories of vulnerable people, including young children who have come out of care and others who have an institutional background and are homeless and vulnerable. That is a sensible and humane policy. I am glad that the Opposition did not pursue at great length today their unfounded claim that we are seeking to give ex-prisoners housing priority over other applicants. As has been well established, that was never our intention, and it is certainly not the implication of the Bill.
    Taken with the Government's sound economic policies, our substantial increases in capital investment in housing and the wider policies set out in the housing Green Paper, the Homes Bill will help us ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a decent home. It is important reforming legislation, and I commend it to the House.
    9.12 pm
    Mr. Waterson: There has been a surreal note to today's debates which graphically demonstrates the dangers inherent in the Government's regular use of guillotine motions. The House will readily understand why most of my remarks on Third Reading will deal with part I, on seller's packs. As I said at the start of the programme motion debate, to the public, part I is every bit as important as part II—I see the Minister nodding in agreement—and although part I may affect different categories of people from those affected by part II, it is just as important.
    Whether one uses the figure of 1.5 million people or that of 2 million, as the Minister did, every year a very great number of people are engaged in buying or selling
    1026
    their own homes. For some people—those who do not have to obtain mortgages or are close friend of the former Paymaster General—there is not much of a problem. For most people, however, it is a time of great anxiety and worry. That is why we find it inconceivable that the Government really wish to make that process even more worrisome.
    We have not had the opportunity to debate all the groups of amendments and new clauses dealing with seller's packs duties, seller's packs offences and home condition reports. Although we have had a lengthy—some might even say exhaustive—debate on energy efficiency reports as a part of seller's packs, the vast majority of seller's packs issues, on which we spent more than half our time in Committee, have not been addressed at all in our debates today. I think that I had about 20 seconds to speak to our amendments in the sixth group, and that was it. Of course Ministers do not care, but I think that those who send us to this place will care that an issue that is important to very many people has simply not been debated.
    On the subject of seller's packs, it is important to remember two preliminary issues. First, we must consider part I of the Bill against the background of the clear promises made by the Labour party in opposition. Labour Members do not like to be reminded of what the party said on this issue as on so many others, but it is clear that it promised people that it would tackle gazumping.
    Whether tackling gazumping is ever likely to be a practical proposition is a matter for argument, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the Labour party led people to believe that that was what would happen. It was a surprise to find, therefore, when we tore open our mint copies of the Bill before Christmas, that that was the one matter that was not addressed.
    I am sure that the Minister will say that the Government are trying to tackle gazumping by making the process of house buying quicker. However, we do not accept that the new system will make the process quicker. Moreover, if gazumpers are people who find that they can get more for their homes than they thought—to put it as neutrally as possible—why should the fact that the process is quicker make a difference? I have never received a satisfactory answer to that question.
    For what it is worth, I shall repeat what I said on Second Reading and in Committee: the one matter that the Bill does not address is gazumping.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee, although I spoke on Second Reading. Will my hon. Friend say whether the Minister gave any indication in Committee that he would consider rescinding this measure—in the event that he is still in a position to do so—if it does not reduce the average time that transactions take to complete?
    Mr. Waterson: We did not get that far. Most of the significant elements in the Bill will be implemented by regulation. We have not seen the draft regulations yet, although we have had some hints of what they might contain. However, the Government do not propose that the new rules will come into force until 2003. When we win the election, we will have a long and hard look at whether they will make any difference. The betting is that

    1027
    the measure will not be retained on the statute book. The Government's attempts to force the Bill through in a short time will therefore have been for nothing.
    When he was shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) published a pamphlet on gazumping. He wrote that the Labour party was proposing a system under which a seller or buyer who went back on an agreement would be obliged to meet the costs that the other party had incurred in progressing to exchange of contracts. In its 1997 election manifesto, the Labour party said:
    "The problems of gazumping have reappeared. Those who break their bargains should be liable to pay the costs inflicted on others, in particular legal and survey costs."
    People who decided to vote Labour on the basis of the party's policy to end gazumping would therefore have been gulled.
    As for the contents of the seller's pack, no one would contest the fact that it makes sense to put together, at the beginning of a transaction, a bundle of documents that one has to get together sooner or later, to try and shorten the process. Indeed, if one is buying a new property, the developer usually puts the basic documents together.
    Our concerns are threefold: first, criminal sanctions should not be imposed. Secondly, to require a home condition report to be included in the pack is unrealistic and unhelpful. Thirdly, to require local searches to be included is also unrealistic and unhelpful.
    Surveys, as we know, can be out of date. Some properties in the parts of the country worst affected by the recent flooding could have had a survey six months ago, but the condition of the property might be very different now.
    Local authority searches have a relatively short shelf life—a maximum of, say, three months—and it would be prudent to renew them. We have never fully understood why local searches should be an issue. It has always been possible to carry out what is called a personal search, which means effectively paying a bit extra for the articled clerk in one's solicitors to go to the local authority offices and carry out the search then and there.
    The basis for the entire structure set out in part I is the alleged success of the pilot scheme conducted in Bristol. We dispute that for a variety of reasons, all of which will be familiar to Ministers who were in Committee. The sample was supposed to consist of 250 people. The figure eventually was 180 or thereabouts, of whom 90 completed. As if that were not bad enough, of that 90, a third were brand new properties—Beazer Homes, although that company is probably called something else now, as it has been taken over since then. So we are looking at a terribly small sample in one city in England as the basis for this scheme.
    The Minister will no doubt say that in Bristol everyone thought that it worked fine. The president of the Law Society—the Minister's new best friend—thinks that it is wonderful, the best thing since sliced bread. I explained during the debate on the timetable motion why I thought, with the greatest respect to the president of the Law Society, that he might be enthusiastic. Even more so, no wonder that the level of satisfaction discovered among the participants of the pilot scheme in Bristol was pretty high.
    1028
    I suggest that it was because they were given their seller's packs, including their survey reports, courtesy of the taxpayer. More than £300,000 was pumped into the local property scene for the purposes of that pilot scheme.
    We question, as do people intimately involved in buying and selling property, how anyone can rely on the results of that scheme. It also came to light in Committee that the local authority was giving priority to searches connected with the pilot scheme over and above those that came before it in the usual way.
    I complained in the debate on the timetable motion that Ministers were unwilling to accept advice from those who ought to know. I spent some time describing the Minister's dismissal of these people. Let us remember what certain organisations have said. Mr. Michael King, chairman of the Law Society's conveyancing and land law committee, said:
    "The take up of the sellers pack during the pilot was disappointing. The Law Society does not believe that on this information it should be made compulsory. The Law Society remains to be convinced as to the effectiveness of the proposed pack."
    Mr. Michael Coogan, director general of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, said:
    "the evidence in support of introducing sellers information packs is not robust and such packs could prove to be unpopular with consumers. The Bristol pilot has failed to demonstrate that SIPs significantly improve the process and that there is widespread support from the professionals in the process."
    Mr. Hammond: I should probably draw the attention of the House to my registered interests. One of the great flaws in the condition survey involved in the seller's pack is that it may not be acceptable to lenders, so buyers may have to commission a further report. Did the Minister tell the Committee whether any serious progress had been made on persuading lenders to agree always to accept the condition reports in the seller's packs?
    Mr. Waterson: I can tell my hon. Friend that the Minister had a fairly disastrous appearance early last December at the annual conference of the Council of Mortgage Lenders. One of the things that he tried to do was to bully its members into accepting that very principle. The CML takes the view rather robustly, although a little less robustly than it used to thanks to the Minister's pressure on it, that it is for lenders to decide what evidence they need in order to advance money for property transactions.
    My hon. Friend has brought me to the next major issue. Who will benefit from the proposals? We know already that many people do not have full structural surveys done. It is important to remember that the home condition report is nothing like a full structural survey; it is fairly limited in scope and detail. I appreciate that the final form is in a state of flux. We have seen at least two draft versions. It is far from being a structural survey.
    I was talking to people last night at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors annual presidential dinner. Anyone in the business will say that unless a property is relatively new, one is advised to have a full structural survey. That is not to say that many people do not take a chance and do not have one done. So, as a matter of law, people will have a home condition report. They may well have a full structural survey as well. Even in the Bristol pilot scheme, a third of the people involved had their own

    1029
    report done, despite the fact that they were given a free home condition report courtesy of the Government. The lender may insist on a separate survey report and then still insist on the usual separate valuation, for the moment anyway.
    So, leaving aside the updating issue that I mentioned a moment ago, we have the potential for a series of surveys on a given property. Those in the business have estimated that up to £700 will be added to a transaction.
    Mr. Raynsford: Wrong.
    Mr. Waterson: The Minister argues that broadly those costs would be incurred anyway. I hope that I do not do his argument an injustice. Whether that is right or wrong, there is no doubt that front-loaded costs will, for the first time, be imposed on the seller, not the buyer.
    One of the main concerns of organisations such as the CML is that there will be a significant effect on the supply of property on the market. It is perfectly true that some people test the market by putting their property on it and seeing what happens. If they get no interest, they take it off and no one is any worse off and no harm is done. There is real concern that speculative would-be sellers will be deterred by the front-loaded costs of putting a property on the market.
    The Minister referred to the separate but related issue of what happens in low-demand, low-value areas. A significant number of Labour Back Benchers expressed concern about that on Second Reading. In fairness, I recognise that the Department has done some work in Bradford and Burnley on the problem. The Minister mentioned a moment ago today's Government press release, which says that the Government intend to consult on the options. Of course, that means that they have still not thought of the answer. They cannot take out a council tax band—during our debates in Committee, we eliminated that possibility. It is difficult simply to draw a line on a map.
    In his press release and indeed in his speech, the Minister for Housing and Planning has, with breathtaking cheek, adopted the word used on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—"stigmatising". I make no complaint about that, because the word is the right one. My right hon. Friend pointed out that, in some parts of the country, one might produce the very result that one was trying to avoid by telling people that they did not need a seller's pack, thereby stigmatising the area—perhaps, for example, a former mining village. It is clear that Ministers still have no solution to that problem, so they are putting it out for consultation. In Committee, we suggested all the possible options—more than once. None of them seems to have commended itself to Ministers.
    Lest it be thought that those are merely scares thought up by the Opposition, or by the Law Society, estate agents or mortgage lenders, we should consider the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on Second Reading. He was in the Chamber earlier, but some prescience has made him disappear. The hon. Gentleman has practised as a conveyancing solicitor for many years. Possibly, for that reason, he did not make it on to the Standing Committee.
    The hon. Gentleman thought that the proposals would make only a marginal difference. He suggested that there might be problems because unscrupulous sellers could
    1030
    hawk a seller's pack around. He made the point that I made earlier—many conveyancers and solicitors already use a type of seller's pack for some of the documentation. He referred to the point that the Law Society has been trying to make to the Minister for a long time: the Law Society and others are already working towards streamlining the system—with the use of e-conveyancing and the like.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the extra cost—possibly £700—and the need for extra surveys. He expressed concerns about criminal sanctions.
    Mr. Love: My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) is attending a legal dinner this evening. He wanted to contribute to the debate; he was in the Chamber earlier.
    Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for that intervention, but I thought that I had already pointed out that the hon. Member for Upminster was in the Chamber earlier. I am sure that the legal dinner is most interesting. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will be impressed. He can skip over some of the earlier passages, but when he reads my speech, he will be pleased that I took so seriously what he had to say—obviously, so did his own Whips.
    The hon. Gentleman knows what he is talking about. If the Minister will not even listen to him, we are in a serious state.
    Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have hesitated to intervene, but I really could not let that go on. He will know well, because I raised the matter in Committee and made it clear to him, that, following the Second Reading debate, I invited my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) to discuss the whole issue with me. We had a most useful and constructive discussion and I am sure that I put to rest many of the concerns that my hon. Friend voiced on Second Reading.
    Mr. Waterson: I hope that the Minister will not take it amiss when I point out that we have only his word for that—we do not have the hon. Member for Upminster, although I am sure that the bruises have started to go down.
    As we pointed out in Committee, when the Minister made that point, it would have been nice if the rest of us had been privy to what the hon. Member for Upminster had to say. When it comes to practical conveyancing, I prefer his comments to those of the Minister.
    Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the Minister seems to be a bit selective about which hon. Members who took part in the Second Reading debate he wants to discuss this matter with, because I wrote to the Minister after that debate, asking him whether he could clarify some unanswered questions, and I have not yet had a reply.
    Mr. Waterson: That is very worrying, because I know that my hon. Friend knows about these things. I do rather resent the Minister because, as a result of his systematic denigration in Committee of almost every organisation and lobbying group that has a connection with

    1031
    conveyancing, my mailbag has swollen to Gargantuan proportions as a result of people writing to ask who this chap is and how he dares to talk about them in that way.
    I should have said earlier that I do not have an interest to declare. As I said in previous debates, I am a solicitor but not one who has ever practised in conveyancing matters.
    We now come to the question of criminal sanctions. The Minister said that he was confident that sanctions were necessary. He then undermined his position by saying—it was an ever louder theme in Committee—that he did not think that essentially innocent people would find themselves in trouble with the weights and measures officers, hard pressed as they already are, who will have to try to enforce the legislation.
    We disagree with the Minister now, as we did in Committee. It is simply not open to Ministers, even in the Government, where they have an extremely exaggerated notion of their own importance, to say that people will not be pursued or prosecuted for breaches of the law. If we are creating a new law, the breach of which is in theory subject to criminal sanctions, Ministers cannot wave their hands and say that people will not be prosecuted except in extreme situations.
    One aspect is really worrying. Even if the Government really believe, against all the advice and evidence to the contrary, that seller's packs will make all the difference, why impose criminal sanctions? The Law Society has been outraged at that suggestion, and so are Conservative Members. We think that ordinary people, going about in their law-abiding fashion, entering, or not entering, into free contractual relations, should not be threatened with criminal sanctions—criminal sanctions which, as we discovered in Committee, are the equivalent of those for someone carrying an offensive weapon such as a flick-knife. We strongly believe that if the Government are having second thoughts about any aspect of part I, they should drop the idea of criminal sanctions.
    I shall deal more briefly, for reasons that I have explained, with part II, which deals with housing and homelessness. As Ministers know, we have consistently not voted against the principle of the Bill. We did not do so at Second Reading and I shall not invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House against the Bill on Third Reading, because there are some good things in part II, some of which we agree with, but some of which have not been thought through enough.
    The Bill arrives at the eleventh hour of the Government, after four years in government and 18 years in opposition. I suspect that during every month of that time, the current Minister for Housing and Planning had some sort of responsibility for housing policy. The Bill is missing things such as a licensing system for houses in multiple occupation, which has caused much comment in the housing press. The Bill must be viewed against the background of a general failure in housing policy.
    Every time that we discussed the homelessness figures in Committee, the Minister would rise to his feet to rubbish the very figures issued by his Department, so I am risking provoking him again. I believe, however, that we can at least agree that we established painfully in Committee that between 1997–98 and the last year for which figures are available, the figure for total priority
    1032
    homeless acceptances increased from 102,650 to 108,500 in round terms. That means, on my arithmetic, that the homeless figure has been rising under the stewardship of the Government and these Ministers. There has been an increase of 6,000 in those years.
    The figure for the total number of empty homes has fallen only marginally, to 762,700. All that, together with the massive extra pressures caused by the Government's comprehensive failure to tackle the problem of asylum seekers and the sharp fall in the supply of new social housing, shows that there is a crisis in housing and homelessness under the Government.
    I discovered the other day that the Labour administration in Basildon has had to impose a special service charge of between £7.50 and £17.50 on homeless people. That is referred to locally as the homeless tax. It is argued that, as most homeless tenants are on benefit, the tax will not be paid from their incomes. The housing chairman, Paul Kirkman—a Labour councillor—said that he
    "felt heavy hearted at putting a charge on homeless people"
    and that imposing the charge felt like
    "sticking the knife in"
    the homeless.
    This country's homeless and housing figures paint a very disturbing picture indeed, and the Bill must be judged against that background. We are mystified as to why the Government have taken so long to produce the Bill and why its scope is so limited, given that they have purported to give such a high priority to housing in the run-up to the election and thereafter.
    There are major problems with some of the proposals in part II. As I said earlier, supply and demand is the major issue. The Government have not addressed the fact that there is an excess of supply over demand in some parts of the country and vice versa in others, which undermines choice-based allocations.
    In a nutshell, part I will cause enormous problems; it will criminalise ordinary law-abiding folk and make the job of buying and selling houses more expensive and more difficult. Part II is riddled with contradictions. The Bill does not tackle some of the big issues in housing, which should have been tackled by now, but, as I have said, I shall not invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against its Third Reading.
    9.42 pm
    Mr. Don Foster: I am still pondering the answer given by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) when he was asked whether a Conservative Government, if there were ever to be another, would rescind the Bill. The answer was that the Conservative party would take a long, hard look at it. I recall that those were the words of either Eeyore or Winnie-the-Pooh.
    It is clear from the debates so far that we were absolutely right to question the programme motion. It is absolutely clear that there has been inadequate time to discuss the large number of very important issues before us tonight. However, we could have made more effective use of the time that was made available. Nevertheless, the debates in the Chamber and in Committee have provided an opportunity to discuss not only the issues dealt with in the Bill, but a wide range of other related issues. That has been helpful.

    1033
    We have had an opportunity to discuss the need to speed up the provision of affordable housing. We have discussed the need to tackle the absolutely disgraceful fact that there are 750,000 empty homes in this country. We have discussed the need to improve support for those who tragically often suffer from the neighbours from hell. We have even discussed the proposals to run trials to determine the ways in which different local authorities can develop greater choice for the various people in need of housing. I hope that the bid from my local authority—Bath and North East Somerset—will be considered very favourably by the Minister. We have also had an opportunity directly to consider important issues in the Bill, such as buying and selling housing and the development of homelessness reviews and strategies by local authorities.
    On Second Reading, the Minister accepted that the Bill was, at that stage, work in progress. I genuinely believe that our deliberations have resulted in significant progress. For example, I am delighted that Ministers have been prepared to accept Liberal Democrat proposals for improvements to the reintroduction of reviews of eligibility and of the priority given to homeless people. I am delighted that some of our proposals on energy efficiency have been accepted tonight. Hon. Members from both sides in Committee and in the House have backed our proposals to improve the advice and guidance that local authorities give to homeless people. Ministers have also been willing to reconsider certain aspects of new clauses 5 and 7. I am grateful for the improvements that have been made.
    The Bill contains many important and beneficial measures. Despite that, it continues to contain a number of weaknesses. They include the inadequately defined and certainly inadequately financially supported role that trading standards officers will have to play. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly said, insufficient attention has been given to the issues of gazumping and gazundering. There is certainly not enough in the Bill to link the important work of registered social landlords and local authority housing departments. The Minister will be the first to acknowledge that we have still not found a solution to the question of whether a seller's pack should be required in areas of low-value properties. In addition, we have not yet done enough to link together at the local authority level the development of homelessness strategies and the housing strategy.
    The hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly referred to the Bill's biggest weakness, which is the sanctions that the Government propose to introduce against those who fail to meet the requirements of a seller's pack. We are fundamentally opposed to the introduction of criminal sanctions. It is wrong to make it a criminal offence to fail to meet the requirements of the seller's pack. That would mean that someone who had not met those requirements could find that their character had been diminished in the eyes of their neighbours and others. Their job might be put in jeopardy and their credit rating and their ability to obtain a mortgage could be put at risk. Some countries, such as the United States, will not accept people with criminal records, so the ability of those people to travel could also be put at risk. If there is to be a sanction, it should be a civil sanction, not a criminal one.
    1034
    The Bill is work in progress, and progress has been made during our deliberations. I do not want to do anything that will prevent further progress from being made in another place. For that reason, we shall not vote against the Bill's Third Reading.
    9.48 pm
    Mr. Love: I welcome the Bill, not least because it implements two of the Government's manifesto pledges. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on taking the Bill smoothly through all its stages in the House, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), on his appointment as a Minister.
    Funnily enough, I pay tribute to both sides for the measured and sensible debates that we had in Committee. They were in marked contrast to the Second Reading debate, which sounded very much to me like an election rally for the Opposition. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) suggested, we had a surreal debate tonight when two Liberal Democrat homelessness policies were on show. There was also the amazing spectacle of the Welsh Nationalists coming to the aid of those on the Opposition Front Bench when Opposition Back Benchers were chiding them about Conservative principles.
    The Bill will significantly improve the process of buying and selling a home. The need for the measure is clear: 1.5 million to 2 million sales are made a year. Although the process is among the cheapest, it is also the slowest. Twenty-eight per cent. of all sales fail, even after terms have been agreed, and dissatisfaction is high. Frankly, action was required.
    We cannot criticise the Government for lack of research. An enormous amount of consultation and research was carried out before the measure was introduced. A long study took place in 1998, followed by a consultation process. It showed strong support for the seller's pack and even for making it compulsory. The consultation was followed by a pilot study. We are considering trust and confidence in the survey form, which was discussed at length. The provisions should establish that confidence before the form is introduced in 2003. The Bill will achieve more stability and predictability in the process of buying a home.
    I have a direct constituency interest in homelessness. Almost one in three constituents who come to me have housing problems. Most of them are homeless or in the process of becoming homeless. That reflects the Tory legacy. The previous Government's neglect of social housing has led directly to such problems; indeed, their legacy is symbolised by rough sleepers. That will haunt the Conservative party for a long time.
    I welcome the Bill. It provides a settled housing solution for people who are in priority need, but it also does much more than that. It provides for local authorities to devise homelessness strategies, and establishes the need for them to put prevention at the top of their agenda.
    Although Opposition Members have criticised them, I welcome the provisions for strengthening advice and assistance. When we are unable to provide a settled housing solution, we should give homeless people advice and assistance. It is clear that that currently does not happen.

    1035
    I welcome the Minister's important reassurance that blanket exclusions, which have formed a large part of some local authorities' activities, will be outlawed. I join the hon. Member for Eastbourne—although I do not ask the Minister to select Eastbourne as one of the pilot authorities—in welcoming the extension of choice to social housing. That is long overdue and will lead to local authorities gaining a better reputation for their provision of housing for those in need.
    The Bill will make a difference. It will reduce not only homelessness, but social exclusion, which is perhaps even more important and at the centre of Government policy.
    9.53 pm
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) complained that there had not been sufficient time to discuss part I, and he blamed the programme motion. The Bill has 33 clauses and it has been allocated a full day for Report and Third Reading. That was not unusual in the House even before the time of programme motions. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on the debate, he will probably realise that there was no time to discuss all the issues that are relevant to part I, mainly because one or two Conservative Back Benchers were so offended by the proposals of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) that they decided to take him by the scruff of the neck and shake him for an hour or so.
    Mr. Waterson: The Minister chooses to work on the basis of the number of clauses, which is rather like a "Never mind the quality, feel the width" approach to politics. Will he remind the House of the number of clauses in the Bill that led to ratification of the Maastricht treaty?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman might know that, as an ex-Whip, I have a tendency, which I need to lose, towards "Never mind the quality, feel the width". It is something that I shall work on.
    Our procedures for buying and selling homes are the slowest and most inefficient in Europe. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people endure the frustration of delays and failed transactions, often incurring substantial costs. We are determined to do something about that and to improve the lot of consumers. An efficient housing market benefits everyone. We are pursuing a range of measures to increase certainty in the process and reduce delays. The Bill, which requires sellers to prepare a seller's pack before marketing a property, is at the heart of these proposals.
    The hon. Member for Eastbourne complains that the Bill will do nothing about gazumping. Surely one of the main reasons for gazumping is the time that a transaction takes in a moving housing market. If the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that, it is obvious that the commonsense revolution has not reached all the parts of the Conservative party.
    Homelessness, or the threat of it, can be one of the most stressful experiences in life for families and individuals, especially if they are vulnerable as a result of, for example, their age or health. The legislation introduced by the previous Government failed to provide adequate
    1036
    protection. The Bill puts in place another important piece in our comprehensive strategy to help homeless people and to tackle the causes of homelessness.
    The hon. Member for Eastbourne spoke of his objection to the issue of criminal sanctions. If the issue of seller's packs is to be effective, we need a mandatory scheme, and that requires appropriate sanctions. There is plenty of scope within the Bill for a tough line to be taken on estate agents who deliberately flout the law, and for discretion to be applied when a private seller makes an honest mistake. Estate agents market the vast majority of homes.
    Civil sanctions would not offer effective safeguards. They would rely on the buyer suing the person who had marketed the property without a seller's pack. That would involve buyers in delays and uncertainty, and the expense of legal proceedings to recover the money that had been lost.
    Criminal sanctions would not have to rely on the actions of the buyer. Local trading standards officers—they are not members of the Gestapo—will be able to initiate enforcement action as is appropriate to meet the conditions that they face and individual circumstances.
    I am grateful for the support of some Opposition Members for the measures that we have proposed. I commend the Bill to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
    That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice on Video Recording of Interviews) (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.
    That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice on the Exercise of Police Powers) (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.

    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
    That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question again proposed.
    9.59 pm
    Mr. Eric Forth: On 31 January, I posed the question: what added value would we get from joint or concurrent meetings? That was at column 406 of Hansard. I went on to say that I wanted to challenge the basis on which the motion was predicated. It assumes that the Committees will produce better results by meeting concurrently. That is the point of the argument that I want to develop as it continues, as it will for some

    1037
    time. The question is whether the two Houses of Parliament, in the context of the Committee that we are now discussing, can make a better contribution separately or jointly—or, as the motion quaintly states, "concurrently". In other words, do they have distinctive roles and can they bring a distinctive or different perspective to matters?
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

    SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
    That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John Mc William, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
    Motion made,
    That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
    Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
    Motion made,
    That—

    (1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and

    (2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word 'Wales:, the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Hon. Members: Object.

    Depleted Uranium (Shelling)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    10 pm
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I am very glad to have this opportunity, which has perhaps come rather earlier than I expected, to raise in an Adjournment debate a matter of increasing concern to many of my constituents. It relates mainly to the test firing of depleted uranium shells from the Ministry of Defence base at Dundrennan, which lies on the Solway estuary in Kirkcudbrightshire in my constituency and which is now run by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
    My first foray into that area was in April 1998, when I asked a question about the firing of such shells at the range. The answer from Sir John Chisholm, chief executive of DERA, was that 6,255 shells had been fired at Dundrennan since 1982 and that four had been recovered—not 4,000 or 400, but four. To bring these figures up to date, 6,907 shells have now been fired at Dundrennan. Following national press stories, which sought to link depleted uranium to Gulf war syndrome, I wrote to Lord Robertson, who was then Secretary of State for Defence, on 1 December 1998, asking for action to be taken to recover the shells. I received a reply from the then Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), stating that DERA
    "does not currently have a programme in place to recover DU projectiles from the Solway Firth, nor does it intend to initiate such a programme."
    I am interested in how many depleted uranium shells the MOD needs. In the Gulf war, 100 rounds were used against the Iraqis and some rounds were used during training in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of the argument about whether or not depleted uranium should be used, if we are going to use only approximately 100 rounds, do we really need to test 7,000 rounds? The United Kingdom has fired 70 times as much depleted uranium at Dundrennan as it did in the Gulf war. In asking those questions, I am well aware that a culture of secrecy seems to surround such matters, which only adds to the suspicion of many people about the actions of the MOD.
    One example in relation to Dundrennan will suffice. In January 2000, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) asked a parliamentary question relating to meetings between DERA and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. He was informed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) that he was withholding details of such a meeting under
    "Exception 2 … of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."—[Official Report, 28 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 382W.]
    I hope that the Minister for the Armed Forces will not hide behind such get-out-clauses in responding to further questions on this matter. However, I was pleased to note that, in his statement in the House on 9 January, he said:
    "I absolutely agree that we should have as much information as possible in the public domain for there to be proper scientific peer review of that information"—[Official Report, 9 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 888.]
    Having secured this debate, I should like to stress that I am not saying that there has been any health effect so far on the general public in Kircudbrightshire as a result of

    1039
    the Dundrennan tests. However, increasing international worries about depleted uranium lead me to be concerned that, if thousands of she]]s are left in the Solway Firth, we are storing up potential problems for the future. I am also concerned about any health implications for civilian and military staff who have worked at the base.
    I would now like to look at the W. S. Atkins report, which the Minister mentioned in his statement on 9 January. The MOD had agreed to implement an independent impact assessment in 1993, which was prepared by W. S. Atkins Consultants Ltd. and published by the MOD in January 1995. It is entitled "Environmental Assessment of the Firing of Depleted Uranium Projectiles at Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright Ranges".
    I am somewhat concerned that the MOD is still trying to use the report, which is now six years old, to claim that there are no problems associated with the firing of depleted uranium at Dundrennan. In the Minister's statement, he said
    "A detailed review of the environmental impact of firing DU at these ranges. … concluded that the radiation doses to members of the public and the associated risks from DU released into the environment were extremely low."—[Official Report, 9 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 878–79.]
    Although that is indeed part of the report, other sections of the document, far from putting to rest any worries about DU testing, raise many more worries. One concern is the effect on current and past workers, both military and civilian, who have been present when a test malfunctions.
    In relation to such malfunctions, which are shells that break up before they hit the target, W. S. Atkins identified several hazards as a result of the test firing programme, one of which is the release of DU material into the environment as a result of the malfunction. On that matter, the report states that
    "the consequences will involve the release of DU material to the atmosphere. This material would most probably be in the form of very fine particulates or aerosols of either DU metal or DU oxides."
    That leads on to the question of how many malfunctions have occurred since the commencement of tests. The minutes of a presentation to the local council by Lieutenant Colonel David Brown for DERA on 22 September 1999 state:
    "Some mishaps had occurred, notably at the Raeberry gun position where some years ago a projectile had broken up as it was fired from the gun. Also some projectiles had hit the ground at the targets instead of travelling through the target into the sea."
    The targets are usually hessian or plastic sheets, which are attached to a metal frame. The shells are supposed to be fired through the sheets and to land in the sea.
    In a letter that I received from the chief executive of DERA in February last year, I was informed that
    "only one projectile had been recovered from the Solway Firth. The other three were recovered from the land."
    There are four separate testing ranges at Dundrennan. The W. S. Atkins report refers to the malfunction rate at three of the ranges between commencement of the trials in 1981 and January 1994, when the survey was conducted. The rates vary between 4 per cent. at Raeberry and 0.6 per cent. at Balig. Taking into account the fact that 4,595 shells were fired at Dundrennan during the period in question, and taking even the lowest malfunction range,
    1040
    as the figures are not split for the various ranges, that means that 27 firings were subject to malfunction in that period.
    If a similar malfunction rate had continued between 1981 and the present, that would mean that about 41 malfunctions had occurred to date, each potentially creating DU-contaminated dust, although I have anecdotal evidence from constituents working on the range who have seen as many as five malfunctions in one day.
    I would appreciate some clarification from the Minister about how many malfunctions have occurred since the testing started, and whether the malfunctions are included in the numbers provided in parliamentary answers relating to the number of shells fired. Does he agree that there is a good case for voluntary testing for depleted uranium poisoning to be made available to all staff involved in the tests at Dundrennan?
    That brings me to the matter of misfired shells—shells that have not hit their target. The W. S. Atkins report goes on to state:
    "The point of contact of eight misfired DU penetrators is not known and they may have hit agricultural land."
    That is clearly unacceptable. Will the Minister inform the House how many misfires have occurred to date and whether any of those shells have been recovered?
    Some 6,907 shells have been fired into the Solway, and, even allowing for misfires and malfunctions, more than 6,000 are presumably now lying in the Solway. Many of us instinctively object to the Solway being used as a radioactive munitions dumping ground by the MOD. W. S. Atkins commented:
    "For Kirkcudbright, a major unknown factor relates to the fate of projectiles once they enter the marine environment. Distribution of the projectiles within the area of the seabed is unknown, in spite of a monitoring that has been operational since commencement of DU firing."
    It goes on to say:
    "The state of a projectile after it strikes the sea bed is not known. The projectile may hit the bottom at speed and become embedded in mud, silt or sand, or if it strikes a hard object fragmentation may occur. The degree of fragmentation and penetration beneath the surface cannot be predicted and it therefore follows that the concentration in bottom sediments cannot be estimated."
    It also states:
    "Penetrators that impact at sea may corrode and release DU into sea water."
    My understanding from reading the report is that the expectation is that any such release of DU would be very diluted, and, therefore, apparently not a problem. That may or may not be the case at present, but my real concern is for the future. I understand that DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, so we could be sowing the seeds of environmental problems for some time in the future. It is obvious that little is known about the exact whereabouts of all those shells. However, I fail to see how it is beyond the Government's capability to remove them from the Solway and dispose of them more appropriately, or—if they do not wish to embark on that course straight away—to undertake a feasibility study into that option.
    That brings me to the legislation on radioactive disposal. On 15 January, in a parliamentary answer on the firing of DU, the Secretary of State for Defence stated:
    "Statutory regulations govern the use of DU on ranges in the UK. These are the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, which controls radioactive waste discharges to the environment and the Ionising Radiations Regulations (IRR) 1999."—[Official Report, 15 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 42W.]

    1041
    The 1993 Act lays down strict guidelines for the disposal of radioactive materials, including depleted uranium. In order to dispose of radioactive waste, authorisation must be sought from the appropriate environmental agency, which in this case is SEPA. Before granting such authorisation, the agency must consult the relevant local authority, among others.
    In relation to the Ionising Radiations Regulations, W. S. Atkins states:
    "A requirement exists within the Ionising Radiation Regulations for an operator to be able to account for all radioactive material under his control. Up to the point of firing this is done. Beyond that point the material, unless recovered, is presently considered by HMIP (HM Inspectorate of Pollution) to be part of the Kirkcudbright facility 'procedure' and as such does not attract concern. However should the projectiles be recovered then they would be classified as waste and require appropriate dispersal with the relevant letters of approval obtained."
    I would like the Minister to inform the House, and my constituents, whether depleted uranium is subject to strict controls before it is fired and if it is recovered, but not if it is left lying in the Solway Firth. That would be unacceptable. If that is not the case, given that the MOD obviously considers the Solway Firth to be the final resting place of the depleted uranium shells, will the Minister confirm whether the MOD has the authorisation required to dispose of them in the Solway Firth, as the Secretary of State seems to have stated that the 1993 Act applies in this case.
    Dundrennan is not the only location in my constituency to play host to the leftovers of the activities of the MOD. In the sea between Galloway and Northern Ireland, in the deep trench of Beaufort's Dyke, lie many hundreds of tons of first and second world war explosives, phosphorous bombs and the like. Many of those are not even in the deep trench of the dyke, but in the shallower waters near the coastline, and the phosphorous flares are frequently washed up on the coast of Galloway and Ayrshire.
    Further to the east at Luce Bay, near the DERA establishment at West Freugh, live cluster bombs lie on the bottom of the bay as a result of pre-Kosovo trials. These are in the process of being covered over by blocks of concrete. Further east still, we come to Dundrennan, which I have been talking about tonight. The whole area is then gently washed by the tides of the Solway, which are themselves host to whatever radioactive discharges the plant at Sellafield chooses to release. Perhaps Galloway is getting more than its fair share of these man-made problems.
    I am not an alarmist. Any inspection of my statements since 1997 would make it clear that I have not sought cheap headlines at the expense of public confidence. However, there comes a stage at which any reasonable person must say that enough is enough. We have an obligation to leave this planet to our children in at least as good a state as we found it, if not better, and clearly in this case we are not doing so.
    A couple of years ago, the Government did the agriculture industry in my constituency and elsewhere no favours with their short-term ban on beef on the bone—a ban undertaken largely on the precautionary principle that although the risk of infection was infinitesimal and certainly no higher than that posed by many everyday activities, it was nevertheless a risk, and one that should be addressed. I submit that the same precautionary
    1042
    principle should apply to the test firing at Dundrennan, that as a result no more should be undertaken and that the debris of what has been undertaken should be removed as expeditiously as possible.
    10.15 pm
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) on securing the debate. It is understandable that there might be concern within his constituency about depleted uranium, following heavy media coverage of the subject in January, but I hope I can reassure him about its use at the Kirkcudbright range.
    The armour-piercing rounds for the British Army's Challenger 2 main battle tank are manufactured from depleted uranium, commonly known as DU. The rounds are built around a solid rod of DU metal, which has a density almost twice that of lead. DU also has the important property of self-sharpening on impact with armour. Those properties give it a unique capability as a penetrator, and at present no satisfactory alternative material exists that might provide the level of penetration needed to defeat the most modern battle tanks. For that reason DU will remain part of our arsenal for the foreseeable future. When this country commits our forces to conflict we fight to win, and our troops need the best available equipment to enable them to do that.
    Kirkcudbright is an MOD-owned site that is now run by the Army as a training area. It is also used for the proof and trials firing of DU rounds by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency—DERA. DU firing began at Kirkcudbright in 1982, following an announcement in the House by the then Secretary of State for Defence. Since then, a total of 6,907 DU rounds have been fired at Kirkcudbright in order to assess the accuracy of the guns and ammunition, and more recently for in-service quality control or proofing. Usually 12 rounds are fired, in order to sample every production batch of 1,056 projectiles. The current programme of trials comprises production batch testing, and will be completed by the end of this year. Thereafter, further proof testing while the ammunition remains in service may be required, but that has yet to be confirmed.
    As the hon. Gentleman said, the DU rounds are fired from prepared positions within the range at soft targets mounted in gantries on the cliff top. They pass through the targets and then continue out to sea, where they enter the water—which is approximately 20 m deep—between 1 km and 3 km from the shoreline. Only one target area is currently in use, together with two firing points.
    As DU is a heavy metal with chemical toxicity, and also has low-activity radioactive qualities, precautions need to be taken when it is being handled and fired. The use of DU at Kirkcudbright is undertaken in accordance with statutory regulations, including the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999, which were made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive.
    The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 replaced similar regulations dating from 1968, 1969 and 1985. In addition, although formally exempt, the MOD voluntarily acts in accordance with the provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, which controls radioactive waste

    1043
    discharges into the environment. Periodic visits to the ranges are carried out by the Health and Safety Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The last such visit took place in January 2001.
    The firing programme is undertaken by teams of DERA range staff. Effective steps have been and continue to be taken to protect those who have taken part in the testing of DU ammunition. All staff involved in the DU firing programme are fully briefed on the radiological safety aspects of working with DU before commencing work with the material. Moreover, they are designated "classified persons" under the terms of the Ionising Radiations Regulations. That means that they are subject to a pre-employment medical examination and are kept under surveillance by a medical practitioner approved by the Health and Safety Executive.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I apologise to the Minister if he is coming to the point, but during their visits, do the Health and Safety Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency look purely at the land area of the base, or do they also look at the area of sea into which the shells are meant to fall?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is right. I will come to the sea later.
    In addition, checks on the effectiveness of the safety procedures are carried out by the use of dosimeters, personal air samplers, urine analysis and whole-body monitoring. In the whole history of DU firing, none of those personal monitoring measures has ever shown a result that has given any cause for concern.
    Indeed, in 1999, the latest year for which complete results are available, the average annual yearly dose for a worker at Kirkcudbright was 0.65 millisieverts. That is well below the statutory annual dose limit of 20 msv for an employee set by the regulations, and lower even than the statutory annual dose limit of 1 msv for a member of the public.
    Access to target areas, firing points and, if DU is present, storage areas, must be within the terms of the regulations and is strictly controlled. Routine monitoring of those areas is carried out in accordance with the regulations. Special local safety regulations are enforced, concerning magazines, vehicles, firing and target areas, and they cover the contingency of accidents.
    As I have said, the targets at Kirkcudbright are made of soft material through which the projectiles pass. In uncommon cases when projectiles have struck the target gantry, any subsequent risk of contamination from touching or disturbing DU material can be contained by means of relatively simple safety precautions. Personal protective equipment is issued when entering DU strike areas at Kirkcudbright, including protective overalls, gloves and boots. Access to areas known to be contaminated is strictly controlled.
    Work on the estate is controlled by risk assessments and range safety rules, made on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence and administered by the local range commandant. There is public access to the estate outside firing hours, but there are warning signs along the range boundary. Furthermore, the out-of-bounds areas are fenced and signed, where appropriate, with radiation signs.
    1044
    Even if a member of the public or a soldier on training exercises were to ignore the warnings, enter the restricted areas, pick up and handle any DU fragments, or even picnic on top of one of them, the risk is minimal, according to an assessment undertaken by DERA radiation protection services. Such an individual might, on worst case assumptions, receive an additional radiation dose equivalent to less than 10 per cent. of the statutory annual dose limit for members of the general public.
    A long-term environmental monitoring programme on the effects of firing has taken place at Kirkcudbright since 1983, and to date it has shown only very low levels of DU contamination—well below any level that could be considered a health hazard. The monitoring involves taking samples of soil, grass, animal droppings, shellfish and sea-bed sediment from 13 separate points in the range each year—twice each year for grass. None of the samples has ever indicated any concentration of DU above background levels, except for some known contamination in soil at the firing and target sites, which, as I have explained, are fenced.
    That monitoring gives us confidence that DU firing does not have an adverse impact on the local environment or the food chain. I know that the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about the possibility of DU raising radiation levels in the Solway firth. Scientific modelling, again using pessimistic assumptions, concluded that corrosion of DU rounds would make a negligible difference to the level of uranium that already exists naturally in sea water. That conclusion is confirmed by the samples of sea-bed sediment and shellfish that we collect in the area where the projectiles land. No uranium is detected above naturally occurring background levels.
    We are still not complacent about safety or DU contamination at Kirkcudbright. Although the risks from DU fragments are, as I have said, minimal, we have decided to conduct a general survey to find any previously undetected DU fragments on the range and, if necessary, to take appropriate remedial measures. The survey will be conducted using a new, more sensitive device called the exploranium. That device detects, but does not measure, the X-rays and gamma rays associated with the radioactive decay of DU. It is about twice as sensitive as the monitor previously used for detecting DU fragments on the surface of the range, and about 200 times better at detecting fragments below the surface of the range.
    The survey will provide an overview of any radiologically significant DU surface contamination on areas of the range, believed to have been caused by a very small number of DU projectiles that failed to reach the sea. As the hon. Gentleman said, some of the early prototype rounds broke up just outside the gun barrel, leaving DU fragments in the soil. Additionally, a few rounds have struck the ground prior to reaching the target. The hon. Gentleman asked for figures, and I shall write to him. We shall also further investigate the areas of known DU contamination round the firing points and targets.
    The survey will be conducted by the DERA radiation protection services, with preliminary work commencing in March 2001—as soon as the weather, ground conditions and day length are suitable—and measurement starting in April and May. Allowing for contingencies, the report on the survey should be completed by the end of the year. The undertaking of the survey, in addition to the continuing environmental monitoring and range

    1045
    control measures, shows how seriously we take our responsibilities in connection with firing DU. We shall publish the results of the survey in due course, in line with the long-established openness that we have demonstrated on the subject.
    Mr. Morgan: I thank the Minister for that. However, we do not know the rate at which the shells deteriorate. Although he turned up his nose at the idea of 4.5 billion years, the problem will be with us for centuries, at least. Governments cannot bind their successors. Do we not have to deal with that problem?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman should understand that a longer half-life for a radioactive substance indicates a lower level of radioactive dispersal. The dangerous stuff has a much shorter half-life, because it is dispersing radioactivity at a much higher rate. In fact, depleted uranium is 40 per cent. less radioactive than natural uranium, which, as I said, is found in the soil—on land and under the sea—throughout the world. This is a useful opportunity to bring that matter to the attention of the public and put it in an accurate context.
    Our activities at Kirkcudbright have been characterised by considerable transparency. As the hon. Gentleman said, in 1995, an independent environmental assessment by the consultants W S Atkins, commissioned by the MOD, was released into the public domain. It concluded that there were no significant risks from exposure to DU released into the environment. Subsequently, those conclusions have been sustained and, from 1983 to date, the routine environmental monitoring programme has shown only very low levels of DU contamination, which are well below any level that could be considered a health hazard.
    DERA has ensured that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Dumfries and Galloway council have both been informed of firing activities, and have also been provided with the annual environmental monitoring reports. DERA holds regular meetings with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and DERA
    1046
    representatives have attended public meetings arranged by Dumfries and Galloway council to discuss the findings of the annual environmental monitoring report. Copies are also circulated to hon. Members and given to the Library.
    On 15 January 2001, at a "community" meeting of Stewartry area committee, concern was apparently expressed in the public forum about recent press coverage of the firing of DU projectiles from the range at Kirkcudbright. A letter dated 23 January 2001 from the chief environmental officer to the Secretary of State requested a full report on the issue. We have had other representations from local residents. They will, of course, receive full replies. Meanwhile, however, I should like, through the hon. Gentleman, to provide that reassurance to the local population.
    The fact is that, despite the recent media furore, no new evidence has emerged in the past month or so to change our assessment of the risks of DU or its effects on health or the environment. It is far more important for local residents to focus on the reassurance of our precautions, our monitoring of range workers and our environmental analysis of the impact of DU on the range and its environs. That material has been shared with them publicly for many years. The material shows that the risks of firing DU at Kirkcudbright are understood, monitored and managed, and that local residents, farmers and visitors to the ranges can be confident that it has a minimal impact on the range.
    The risks, minimal as they are, have been acknowledged and handled throughout that period in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements, and our responsibilities to service and civilian personnel, as well as to the general public, are taken very seriously. That will continue, as our intention to conduct a new survey of the site clearly demonstrates.
    The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

  Deferred Divisions

    COMPANIES
    That the draft Companies (EU Political Expenditure) Exemption Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.
    The House divided: Aves 329, Noes 7.

    Division No. 108]

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Ainger, Nick

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Allan, Richard

    Clelland, David

    Allen, Graham

    Coaker, Vernon

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Cohen, Harry

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Colman, Tony

    Ashton, Joe

    Connarty, Michael

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cooper, Yvette

    Baker, Norman

    Corbett, Robin

    Ballard, Jackie

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Barnes, Harry

    Corston, Jean

    Barron, Kevin

    Cotter, Brian

    Battle, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cox, Tom

    Beard, Nigel

    Cranston, Ross

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Crausby, David

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Cummings, John

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Dalyell, Tam

    Berry, Roger

    Darvill, Keith

    Betts, Clive

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Blackman, Liz

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Denham, John

    Borrow, David

    Dismore, Andrew

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Doran, Frank

    Brake, Tom

    Dowd, Jim

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Drew, David

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Browne, Desmond

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Burden, Richard

    Edwards, Huw

    Burnett, John

    Efford, Clive

    Burstow, Paul

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Ennis, Jeff

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

    Flint, Caroline

    (NE Fife)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Foulkes, George

    Casale, Roger

    Galloway, George

    Caton, Martin

    Gapes, Mike

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gardiner, Barry

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Chaytor, David

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Clapham, Michael

    Gidley, Sandra

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Gill, Christopher

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Goggins, Paul

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    1048

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Greenway, John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Martlew, Eric

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Maxton, John

    Grocott, Bruce

    Meale, Alan

    Hain, Peter

    Merron, Gillian

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hancock, Mike

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hanson, David

    Miller, Andrew

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Moffatt, Laura

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Healey, John

    Moore, Michael

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Heppell, John

    Morley, Elliot

    Hesford, Stephen

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

    Hill, Keith

    (B'ham Yardley)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    (Aberavon)

    Hoey, Kate

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Mudie, George

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Mullin, Chris

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Norris, Dan

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Oaten, Mark

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Walks)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Olner, Bill

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Jamieson, David

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Pearson, Ian

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Pike, Peter L

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Plaskitt, James

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Pond, Chris

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Pope, Greg

    Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

    Pound, Stephen

    (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lammy, David

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Laxton, Bob

    Purchase, Ken

    Lepper, David

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Rapson, Syd

    Liddell, Ftt Hon Mrs Helen

    Livsey, Richard

    Raynsford, Nick

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Rendel, David

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Robertson, John

    Lock, David

    (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Love Andrew

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    McCabe, Steve

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Rogers, Allan

    Macdonald, Calum

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    McDonnell, John

    Rooney, Terry

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Ruane, Chris

    McIsaac, Shona

    Ruddock, Joan

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    McNulty, Tony

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Salter, Martin

    McWilliam, John

    Sanders, Adrian

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Mallaber, Judy

    Sawford, Phil

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Sheerman, Barry

    1049

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Stringer, Graham

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Skinner, Dennis

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    (Dewsbury)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

    Temple—Morris, Peter

    Soley, Clive

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Spellar, John

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Timms, Stephen

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Tipping, Paddy

    Stevenson, George

    Todd, Mark

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Touhig, Don

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Trickett, Jon

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    1050

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    (Swansea W)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Wlliams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Tyler, Paul

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Tynan, Bill

    Willis, Phil

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Wills, Michael

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Winnick, David

    Wareing, Robert N

    Woodward, Shaun

    Watts, David

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    White, Brian

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Wyatt, Derek

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    NOES

    Beggs, Roy

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Question accordingly agreed to.