Sitting of 3 April 2000

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

    Pensioner Poverty
    Mr. Ernie Ross: What progress the Government are making in tackling poverty among pensioners. [115863]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling ): As a result of Government policy, all pensioners will be £3 a week better off, and those aged over 75 will be £5 a week better off. On top of that, many will benefit from our tax changes. Because we are committed to tackling pensioner poverty, the poorest pensioners on the minimum income guarantee are £14 a week better off than they were under the previous Government, and those aged over 75 who are on the minimum income guarantee are £16 better off.
    Mr. Ross: Can my right hon. Friend tell us how many retired people do not qualify for the full basic state pension—for example, people who were self-employed or many married women—and who therefore do not benefit from any increase? Does he understand how necessary it is that such people take up benefits and the minimum income guarantee?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is frequently overlooked in discussions of pensions that many people—more than half a million—receive no basic pension because they do not have the required contributions. On top of that, some of the 2.7 million married women have full contributions, but many do not. The point of the minimum income guarantee is to address the problem that we inherited. Far too many pensioners—nearly 1 million single pensioners and 1 million pensioner couples—did not receive enough money to make ends meet. The minimum income guarantee is important to them, and some pensioners will be £16 a week better off because of it. During the final three days of last week, following the announcement of the minimum income guarantee freephone number, more than 11,500 pensioners called to ask for help.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: What message does the Secretary of State believe that he is sending to the
    610
    next generation of pensioners—those people on modest incomes who are scrimping and saving for their retirement? The minimum income guarantee will be available to those who, for whatever reason, do not provide for themselves, but those who do provide for themselves, and achieve small pensions or savings, will find that they have no advantage.
    Mr. Darling: I can say two things to such pensioners. First, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced a doubling of capital limits that enable people to qualify for the minimum income guarantee, about which the hon. Gentleman has asked many questions. The capital limits were last raised in 1988—nothing was done about them during the last 10 years of the previous Government. We have doubled the limits, which will help.
    Secondly, the pensioner credit, on which we shall consult in a few months, is designed to help pensioners who have not only a small amount of capital, but a modest occupational pension. We are determined to make sure that people who save and build up a pension are rewarded for their thrift, and not, as in the past, penalised for it.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Does the Minister recall that the previous Labour Government linked pensions to earnings on the basis that the wealth we enjoyed had been built up by people who had retired? Does he recall that the Conservative Government abolished that link, costing pensioners more than £20 a week? Is he aware that millions of pensioners are frustrated, angry and—some of them—bitter that our moral obligation to them has not been met. Means-tested benefits are not the same as benefits as of right.
    Mr. Darling: May I take this opportunity to wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) many happy returns of the day? He will look forward to receiving his free television licence in November.
    I remember the previous Labour Government, although I was not in the House at the time. It is worth recalling that that Government increased pensions by the better of prices or earnings because inflation in the 1970s sometimes rose by 25 per cent. a year. In fact, the real-terms increase received by pensioners was negligible because of high inflation rates, which my right hon. Friend no doubt remembers well.
    If my right hon. Friend considers what has happened over the past 25 years, he will see, in the pensioner income paper that I published last week, that we inherited a situation in which the incomes of better-off pensioners have gone up by 80 per cent. while the poorest pensioners have had increases of only 30 per cent. In the interests of fairness and equity, I should have thought that he would support the Government in doing the right thing by the oldest and poorer pensioners, who have benefited by as much as £16 a week that they would not have had but for this Government.
    Of course, we are helping all pensioners—to the tune of about £3 a week this year, and £5 a week for those aged over 75—but it must be right, given what has happened over the past 25 years, to ensure that we help those who lost out so badly during the Tory years.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that divorced women form one of the

    611
    groups of women who could fall into poverty? What has happened to the regulations on pension sharing on divorce—all 122 pages of them—which were due to be laid by 30 March? We were promised that they would be passed by Easter, but so far nothing has happened. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that he needs to get on with that, so that that group of women are lifted out of poverty as soon as possible?
    Mr. Darling: I would have more sympathy with the hon. Lady if her party had not opposed pension sharing on divorce when it was in government.
    Mr. David Willetts indicated dissent.
    Mr. Darling: Well, the hon. Lady did, for the sake of the record. However, I can tell her that the regulations in relation to pension sharing and divorce will come into force in December of this year, as we promised.

    Pension Entitlement
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on the number of pensioners awaiting computation of their full pension entitlement. [115865]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): As I said on 7 February, there were then about 83,000 people still to have their benefits reviewed following the NIRS2 problems. Some 17,000 of these have now been cleared, but the total number outstanding has increased to 88,000 as a result of further reviews produced from NIRS2 for existing awards to be revised and the continuing need to carry out clerical calculations for some new awards. So far, 48,000 claims have been cleared clerically and there are about 13,000 currently awaiting action. However, as I said in February, we still anticipate that all payments will be fully brought up to date before the end of the year.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: We are all holding our breath to see whether the Minister can deliver on that commitment, given that it is now 18 months since the Secretary of State told us that the matter would be cleared up within a matter of weeks. I have a constituent, who wrote to me only this week, who retired as head teacher of a special school last summer and, nine months later, is still waiting to have her pension entitlement sorted out.
    Is it not a disgrace that a Government cannot even authorise that the Benefits Agency pay pensioners their projected benefits, which they were told that they could expect when they retired, until such time as the exact figure can be sorted out?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Rooker: Conservative Members can say all the hear, hears they like. The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter several times, as have other hon. Members, and he is quite right to do so, but the answer is the same. We are reliant upon a computerised system. That new product was purchased on the cheap by the previous Government. It does not do the job that it was intended to do—hence the delay, and hence so far we have paid out £2.5 million in compensation for late payment of people's pensions.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Nigel Evans: How much was spent on benefits for asylum seekers in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000 to date. [115867]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The estimated annual expenditure for asylum seekers was approximately £400 million in 1996–97, falling to £305 million in 1997–98 and falling again to £285 million in 1998–99.
    A final estimate is not yet available for 1999–2000.
    Mr. Evans: But we know that the figure will be higher. Is it not true that the measures that the Government are taking today, with the launch of a voucher scheme, are just a knee-jerk panic reaction to a situation that has gone completely out of control under the present Government? Is it not true that there has been an influx of bogus asylum seekers into this country, leeching off the British taxpayer and genuine claimants? Is it not true that Britain is now seen as a soft-touch magnet for economic migrants throughout the world, and that the Government need to get a grip on the situation?
    It would be far better if, instead of trying to fuel the fire with alternative means such as vouchers, the Government introduced mechanisms now which stopped the tide of economic migrants coming into this country in the first place.
    Mr. Bayley: Those who listen to today's events on "Yesterday in Parliament" will miss the look of shock and surprise on the hon. Gentleman's face when he learned that social security expenditure on asylum seekers has fallen year on year under this Government.
    Mr. Evans: What about the council tax?
    Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman's complaints about the council tax would have more credibility if his party had not opposed every one of the measures that our party has introduced that have had that effect on social security spending.
    Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. It is obvious that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was totally surprised by the answer that he received. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there is no doubt that bogus asylum seekers should be dealt with quickly, the hon. Gentleman expressed quite clearly the racism and xenophobia of many Tory Members who are deliberately whipping up feelings about asylum seekers? The very same Tory Members have never shown the slightest interest in working and retired people in this country.
    Mr. Bayley: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The nub of the problem is that the number of asylum seekers banked up waiting for decisions to be taken on their cases increased under the Conservatives and the time that it took to resolve their cases and to decide whether asylum should be granted lengthened. Our policies are reducing the time that it takes for such decisions to be made. In the latest figures for February this year, there were 6,110 new

    613
    applications for asylum, but 7,840 decisions. We are reducing the total, which is something the Conservatives did not manage to do.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Can the Minister confirm that the figures for expenditure that he has just given do not include support provided by local authorities? Will he also confirm that the majority of those claiming benefit as asylum seekers entered this country claiming to have come here on business, for tourism or to stay with relatives? To do that, they had to convince the visa and immigration authorities that they had the means to support themselves and to return home. What will the Minister do to hold them to their word rather than allow them to be supported by the taxpayer?
    Mr. Bayley: I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman why the Conservative party opposed the £2,000 fine on lorry drivers bringing people into this country. If he is serious about reducing the number of economic migrants coming into the country—
    Mr. Lilley: Answer the question.
    Mr. Bayley: In answer to the question, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he will recall from his time as Secretary of State for Social Security that decisions taken by the Home Office on the administration of immigration and asylum matters meant that people were banked up for months and years while decisions were taken and expenditure was offloaded from the Home Office on to his Department. We are ensuring that expenditure takes place under the control of the Home Office, so that it has incentives for, and gains the benefits of, speeding up the decision-making process.

    Benefits (Post Offices)
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What arrangements will be made for the establishment of bank or building society accounts under the automatic credit transfer system for those who wish to continue to cash their benefits at post offices. [115869]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We want banks and the Post Office to offer banking services to people currently without bank accounts. We have already begun discussions with the banking industry on issues surrounding benefit recipients, charges and others matters, and discussions with the industry will continue. We have also made it clear in the past—I do so again—that people will still be able to collect their cash at post offices, both before and after the move to paying benefits by ACT begins in 2003.
    Mr. Barnes: I realise that if pensioners take out accounts with certain building societies and banks, they will still be allowed to cash their benefits directly at post offices. The problem, however, is how they will be able to register. To establish accounts, will they have to search out a bank, turn up and take a great deal of paraphernalia with them to show who they are, or will there be provisions through the Post Office itself to make it automatic and easy for them to set up accounts? If it is
    614
    easy for them to set up accounts, they will continue to use the Post Office and it will remain the only organisation that they use.
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend may be aware that almost half the new pensioners receiving their pensions now choose to have their money paid directly into their bank accounts. I do not think that there is an overwhelming obstacle against that. However, regardless of whether people receive their money from a bank account or from a post office, some formalities have to be followed because we need to be sure that the money is paid to the right person. As I said, we are in discussions with the Post Office and the Post Office will, in turn, discuss with the banks the formalities that are necessary. We want to make it as easy for people to be able to receive their pensions and other benefits provided that that is consistent with ensuring that the system is secure. That benefits individuals as well as the system as a whole.
    Mr. Steve Webb: Will the Secretary of State confirm that since his Government came to office, the rate of post office closures has accelerated and that this year looks to be the worst ever? Will he confirm that the move to ACT will undermine post offices? What steps is he planning to take to enable those pensioners who want to exercise the choice of going to the post office to do so? They will be unable to do so if post offices are closing all around them.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has to accept that if we do nothing, as the Liberal Democrats advocate, more and more post offices will close because almost half the people coming into the system are opting to have their money paid into a bank or building society account. We are ensuring that the Post Office has the investment to set up banking facilities, which did not happen when the Conservatives were in power, to ensure that post offices can compete with banks and building societies.
    The Liberals are being completely dishonest about their position and raising fears although they have no suggestions for securing the future of the Post Office. We are determined that the Post Office will have a future, so we are giving it the investment necessary to ensure that there is a network in years to come—something that the Liberal policy, whatever it happens to be from day to day and hour to hour, could never ensure.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: May I assure the Secretary of State that the concerns to which he refers are genuine concerns in a constituency such as mine? Will he consider another type of bank account, which could prove to be a valuable way to deliver not only ACT but the Government's social exclusion strategies? I refer to the credit union method—a third way, if he likes. Will he ensure that, in his discussions with the Post Office and the banks, credit unions are not closed out? If he has any doubts about the ability of the credit union movement to deliver a highly secure system, he can look to Ireland, where millions of pounds are held in credit unions. Will he consider that as an alternative way of building communities and delivering social security payments?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and credit unions are popular. They are not as well developed in this country as they are in others, but some are successful and well supported. He latches on to the important point that it must be in the whole country's interests to ensure that as many people as possible are included in the banking system, rather than having a section of society that is completely excluded from that system.
    The object of our reforms is to take account of the fact that people are choosing to receive their benefits in different ways, and choice ought to be supported, but at the same time we want to ensure that the Post Office and other institutions have the means to receive those payments so that they can pay them out to members of the public. It is precisely because we are facing up to the problems that we inherited of years of under-investment, indifference and neglect that we can ensure that there will be a post office network in future.
    Mr. Frank Roy: In my constituency, 80 per cent. of post offices depend on the Benefits Agency for over 50 per cent. of their business. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when ACT is introduced those who receive their money through the bank will be able to go to a post office to collect their money? People who do not use a post office at present may therefore start to use it, which would help post offices.
    Mr. Darling: The object is to make sure that people have a choice as to where they receive their money. I repeat that it behaves all those who oppose the Government's proposal to come up with an alternative that will work. The Liberals and Conservatives are now saying, opportunistically, that they would do absolutely nothing, which would mean that more and more people would ask to have their money paid into their bank account, and more and more post offices would close. We are ensuring that people have a choice, because we believe that people should be allowed to choose where they receive their pension or their benefit, and at the same time we are giving the Post Office the additional investment that it needs to ensure that there will be a viable network in future.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Pensioners account for a significant number of the 8 million disabled people in this country, and many of them suffer from mobility problems while others find administrative procedures increasingly perplexing. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State give the House an absolute and unequivocal assurance that those who want to receive their pension in cash at the post office will be able to do so? Furthermore, and in the spirit of that pledge, will he assure the House that there will be a network of post offices that are reasonably convenient for those people, where they will be able to draw that pension?
    Mr. Darling: I remember that, during the previous Parliament, the Conservatives tried to sell off the entire postal network, which would not have enabled such guarantees to be given. My colleagues and I have made it clear that people will have a choice as to whether they receive their benefits and pensions at a post office or in a bank account. I should have thought that those who are disabled and unable to go out would quite like their money to be paid into a bank account, instead of their having to queue up at a post office to get it.

    Retirement Provision
    Mrs. Sylvia Heal: What steps he is taking to help low-paid people to provide for their retirement. [115870]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The state second pension will help low and moderate earners to build up increased pension entitlement. Low earners—by which we generally mean those earning less than £9,500 this year—will receive a dramatic boost to their additional pension entitlement; under the state second pension, that will be more than double their entitlement under the current system. In addition, carers and long-term disabled people with broken work records will, for the first time, be able to build up a second pension.
    The state second pension will help 18 million people to build bigger pension entitlements. Those people include 4.5 million low earners, 9.5 million moderate earners and 4 million carers and disabled people with broken work records. That is something in which the Government and those sitting on the Benches behind me can take extreme pride.
    Mrs. Heal: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that one of the problems with SERPS is that it provides least to those who earn least? Is he aware that many of those low-paid people are women in low-paid, part-time jobs? Will he assure me that the Government's proposed state second pension will ensure that such women will have access to a decent state pension in their retirement?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes. Most part-time workers and low-paid workers are women. To someone earning £9,500 this year—the upper limit of the low-earners category—the state second pension will be worth double the sum that SERPS currently pays. SERPS was and is good: it delivers excellent pensions to those retiring today, despite the fact that in 1986 and 1995, the Conservative Government cut into it. However, because SERPS is earnings related, it gives least to low earners; the state second pension will correct that.
    Mr. David Willetts: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the document on which he fought the last election—the Labour manifesto? It states:
    Labour will retain Serps as an option for those who wish to remain within it.
    The proposals are clearly a breach of that manifesto. The Minister claims that everyone will be better off under the state second pension, but he must know that certain groups—those caring for children aged six to 16, who will not receive the promised home responsibilities protection; people with earnings from self-employment and employment; and people in receipt of working families tax credit—will lose out as a result of the changes that he is introducing. He is clearly in breach of his manifesto promise and is clearly disadvantaging many people as a result.
    Mr. Rooker: I note that the hon. Gentleman does not deny the fact that there will be 18 million gainers under the state second pension. Nobody earning up to £20,000 a year will lose—that cannot be contradicted. He claims

    617
    that we are abolishing SERPS, but we are not; we are reforming it, and using SERPS legislation to introduce the state second pension—[Interruption.] If the Liberal Democrats had deigned to attend the Standing Committee on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill instead of holding themselves remote from it, they would know that SERPS legislation is being amended and reformed to introduce the state second pension.
    As for the remarks of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), we have been consistent with our manifesto commitment: even when the state second pension becomes flat rate, as it will after a number of years, the contracted-out rebates will be earnings related and will go toward the second pension of the people involved. To that extent, we are fulfilling our commitment.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: In 1980, the basic state pension was worth 23 per cent. of average earnings. According to Government figures, by 2051 the combination of what is left of the basic state pension and the new state second pension will be about 21 per cent. of average earnings. It will be set by the Government at about £85 a week at 1999 figures. The figures suggest that there will be more pensioners reliant on means-tested benefits. Does my right hon. Friend consider that that is a satisfactory aim for pension reform by the middle of the 21st century in one of the richest countries in the world?
    Mr. Rooker: If we do nothing and abandon the pensions reform package, one in three pensioners will retire straight on to the means test in the middle of the century. With the package of reforms of the stakeholder pension, the state second pension and other changes, we can reduce that ratio to one in five. I know that the number of pensioners will increase from nearly 11 million to nearer 15 million, but we want to keep pensioners off the means test. We do not want a system that automatically puts millions of people on to it. We have not quite reached the stage where we can say that our package will eradicate the means test, but we shall be on our way in that direction.

    Capital Thresholds
    Mr. David Heath: What plans he has to adjust capital thresholds for social security benefits. [115871]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We have delivered on the pledge in our pensions Green Paper better to reward savers with low incomes. From next April we will increase the capital limits for pensioners to £6,000 and £12,000.
    Mr. Heath: I welcome the Budget announcement, but is there not a case in logic and in justice for automatic uprating across all benefits where a capital limit applies? If it were necessary to disparage the actions of the previous Government—a view which I share—in not increasing limits for the poorest pensioners, why was it necessary to wait for this Budget for an increase to be put in place, and why will that increase not apply for yet another year?
    Mr. Bayley: I do not need to remind the hon. Gentleman that this year his party voted against all the
    618
    social security up ratings, including those for pensioners. In answer to his specific question, I do not think that automatic up ratings would be a good idea. I welcome strongly the fact that half a million pensioners who missed out in the past on the minimum income guarantee will become eligible for it as a result of our decision to raise capital limits.
    Mr. Frank Field: I welcome the Government's announcement to raise capital limits. It is welcomed on both sides of the House and by the country as a whole. However, does my hon. Friend accept that even with the changes that have been announced there will be many pensioners who have saved and other pensioners who have small occupational pensions who will not be eligible for the minimum income guarantee? Would it not be possible to change the rules for qualifying for MIG so that the criterion is not whether an individual qualifies for income support but whether his pensionable income is below the minimum income guarantee, when it would be brought up to that level?
    Mr. Bayley: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in the longer term, through the pension credit, we shall be considering this issue.
    Mr. Field: What about now?
    Mr. Bayley: Now, or in April next year, we shall be dramatically improving the situation for half a million pensioners. That is something for which hon. Members on both sides of the House have called. It is something that we said we would consider in our pensions Green Paper, and we have done so, and it is something which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer acted on in his Budget.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: May I ask a supplementary question to the question posed by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)? I remind the Minister that recently the right hon. Gentleman said:
    As more and more people in work on low wages realise the futility of saving when every penny is taken from the Minimum Income Guarantee which is gained by people with little or no savings, fewer and fewer people on low income will save.
    Is that statement not a devastating critique of the minimum income guarantee? Is it not true that the Minister has no answer to the criticism levelled at his policy by the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Bayley: I do not need to remind the hon. Gentleman that his party left the capital limits unaltered for a 10-year period, and we are doubling them. The Government's approach is to target additional resources on those pensioners who need help most—the poorest pensioners. That is what we are doing through the minimum income guarantee. We realised that there was a problem for pensioners with small savings, and that problem has been addressed by the change announced by the Chancellor.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: May I tell my hon. Friend how welcome the increase has been to some of my constituents in Hastings and Rye? However, a problem has arisen. A lady who wrote in last week, and who qualifies, received a form headed "income support".

    619
    She said that that was nothing to do with her. May I ask my hon. Friend to change the name to supplementary pension or something other than income support? His campaign to change the system is great, but there must be a change of terminology.
    Mr. Bayley: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. We are, of course, bound by statute, which refers to income support, but it is important to get the message across to pensioners that the minimum income guarantee is an entitlement. It is not charity; it has been paid for by their own and their spouses' national insurance contributions throughout their life. We will, as my hon. Friend knows, shortly be taking forward the take-up campaign with television advertising. I can assure him that the minimum income guarantee will get a plug in that advertising; we want to get it into everyday currency. We want to get pensioners talking about the minimum income guarantee, and claiming it as well.

    Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What assessment he has made of the impact of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 regarding surveillance on his measures to combat benefit fraud. [115872]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Department is working with the Home Office on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which is currently before the House. That will give greater assurance that my Department's surveillance activities comply with the Act.
    Mr. Robathan: We hear a lot about joined-up government, but the Human Rights Act 1998 is another classic example of disjointed government. Two weeks ago, my office was told by a Benefits Agency official that the agency could no longer keep people under surveillance without their permission. I have checked the Benefits Agency's code of practice. The official was not quite right; I do not blame her—she was confused, as are many people. The code of practice states that officers must get written authorisation for surveillance operations, even in public places. Does the Minister agree that that is hampering the fraud investigations of the Benefits Agency? It is creating more paperwork, hampering the police and Customs too, and wasting their time. Does he further agree that the Human Rights Act will help only the criminals, whom we all want to see unable to defraud the Benefits Agency or rob the taxpayer?
    Mr. Rooker: I have not heard it argued by the Opposition that we should unincorporate the European convention on human rights from our legislation.
    Mr. Robathan: We voted against it.
    Mr. Rooker: We have not heard an argument for a repeal—[Interruption.] That is a fair point. The legislation will be important. If the Opposition are intent on committing themselves to repealing it, they should say so.
    620
    The hon. Gentleman's first point is valid, and misunderstandings do arise. Most of the observations carried out by officers of my Department take place in public places. They require authorisation from their superiors.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: If my right hon. Friend is experiencing difficulty with the Human Rights Act, may I urge him to ensure that instead of investigations being suspended, they are channelled into other areas? In particular, forensic accountants should be employed to look into landlord fraud. The Human Rights Act would have no impact on that activity, and the Department could continue the pursuit of fraud, bringing many of the big criminals to justice instead of chasing small fry.
    Mr. Rooker: We are chasing small fry and big fry, including collusive employers and collusive landlords.
    Mr. David Willetts: Let us see whether the Minister of State can defend his manifesto a little better this time. It states:
    We will start with a clampdown on Housing Benefit fraud, estimated to cost £2 billion a year.
    Is he aware that the Audit Commission has shown that detected housing benefit fraud was £95 million in 1998–99? That is one twentieth of the figure that Labour undertook to tackle. It is not a very good start, is it? What does the Minister of State intend to do to deliver on his manifesto promise, or is this something else that he will do only to some extent?
    Mr. Rooker: The benefits fraud inspectorate will inspect the 30 authorities that spend most on housing benefit in this country. The top 30 authorities in this country spend 30 per cent. of the £12 billion of housing benefit on checking their systems and finding out whether they are secure. Another 40 authorities will subsequently be inspected. The reports are published so that we can learn from good practice.
    We must consider the effects of the Royal Mail "do not redirect" scheme. More than half our local authorities have signed up to that. Giro drops and so on were a way of ripping off housing benefit. Every local authority has remote access terminals; local authority staff can now get into Department of Social Security computers.
    We are joining up the benefits system. That is the best way to stop fraud, including council tax benefit and housing benefit fraud. Although local authorities deliver those benefits, they are provided through central Government funds.

    State Pension
    Ms Oona King: If he will make a statement on the uprating of the state pension. [115874]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are supporting all pensioners by uprating the state pension; we are giving free television licences to those aged 75 and over from November, and we are increasing the winter fuel payments again, to £150. To tackle pensioner poverty, we are increasing the

    621
    minimum income guarantee, and doubling the lower capital limit to £6,000 and the upper capital limit to £12,000, to ensure that those with modest savings do not lose out. That measure alone means that the poorest pensioners are some £5 a week better off.
    Ms King: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. I am sure that all Labour Members welcome the Government's good work, especially the commitment to raising the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings next year.
    On the subject of pensioners who do not qualify for the minimum income guarantee and rely on the basic state pension, will the Secretary of State consider amending the retail prices index so that the formula takes account of the rent increases of pensioners who are council tenants and registered fair rent tenants?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that in many parts of the country—sadly, especially in her constituency—many pensioners were not able to accumulate enough money for a pension during their working lives. As a result of the Government's measures, all pensioners will gain about £3 a week and the over-75s some £5 a week. Unfortunately, Tower Hamlets has many of the poorest pensioners. They will be £14 a week better off through the measures that we have introduced.
    There is a problem with trying to find an index whereby the basic state pension can be increased and my hon. Friend's anxieties for pensioners can be taken into account. The costs that they face are different in different parts of the country. The basic state pension is paid universally throughout the country. I am therefore not sure whether seeking such an index is right. However, I repeat the points that I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) earlier: in the past 20 years, pensioner income inequality has grown; as a result of what that lot over there did, it is now the same as it was in 1961. We are determined to ensure that we help all pensioners, especially those who are poorest and who lost out most in the past 20 years.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Simon Burns: If he will make a statement on the reform of the Child Support Agency. [R][115875]
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will set out a timetable for implementing the reforms of the Child Support Agency currently before the House. [115881]
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement about the timetable for the implementation of his proposed changes to the Child Support Agency. [115883]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We are on course to introduce the new system for new cases by April 2002.
    Mr. Burns: Does the Minister realise that the possible attractions of a simplified child support system will be undermined by the creation of a new injustice, owing to
    622
    the system's potential rigidity? Does she accept that, in places such as Chelmsford, the home counties and London, the costs of travelling to work and housing are significantly higher than in other parts of the country? Will the Minister consider changing the variations to take into account housing and travel-to-work costs, so as not to undermine the improvement of the system through simplified methodology?
    Angela Eagle: No; we believe that one has to choose between the complex system, which includes the departure scheme and the hundred bits of information that have to be gathered before an assessment can be made, and a simple system which can be easily administered and whereby an assessment can be made in weeks instead of the months that it currently takes. The hon. Gentleman's proposal would risk a reintroduction of all the complications of the current system and of making child support reform ineffective.
    Mr. Swayne: Because there is no means of delivering payments directly to the child, an impression may grow that the absent parent is subsidising the life style of the parent with care. If the absent parent's income is modest and that of the parent with care relatively high, that may give rise to a burning sense of grievance which will undermine compliance. What plans has the Minister to address that problem?
    Angela Eagle: Fewer than 200 parents with care in the current child support case load earn more than £500 a week so the hon. Gentleman is worried about something that will affect almost nobody. Nearly 700,000 parents with care have no income at all, although they look after the children. We have to put the system right so that we can help to end child poverty; and we know that up to 1 million children will gain from the reforms.
    Mr. Fabricant: How can the Minister guarantee that she will not be blown off course? She well knows that there have been continual computer problems in her Department. Indeed, the Minister of State blamed not only the previous Government, as this Government always seem to do, but the computers. Is she not aware that there have been problems with the NIRS2 programme? Is she not aware, either, that there have been problems with making winter fuel payments? Those are all computer problems. When will she accept that bad workmen always blame their tools—or computers in this case—and when will the Government accept the computer maxim "garbage in, garbage out"?
    Angela Eagle: That was the biggest pile of garbage that I have heard for a long time, and the hon. Gentleman should consider the legacy that his Government left us. When the Child Support Agency was introduced, they were to have a bespoke, specially designed computer system, but they decided it was too expensive. They bought a cheap, off-the-shelf system from Florida that cannot even recognise national insurance numbers. It cannot do a whole load of other things—I shall not bore the House with them—and it is a miracle that any child support has been collected with the pile of rubbish bought by the Conservative party.
    Ms Sandra Osborne: I welcome the reform of the CSA, which we all know is much needed, but how

    623
    will the Minister ensure that parents with care can opt out of child support action when there is a risk of domestic violence?
    Angela Eagle: The "good cause" parts of the new Bill will ensure that child support does not have to be pursued if a parent with care has any worries that she will be subject to violent threat by a violent partner. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that 70 per cent. of parents with care were trying to opt out of pursuing the non-resident parent for maintenance when we inherited the CSA from the Conservative party. We have got that down to 15 per cent. by better working with the Benefits Agency and the CSA to reassure women that they will get the money.
    Under the new scheme, there will be a positive incentive for both the non-resident parent and the parent with care to pay. The child maintenance premium will ensure that £10 extra goes to the family looking after the child, and the non-resident parent will be well aware that his money supports his child and does not go back to the Treasury.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that there are a wide variety of problems with the CSA. Can she give some idea of when those who are already in the CSA system will have their assessments re-examined and brought into line with the new system?
    Angela Eagle: The transition is one of the most difficult parts of the reform for everybody to organise. We estimate that there will be 1 million cases to transfer by the time the new system is introduced, in 2002. That will be done in a timely fashion, but people will have to bear with us. It cannot be done in a great big bang, but we shall ensure that the transition is as brief as possible.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: Will my hon. Friend resist the temptation to introduce any more complexity? Many hundreds of thousands of women out there are being defeated in their child maintenance claims by men—absent parents—who have reconstructed their financial circumstances to suit the departures and complications that the previous Government put into the system.
    Angela Eagle: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. That is why I resisted the suggestions of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).
    Mr. Eric Pickles: With respect, surely that answer is wrong. The Minister has repeated four times that the simplified system will make matters better. Does she not understand that there will be a great deal of argument over the income of the non-resident parent, especially the calculation of his net income? Will she answer the question that hon. Members from both sides of the House posed to her last Wednesday, but which she refused to answer? Will she give an undertaking that if, in making those calculations, the Child Support Agency makes a mistake—through no fault of the non-resident parent—the CSA will not look to the non-resident parent for backdated payments?
    Angela Eagle: We hope that the new system will make maintenance calculations in four to six weeks, rather than the six months that it currently takes, so there will be a
    624
    lot fewer problems with arrears. The problem that the hon. Gentleman fears should not arise. We have a clear formula for establishing net income, and it should be much simpler to work with.

    State Pension
    Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received about the level of the state pension. [115877]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Since January, we have received about 2,000 further letters that mention the level of the state pension, some of which raise other issues as well. We record only the subject of the letter. In addition to letters, we receive representations in this place. Two weeks ago the Government organised a three-hour debate on pensions reform in Westminster Hall, which was attended by one Back Bencher, who happened to be a Labour Member.
    Mr. Amess: Is the Minister aware that he is about to receive thousands of letters from senior citizens who regard the 75p increase as an absolute disgrace? Does he remember sitting on the Labour Opposition Benches and castigating the Conservative Government on their treatment of senior citizens? Will he now admit that the Labour Government have misled senior citizens about the state pension? What does he intend to do about giving them back a decent standard of living?
    Mr. Rooker: We will tell the truth, for a start. We shall reply to all the letters that we receive, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell his constituents, as other hon. Members do, that in the first three years of this Parliament pensioners as a whole will have received £800 million more, through the winter fuel payments and the minimum income guarantee, than they would have received through the earnings up rating of the basic pension. The policy we are operating is the policy that we were elected on, which was to raise the basic state pension at least in line with earnings—the same policy as the one on which the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats were elected.
    Hon. Members: Prices?
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously we welcome what the Government have done for pensioners to ease their plight following 18 years of neglect. I have talked to many pensioners in my constituency, and their need is for an increase in the basic state pension. Through my right hon. Friend's discussions at No. 11, will he ensure that there is a substantial increase in the state pension in the future?
    Mr. Rooker: When I answered the previous question, my mind was concentrating on the minimum income guarantee, which increases in line with earnings. I referred to the basic state pension rising in line with earnings, but I meant prices, as everyone in the House understood—except me. I was carried away with the success of our minimum income guarantee take-up campaign.

    625
    People will campaign on the basic state pension, but 20 years ago most people had no second pension. The only fair comparison to make is with total pensioner incomes. Currently, the average for a single person is £132 a week and it is £248 a week for a couple. Net housing costs come out of that. That is double the basic state pension, and is born out of the success of occupational pensions, personal pensions and, above all, the state earnings-related pension scheme introduced by the last Labour Government. We cannot wipe away the pension provision that was legislated for all those years ago, and concentrate, to the exclusion of everything else, on the basic state pension. It is not a fair comparison.

    State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
    Mr. David Rendel: When he will publish further details of the inherited SERPS scheme announced on 15 March. [115879]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement to the House on 15 March, once we have developed the details of the scheme for inherited SERPS we shall put them to the House. The National Audit Office and the parliamentary ombudsman will be fully involved in developing the procedures. We want to ensure that we get the scheme right, so that we can deal with the problem we inherited. Later today, the Public Accounts Committee will begin its inquiry into the report.
    Mr. Rendel: In his original statement, the Secretary of State said:
    We want to ensure that everyone who has been misled and has lost out gets redress.— [Official Report, 15 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 308.]
    Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no cut-off point for claims?
    Mr. Rooker: There will be a scheme, which will have to be submitted to the House for approval. I cannot say when that will happen: I cannot be certain whether it will be before the summer recess, or in the autumn.
    We said at the time that we did not expect the scheme to be up and running until next year. We have delayed the date of the inherited SERPS change until 6 October 2002, 30 months later than would otherwise have obtained. There will then be a massive advertising scheme to get people to apply for their benefit. If people claim and can show that they have been misled by my Department owing to maladministration, they will be included in the scheme.
    The scheme will not run for ever.
    Mr. Rendel: Ah!
    Mr. Rooker: I must make that clear: the scheme cannot run for ever. I do not know when and for how long it will run. Subsequently, we shall put to the House regulations that will be properly debated in both Houses. We simply do not have detailed answers to the legitimate questions asked by the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want to give him the impression that the inherited SERPS scheme will be open for the next 30 years, because it will not be.

    Lone Parents
    Caroline Flint: What his Department has done to help reduce the barriers to work faced by lone parents. [115880]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We are tackling the barriers to work for lone parents with a raft of measures, including the new deal for lone parents and the working families tax credit. The Budget announced still more help for lone parents. For example, from April 2001 all lone parents working 16 hours a week or more will receive at least £155. They will receive £214 if they work more than 35 hours.
    Caroline Flint: I welcome the opportunity for lone parents to keep their benefits for four weeks during their transition to work. Will my hon. Friend explain how changes in housing benefit will assist lone parents in that transition? Will she also look into the ending of the top-up allowance pilot? It affects a number of my constituents, some of whom are lone parents. When it ends, they may be back on benefit, especially if they have taken up part-time work.
    Angela Eagle: The housing benefit run-on announced, and made automatic, in the Budget statement will guarantee that anyone who ceases to depend on benefits and takes up work can receive housing benefit for the month in question before receiving his or her first wage. We know that the transition from benefits to work, and the gaps that must be filled, lead many people to believe that they cannot make such a transition. It is therefore important for us to produce welfare-to-work measures to reassure those people that it is possible for them to return to work, and that we will remove the barriers so that they can become independent again.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Minister accept that, according to figures from her own Department, fewer than 6 per cent. of lone parents invited to join the scheme have secured employment as a result? Does she regard that as a success or a failure?
    Angela Eagle: We consider the new deal for lone parents a success. Some 41,000 lone parents are now in work who would not have been if it had not existed.
    The hon. Gentleman's party abandoned lone parents. It left them no way of obtaining work, and gave them no extra help. It just lectured them about having children and being on their own. We are offering real help and support for people who want to return to work, as part of our crusade to tackle child poverty. The only way in which we can eliminate child poverty, as the Prime Minister wishes us to do within 20 years, is to help the parents too—and that includes lone parents.

    Benefits Take-up
    Ann Clwyd: What estimate he has made of the numbers of people entitled to social security benefits who are not claiming them. [115884]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Estimates on take-up of benefits are published annually. While take-up of benefits among some client groups is high, there is a particular and long-standing problem of relatively low take-up of income support among pensioners. We have therefore decided to focus on that group, and, last week, announced details of a take-up campaign which will identify pensioners who may be entitled and encourage them to claim their minimum income guarantee.
    Ann Clwyd: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to voluntary organisations such as Age
    628
    Concern in the Cynon Valley, whose advice surgery I visited last week? That organisation has enabled thousands of people in my constituency to take advantage of the benefits to which they are entitled. Will he ensure that, in the Government's advertising campaign to start in May, it is made clear that claiming benefits to which one is entitled has no stigma at all attached to it?
    Mr. Bayley: Yes, we will do that. We will encourage people to claim, because it is their entitlement and their right to do so. We shall have an extremely vigorous campaign, and welcome any support that we receive from voluntary bodies in pursuing that take-up campaign, and in making it more successful than it has been hitherto.

Rover
3.31 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Madam Speaker, I wish to ask a question of which I have given you prior notice.
The future of Rover is becoming a question of the future of the Secretary of State—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should ask the private notice question, and then reply to the Secretary of State's statement.
Mrs. Browning: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the latest developments in respect of Rover.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I think that we now know the first sentence of the hon. Lady's response to my statement, even before I have made it.
Thousands of individuals and their families have been affected by the decision taken by BMW in relation to Rover. Whole communities also will have to deal with the consequences. Those individuals and their families and communities are the focus of the Government's efforts.
On 16 March, the BMW supervisory board announced that it had entered into an agreement with Alchemy Partners to negotiate for the disposal of Rover Cars within six weeks. The following day, it announced that the heads of agreement had been reached with Ford for the sale of Land Rover, at Solihull. The same day, I established a taskforce involving all the partners in the areas most affected by BMW's decision to advise me on how we can support those affected. The taskforce is led by Alex Stephenson, who himself has personal experience as a former Rover director.
The Longbridge taskforce has three objectives: first, to assess the impact of any reduction in activity at Longbridge on the people, businesses and communities of the region; secondly, to advise on the public and private resources that are already available to help deal with those consequences; and, thirdly, to draw up proposals for action by local partners and by central Government. The taskforce is working hard on an interim report, to be submitted in the next few weeks.
I have asked the taskforce to take a wide remit, looking at what measures it will best use to regenerate the area and to replace economic activity lost at Rover. I have committed £129 million to support the taskforce's recommendations. The taskforce is looking at everything, including the implications for the supply chain and what we can do to support it; at training; and at infrastructure, including transport links. The taskforce has already issued a questionnaire to 5,000 companies, including 450 direct suppliers of Rover, to quantify the scale of impact on the supply chain. It will feed its recommendations in to me.
At this stage, I am not ruling anything out—I shall await the report. I can, however, say that I will do everything we can to encourage job creation and economic activity in the area—not only by stepping up my Department's action on attracting new inward investment to the area, but by supporting the development and growth of home-grown companies.
630
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has taken action to help those affected by any redundancies at Longbridge. The Employment Service has established a unit to offer help and assistance. A jobshop is in place at Longbridge to help those workers affected to find new jobs. Anyone made redundant at Longbridge will qualify for fast-tracking of benefit claims and early access to training and Employment Service programmes such as new deal and jobfinder services.
The taskforce, with the jobshop, has launched a freephone advice hotline, supported by BT, to advise supply chain companies with difficulties and to pool information on vacancies currently available in the car industry. The local training and enterprise council is also looking at specific training to meet the needs of those affected.
On 23 March, I met BMW representatives. We agreed that we needed to look forward and plan for the future. During our discussions, BMW agreed to minimise the job losses resulting from its decision. I explained that we felt it important that BMW should co-operate with the taskforce. BMW responded positively to this proposal.
Over the next few weeks, our objective is to manage the changes that will flow from BMW's decisions in a way that minimises the number of jobs to be lost, whether directly, or indirectly in the supply chain or dealership network. We shall also need to put in place a programme of economic regeneration and job creation.
When I met workers on the assembly line at Longbridge the day after BMW's decision, their anger and shock were clear, but so were their commitment and strength of character. The west midlands has come through difficult times in the past. I am confident that the area will do so again. The Government will do all that we can to ensure that together we can meet the challenges that lie ahead.
Mrs. Browning: In the seven months since the Secretary of State announced the deal that he had brokered at Rover-BMW, he has failed to come to the House to make a statement, despite many requests—not just during the crisis—from the Conservative party, to get him to answer questions. It is clear that he knew in December that Rover was in jeopardy. Only last Wednesday, when asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister refused to deny that BMW told the Secretary of State in December:
We may have to reconsider our whole investment in Britain altogether.
The details of the Secretary of State's meetings and discussions have been the subject of a cover-up. If the situation that faces BMW-Rover is now a crisis, it has been exacerbated by the way in which the Secretary of State has dealt with the matter. His incompetence has added to the turmoil in which the company finds itself today.
Last Thursday, the Secretary of State briefed the press about the detail, having refused only that morning to brief the House. He doctored the facts that he gave to the press. He refused to tell the House the details. The Secretary of State has been negligent. On the fate of Rover, he knew it and he blew it.
Will he undertake to publish today all the details of meetings, minutes and phone calls between his Department and BMW-Rover, to give the House and the

631
Select Committee on Trade and Industry the fullest information? Will he answer the question that he refused to answer last Thursday: when was he first aware that Rover was in trouble? What was the first date on which Rover-BMW suggested that the company was in difficulty?
Is it true, as reported in The Sunday Times, that the chairman of BMW told the Secretary of State on 22 December that Rover was "in critical survival mode" and "in serious trouble"? What action did he take in response? What action did he take when he heard that the European Union grant was in difficulty? Does he want to correct anything that he has told the House or the public to date about how he has supposedly managed the BMW-Rover deal?
Is the Secretary of State disturbed by the fact that the Prime Minister clearly no longer has any confidence in him? We do not want semantics: the Prime Minister made it quite clear last week that he believed that a telephone conversation had taken place on 22 December between the Secretary of State and BMW, yet last Thursday, the Secretary of State clung to the idea that the date was 20 December. We want to know whether it was 20 or 22 December. The workers at Rover want to know.
On behalf of thousands of workers and suppliers who will lose their jobs, we want answers and we want them now. We want to know today whether the Secretary of State will resign in recognition of his incompetence and negligence or whether he will leave the people at Longbridge under a stewardship that is not only incompetent but that, on many occasions, has failed to produce the truth when it has been asked for?
Mr. Byers: Unlike the hon. Lady, I have spoken directly to the assembly-line workers at Longbridge. I know who is on their side, and it is not her. That is the reality.
Among the rhetoric, the hon. Lady asked some specific questions, to each of which I shall give clear answers. I hope that she will listen carefully. She repeats the mistaken allegation first made in the House last Wednesday by the Leader of the Opposition, when he said that the chairman of BMW, Professor Milberg, had said in our telephone conversation that BMW
may have to reconsider our whole investment in Britain altogether.—[Official Report, 29 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 333.]
I am pleased to say that last Thursday Professor Milberg made a statement. He said—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The Opposition asked for this private notice question. They might now listen to the answers.
Mr. Byers: Professor Milberg had seen the Leader of the Opposition's comments, so he had to go public. He said:
Concerning the requested state aid for Longbridge…I never said that the BMW group may have to reconsider its whole investment in Great Britain altogether.
The chairman of BMW made that statement on the record because he was worried about media reports that had been supported and restated by the Leader of the Opposition.
632
More interesting are the hon. Lady's points about the decision taken by BMW. She implied that the decision had been taken last year to pull out of Rover and the United Kingdom. We now have the benefit of the evidence given last week by Professor Samann, head of Rover in the United Kingdom, to the Select Committee. He said: "We"had to tell
the public and dealers until the end of February that we would like to continue the business. The decision not to continue the business was made between 1 March and 16 March.
There we have it. A conversation was conducted between me and Professor Milberg on 22 December. A decision had not been taken at that stage. Professor Samann made the point very clearly.
The hon. Lady asks a precise question: when did I know that Rover was in trouble? We have all known that it has been in trouble for a long time. In fact, I heard someone behind me say that it had been in trouble since before I was born, so we all know the situation, but, as the Chairman of the Select Committee said last week, it takes a leap of the imagination to go from a company being in trouble to a company deciding to dispose of Rover. That is the reality of the situation.
We now know that no decision was taken by BMW to dispose of Rover before 1 March this year. There was no indication that it was to pull out of Rover. That, too, is the reality of the situation. It is now about time that the hon. Lady and other Conservative Members stopped playing party politics and put the interests of the workers of Longbridge first.
Mr. Richard Burden: Is it not a fact that the people of Longbridge, the workers of Rover and, indeed, everyone else, were assured by BMW that it was in for the long term? It was not just in words. New plant for the new Mini was still going in at the very time that BMW made the announcement; indeed, work was still going on last week.
Is it not important that we look to the future? Is that not the real issue in the interests of workers at Longbridge and elsewhere? After the huge rally in Birmingham on Saturday, does not a message need to go to BMW that it is not acceptable to trade away the future of entire communities in secret boardroom deals, and that the long-term interests of its employees and the communities that rely on Rover must be a central part of its decisions and negotiations in coming weeks?
BMW should consider all credible potential bidders. The long-term interests of those communities should be one of its central considerations. Will the Secretary of State back the people of Longbridge and all Rover workers in asking for those things to be done?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate for the work force at Longbridge. I will certainly take his important points into account.
My hon. Friend touches on the decision by BMW to continue in January and February with the investment in the Mini at Longbridge, a clear sign that it was committed to Rover and to the UK. Running alongside that were further signs. BMW had a team working with the Department of Trade and Industry to submit the application for European Union aid, which went in on 24 February. It called together its UK Rover dealers and

633
encouraged them to invest in new showrooms for the future. At the Geneva motorshow on 28 February, Professor Milberg said:
We are committed and steadfast to Rover in the United Kingdom.
There were all those public demonstrations, which every reasonable person would have assumed meant that BMW and Rover were in for the long haul. That is the reality of the situation. There was no indication that it intended to pull out of Rover and the UK.
Dr. Vincent Cable: May I first express solidarity and support for the workers of the west midlands, whose livelihoods, despite the valuable measures that the Government have announced, look extremely bleak, particularly for the older and more specialised workers?
The following point is probably the only one with which the Secretary of State will agree. Does he not agree that it is pathetic for the Conservative Opposition to launch an amateur detective story about who said what to whom—almost certainly because of their inability to deal with the fundamental issues affecting manufacturing and the motor car industry as a result of their ideologically driven belief that the exchange rate, which is the price at which British manufacturers compete overseas, should always be set in the free market, and that the British economy should be delinked from the euro area, in which the British motor industry is so heavily integrated?
I have a specific question for the Secretary of State. Given how much British industry and manufacturing depend on foreign investment in this country, does he now regret that he cast doubt on the good faith of the German manufacturers, and does he doubt the wisdom of those of his ministerial colleagues who attacked the trustworthiness of foreign investors in general?
Finally, has the right hon. Gentleman rethought his belief that manufacturers considered the exchange rate to be an excuse, in light of statements from Honda, Ford, the engineering union and the CBI that the exchange rate is absolutely fundamental to the industry's competitiveness?
Mr. Byers: A number of manufacturers—including some that export into Europe—have raised with the Government the question of the relative strength of sterling against European currencies. However, it is worth re-stating that the pound has remained at par against the dollar for five or six years, and that it has depreciated in value against the Japanese yen. That leads one to think that there must be economic reform in continental Europe if those currencies are to strengthen against the pound. I happen to believe, as does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that the agreement secured at Lisbon 10 days or so ago will go a long way towards achieving that economic reform.
Interestingly, however, a number of manufacturers are being very successful, even in these difficult times. Although Honda has raised concerns about the strength of sterling, it decided 10 days ago to invest in a new plant at Swindon, which will employ 1,000 people. We heard on Saturday that Honda was planning to reduce production levels. The great irony is that that was somehow interpreted as a bad-news story, even though Honda had stated very clearly that the reduction was due to the installation of an assembly line for the new model
634
car being developed at Swindon. There is good news in the manufacturing sector, and it is about time that people recognised that.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank my right hon. Friend for explaining clearly the role and responsibilities of the taskforce, and how it is to be funded, as much of the hopes of the people of the west midlands depend on it at this time. However, to end the paranoia of the second-rate Miss Marples on the Opposition Front Bench—
Madam Speaker: Order. That description is quite unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rethink it.
Mr. O'Neill: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, if that description caused gratuitous offence. I thought a reference to one of Agatha Christie's minor detectives was not inappropriate.
Madam Speaker: I know exactly who the hon. Gentleman means, but quite frankly his reference causes me offence.
Mr. O'Neill: In that case, I withdraw it without reservation, Madam Speaker.
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State save the House time and, before the end of business today, place in the Library of the House copies of the conversations that he has had with Professor Milberg?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and I certainly intend to supply the Select Committee with those details before its hearing on Wednesday. I will also make those details public more generally, provided that BMW agrees.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Secretary of State will know that 1,500 workers at the Longbridge factory live in my constituency. I represent them, and their jobs are directly affected by the company's decision. They, and others in the west midlands, are not impressed by the headless chicken act performed by Labour Members who are determined to blame only BMW for the problems at the plant, even though most of the failure is due to the Government's economic management and the Secretary of State's failure to get an EU loan in time for the investment to be approved.
The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that it required a leap of imagination to know that the factory was in trouble, but Professor Milberg has insisted that he told the Department that
if structural aid is not approved, the BMW Group has to reconsider its investment plans for the R30 at Longbridge.
Does not the Secretary of State know that car making at Longbridge, in volume terms, depends entirely on the R30? Without the R30, there is no long-term future for volume car making at Longbridge. If he does not know that, he is either naive or ignorant. Either way, it is his fault that Longbridge now faces an uncertain future.
Mr. Byers: On occasions such as this, there will be comments such as those. It is probably more beneficial to the House to see what BMW has said about those matters.

635
The hon. Lady raises an important point about European aid. Let me quote from Professor Samann's evidence before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry last week, with specific reference to aid. He said:
There is no direct relationship between the grant aid issue and the situation now of us selling the Rover cars and the Land Rover business…We never mentioned that the grant aid deal would lead to a survival of Rover or would be absolutely necessary for Rover.
When asked specifically whether the aid last June would have made a difference, Professor Samann said:
We would be in exactly the same position.
Mr. Ken Purchase: Does the Secretary of State agree that, given the promises made earlier by BMW and throughout the piece, it has used the veneer of commercial confidentiality as a cover for treachery? That is all that I can see has happened. The Secretary of State negotiated, spoke and exchanged information honestly, while not all the cards were on the table, which should not happen in international dealings of this kind.
Will my right hon. Friend further accept that Renault in France is a highly successful, light-touch state-owned industry, and that any option that we look for in Britain should not rule out the possibility of European alliances with successful car companies such as Renault? Will he give an undertaking today—given that my constituency is also in trouble with regard to the Goodyear plant, and with 100 more jobs going at the Lucas plant—that he will keep an open mind and consider every option, particularly if it keeps a British hand on Rover and lets it find stronger, better markets than it has so far been able to do?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has already privately raised with me his concerns about the situation at Goodyear. We are engaging with the company to see what help we might to be able to give to overcome the difficulties that Goodyear may have.
On the possibility of European restructuring and consolidation, much of that has already taken place. We know, for example, that Renault has gone into a partnership with Nissan. We know that there is overproduction in the European car market, which is bound to lead to further restructuring. The only way in which the change that we are witnessing will bring benefits and new opportunities is if we can manage that change. It is a matter of great regret, as far as BMW and Rover are concerned, that because the Government were not involved, we never had the opportunity of taking BMW through the arguments and the debate about what steps it should have taken and, in the process, putting the needs of the community in the west midlands and the individuals affected first.
Sir Norman Fowler: I declare an interest as a member of the Rover taskforce. Should not great credit be given to the workers at Longbridge who have worked hard to reverse the previous reputation of the plant? Will the Secretary of State confirm that whatever happens, they will provide an invaluable skilled resource in the west midlands? In that regard, can he say whether
636
in his talks with BMW, any assurance has been given that production at Longbridge will continue, at whatever level, until the sale of the company has been completed?
Mr. Byers: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to serve as a member of the taskforce. Its deliberations will be enhanced by his presence.
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the improvements in productivity at Longbridge. The figures that I saw showed that in just over 12 months, there was a 24 per cent. improvement in productivity from Longbridge workers. I have no doubt that in the months ahead that will stand them in good stead. They have shown real commitment and dedication to trying to turn Longbridge around.
In discussions with me, BMW has been guarded about negotiations with Alchemy Partners. It has made a commitment that no action will be taken before negotiations are completed, which provides some reassurance. However, job losses appear likely at Longbridge and the precise figures depend on the negotiations between BMW and Alchemy Partners. That is why it was important to have BMW give an assurance that it would do all that it could in those negotiations to minimise job losses.
Mr. Ian Pearson: May I tell my right hon. Friend that we in the west midlands are not saft? We know that the blame for Rover lies with BMW, which has betrayed midlands workers at Longbridge.
Miss Kirkbride: Your Government.
Mr. Pearson: If the hon. Members for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) had been at the march on Saturday, they would have seen the men, women and young children who are worried about their future livelihoods. That might have made them start to talk some of the common sense in which their party is supposed to believe. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove should take a leaf out of the book of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and be a little more constructive in trying to find solutions that will help people.
Mr. Byers rose—
Hon. Members: Answer!
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend made an important point, as always. Difficult decisions and questions lie ahead, and the answers will affect individual workers, their families and the whole community of the west midlands. The people of the west midlands know where responsibility lies. An understanding was reached between the work force, the Government and BMW that, up to 2002, BMW would make losses, but would bear them and move on to break even. On that basis, we were prepared to give a commitment to provide £152 million. On that basis, working practices at Longbridge changed and productivity improved directly. That is why we all feel so badly let down—I should not be more intemperate than that, Madam Speaker—by the decisions taken in the dark by BMW without consultation or prior discussion.
Mr. John M. Taylor: Is the Secretary of State able to say more about the security of retirement

637
pensions for former Rover employees, particularly former employers of Land Rover in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)?
Mr. Byers: I understand the concern felt by individuals at Land Rover or Longbridge about the possible effects of decisions by new owners. We have held discussions with BMW, and with Ford, which is likely to be the new owner of Land Rover at Solihull. BMW gave me assurances about pensions being protected at a meeting on 24 March. We must continue to revisit the point as it is clearly a cause of concern for existing workers and former employees who rely on the pension. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) will doubtless continue to raise the matter, and I welcome that. We shall certainly continue to do all that we can to ensure security for those who receive a pension from Rover and BMW.
Mr. Dennis Turner: I, too, represent a constituency in which thousands of workers will be affected by the decision taken on Rover. They and their families do not look forward to facing problems in the weeks and months ahead when many of them will be laid off. I want to say to the Opposition—[Interruption.] I hope that this will be the last time that we shall hear an issue as important as Rover raised in the way in which they have raised it today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] May I ask—
Madam Speaker: Order. This is a very emotive issue. Members know that thousands of their constituents may be laid off. I understand the emotion felt by many Members, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to put a question to the Secretary of State. That is what private notice questions are all about.
Mr. Turner: I want to ask the Secretary of State not to rule out any possibilities; I know that he has said from the Dispatch Box today that he will not rule any out. I hope that the Government will keep an open mind on any situation that might arise where a proactive response from the Government is needed to save many of the jobs that are currently involved.
I hope that the Government will listen to the people who were with us on Saturday's demonstration, marching and telling us what they want of this House of Commons and of this Government; and I hope that the Opposition will be more positive in future, and speak on behalf of those families, as Labour Members do.
Mr. Byers: We have no intention of walking away from this problem. This Government will discharge their responsibilities to the people of the west midlands and those individuals directly affected by BMW's decision. A number of economic regeneration programmes are already in place; these can be used as they provide a range of initiatives, which may well be appropriate to the situation that we now face at Longbridge.
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we do not rule out any of the proposals that might emerge from the taskforce. We need a comprehensive programme of economic regeneration and job creation. In the long term, that will be the only way forward for those affected by BMW's decisions.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The Secretary of State said in his statement that he would like to support
638
the affected communities, so how does he think they feel when they see that he was prepared to offer BMW £152 million of state aid but that he has offered the significantly lower sum of f129 million for the rescue package for the west midlands?
Mr. Byers: The £129 million that I have pledged is the Government's contribution towards the £152 million. The remainder is made up of a local package, and I hope that the local partners might feel able to make a contribution in kind to take us up to £152 million.
Mr. Robin Corbett: I am among those who have constituents affected by BMW's betrayal, both directly and among the component manufacturers and suppliers. However, may I say to my right hon. Friend that Jaguar demonstrates that, on the back of real commitment and sustained long-term investment, the motor industry in Birmingham and the west midlands can succeed and is succeeding? To overcome this particular problem, will he consider adding, let us say, £20 million to the budget for the objective 2 status money for the west midlands, to give the taskforce time to come up with plans and proposals to ease the impact of this blow?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend refers to the great success story that is Jaguar—nearby Peugeot has also been extremely successful—demonstrating that the car industry is strong in the United Kingdom. He raises the point about additional funding for the taskforce. The £129 million has been an immediate reaction to the needs of the taskforce—money which we had identified for alternative purposes. Of course, if good programmes come forward from the taskforce, we shall reconsider whether additional resources need to be made available.
Mr. Peter Luff: May I push the Secretary of State on that last answer? As I understand it, the £152 million was a sum negotiated between the Government and BMW for the aid for the investment at Longbridge, and now the Secretary of State has arbitrarily plucked that figure out of the air as a sum necessary to fund the taskforce's recommendations. May I press him urgently to say that if the taskforce—about which I have serious reservations, not because of some of its members but because of its leadership—comes forward with a workmanlike programme, additional money will be available, if necessary, to undo the disaster at Longbridge?
Mr. Byers: The £129 million was available to be committed immediately because it was money that was tied to BMW's further investment in the R30 at Longbridge. Given BMW's decision to dispose of Longbridge to Alchemy Partners, that was money that was then freed up, so I can make an immediate commitment of that funding to the taskforce. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), if good proposals emerge from the taskforce that require additional funding, £129 million is not a cap; we can of course go higher if there are good proposals coming forward that will assist the economic regeneration of, and job creation in, the west midlands.
Mr. Steve McCabe: With two notable exceptions, Conservative Members are

639
seeking to make cheap political capital out of this issue. Their remarks do not reflect how we are feeling in the west midlands.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that he will do all that he can to bring additional resources and new industries to the area. Will he consider holding talks with the banks and the building societies so that Rover workers and their families are spared the additional concern of losing their homes as well as their jobs?
Mr. Byers: I can fully understand the concerns of those who might be affected by a redundancy programme about how they will pay their mortgages. My hon. Friend has already raised with me the issue of trying to get the banks and the building societies to look sympathetically on people who might have short-term difficulties. Certainly, we are prepared to do that, and the taskforce will consider specifically what help can be given to firms in the supply chain to overcome cash-flow problems that many of them will have as a result of BMW's decisions in relation to Longbridge. Those are practical measures that we are putting in place. We are not being distracted from our course by the smoke and the political arguments from the Conservative party. We are committed to putting the interests of those workers and their families first and we will continue to do that. They have to be the focus of our attention at present.
Mr. John Redwood: The Secretary of State has failed to deliver a crucial grant to Rover, he has upset BMW, he has upset the new owners of Rover and he has put off many people who were thinking of buying cars. It is diplomatic incompetence on a scale that the Foreign Secretary would be proud of.
Will the Secretary of State answer a simple question today? Should an individual wanting to buy a new car in this country delay their purchase for longer in the belief that the right hon. Gentleman will force further cuts in car prices, or not? The right hon. Gentleman's indecision about car prices and his incompetence about the grant is destroying Rover and is destroying the British motor industry. He has made the dog's breakfast of it. Will he now go before it gets worse?
Mr. Byers: There is a delicious irony in such an anti-European trying to make a political comeback out of the actions of a German car company. That is what is happening and people will see it for what it is. I tell Conservative Members that I feel far more secure in my post than the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) feels in hers.
On the right hon. Gentleman's specific point, I make no apology for having referred the question of car prices to the Competition Commission on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. We will respond to its findings within the 10-week administrative period that is laid down and we will respond before Easter. We will put the interests of consumers first for the simple reason that strong and assertive consumers build strong companies. That is the American experience; it now needs to be the British experience as well.
Dr. Lynne Jones: May I remind my hon. Friend that, when the former Tory Prime
640
Minister was asked about the sale by British Aerospace of Rover to BMW, he said that that was not a matter for him? In contrast, may I welcome this Government's immediate action in setting up the taskforce and making £129 million available, and my right hon. Friend's assurances that additional money will be made available if it is needed?
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will give every possible support to any credible alternative to the Alchemy deal that will maintain volume car production at Longbridge, and that he will encourage BMW to co-operate with any such proposal? Will he also consider whether it might be appropriate to strengthen the rights of British workers, so that they are not always the first to be made redundant when European and multinational car companies seek to cut back?
Mr. Byers: What is interesting in this case is that there is a European works council for Longbridge and the workers at Rover, but it was not consulted as part of the process, so clearly there are flaws in the existing structure.
On an alternative to Alchemy Partners, the Government have made it clear that if Rover has to be sold, and Longbridge has to be part of that sale, we want a new owner who is committed to maintaining the maximum number of jobs and to maintaining car production. That is the objective that we have set ourselves, and we hope that someone may come forward to achieve that. However, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, Professor Samann said in his evidence to the Select Committee last week that at present Alchemy Partners is the only show in town.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Why, in respect of the tragedy that has befallen Longbridge, has the Secretary of State been so dilatory in appearing in Parliament to brief us about the awful events at Longbridge? What lessons has he learned from the dismal, negligent way in which he has handled this matter, in respect of the hard and heavy rumours that are emanating from Ford at Dagenham?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman may like to base his decision making on rumours and speculation; I would much rather base my decision making on answers that I receive to clear questions. When I have asked BMW clear questions, I have received clear, precise replies, but none of them indicated, or even hinted, that the disposal of Rover was one of the options that it was considering. That is the reality. I am looking forward to giving evidence before the Select Committee on Wednesday, when I will have a further opportunity to go through, in detail, exactly what was said when and where.
I can understand why Opposition Members are on this detective chase: one, because they have no policies of their own which would deal with a situation such as this; and two, because they do not care about the impact on the individuals and communities affected. It is worth reminding ourselves that they are the party which in the early 1990s presided over an economic situation in which millions of manufacturing jobs were lost, tens of thousands of them in the west midlands. We shall not repeat those mistakes.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that everybody outside knows that the

641
responsibility for this tragedy rests with BMW, and not with the Government, and therefore the attempt to make capital out of it carries no weight? At the same time, however, this is a catastrophe because some of the greatest skills in British manufacturing could be lost, and communities could be destroyed. Those of us who represented mining areas know exactly what that is like.
Are not there lessons to be learned from this to which the Government should turn their attention? Is it right that our industrial future should rest in the hands of foreign companies without any requirement from the Government to oblige them to enter into agreements with them of a kind that have been contemplated in the past?
Is it not a fact that the exchange rate, although perhaps not the only consideration, was a serious consideration in this case? I know of a potential closure in my constituency where the exchange rate was the dominant consideration. Is it prudent to have a financial policy that endangers manufacturing? Would not it be right for the Government to offer support by way of investment in shares in companies, so as to get a commitment to manufacturing?
After Harland and Wolff, Dagenham and now, possibly, Honda, is it not clear that there needs to be a plainer statement of commitment by the Government not only to workers in difficulty but to the maintenance of manufacturing industry in Britain, on which our whole past strength was built and our future depends?
Mr. Byers: I agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of manufacturing to the United Kingdom economy. The Government have already taken a number of steps to support manufacturing. There are many great successes in UK manufacturing, and the great danger when we face particular problems, whether at Harland and Wolff or, in this case, with BMW's decision about Rover, is that we will lose sight of those success stories. The manufacturing sector can learn from the strengths that exist. The skills and innovation in the UK need to be developed because that is where our future prosperity lies.
Great insecurity is felt at a time of globalisation, and there is a role to be played by Government, but I do not think that it is the role identified by my right hon. Friend.
642
We can manage a process of change and lead people through it, but we cannot dictate the way in which multinational companies make commercial decisions. Inward investment has brought great benefits to the United Kingdom and created hundreds of thousands of jobs. We should not adopt a kneejerk reaction to events at Longbridge, because immediate steps which appear attractive at the time might lead to our no longer being a country that is attractive to inward investment. That would deny opportunities to many hundreds of thousands of people who are currently employed by companies that could have chosen to go anywhere in the world, but chose to come to the United Kingdom.
Mr. Christopher Chope: What did the Secretary of State say to the chairman of BMW on 22 December?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: "Good morning"?
Mr. Byers: I did not say "Good morning"—or "Gluten Morgen" for that matter. I said that the grant aid would be subject to an investigation that would take four to five months; he replied that that was disappointing and that he would have to report it to his board. The conversation was all about investing in the R30 model, which is the new investment that BMW had planned for the Longbridge site.
It is interesting that, after our conversation, the chairman set up a team at BMW that worked with my Department to make a submission to the European Commission in support of the European aid; it was submitted on 24 February. Most important, the company continued its investment in the Mini: I believe that members of the Select Committee who visited Longbridge last week saw that, until a few weeks ago, the Mini assembly line was being installed at Longbridge, and it remains there. Those are clear indications that BMW was committed to Longbridge until, as Professor Samann said last week, 1 to 16 March this year, when the decision was taken to pull out.

Points of Order
4.22 pm
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. Have you received a request from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to make a statement about the future of grammar schools? There has apparently been a change of heart on the part of the Government. On 8 December, during an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, the Minister for School Standards clearly told me and other right hon. and hon. Members, at column 265WH, that she had no intention of being dragged into the trap of stating her personal views on the future of grammar schools. However, over the weekend, we have received news that the Secretary of State has provided moral succour and personal encouragement to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), in campaigning for a grammar school ballot in Trafford. My question is simple: if the Government's policy has changed and Ministers now want to work hand in glove with educational vandals in that respect, should we not be informed of that in the House and given the opportunity to subject the Secretary of State to proper scrutiny?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed of such a request, nor do I believe that the Secretary of State is seeking to make a statement on that issue. May I give the hon. Member some guidance? If he raises points of order in future, it will be better if he is brisk about them and comes immediately to the point. They will then be more appreciated by the occupant of the Chair and by the entire House.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Over the weekend, there have been a number of reports, some of them somewhat garbled, that guidelines for the use of NATO and UN forces in Kosovo have come into the hands of those whom they ought not to have reached. To clarify the matter and for the sake of the whole situation in Kosovo, not least that of UN forces, has there been a request to make a statement from Ministers at either the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
Madam Speaker: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have received no indication that anyone from the Ministry of Defence seeks to make a statement on that issue. I direct him to the use of parliamentary questions, with which he is very familiar.

Orders of the Day

  Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

  Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
    Clause 69

      CONTRIBUTIONS IN RESPECT OF BENEFITS IN KIND: GREAT BRITAIN
      4.24 pm
      Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 68, line 37, at end insert—
      '( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to any childcare provision by the employer, which shall be exempt from Class IA National Insurance contributions.'.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 63, in page 68, line 37, at end insert—
      '( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to any healthcare provision by the employer, which shall be exempt from Class IA National Insurance contributions.'.
      Mr. Willetts: Clause 69 is the stealth tax clause. It is the clause that imposes employers national insurance contributions on a range of benefits in kind, from Christmas parties to rape alarms. Its purpose is to raise £225 million of extra revenue without the Government being caught out by anybody spotting what they are up to. The clause is where the damage is done.
      We thought from the exchanges that we have already had with Ministers that the Government were arguing that everything that bore income tax as a benefit in kind should also bear employers national insurance contributions. That was very much the tenor of the Minister of State's remarks in Committee. He said:
      The trigger for the change is the taxation of the benefit in kind, not the other way round. The national insurance does not cause the tax to be paid; the tax causes the national insurance to be paid.— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 March 2000; c. 675.]
      The Minister of State was formulating what we could flatteringly regard as the Rooker doctrine. In effect, he was saying, "If there is a tax liability, there should be a national insurance liability as well." We could understand that doctrine. We might not agree with it, but at least it was coherent and consistent.
      The problem for the Minister is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has knocked that argument away in his Budget statement. The right hon. Gentleman proudly announced that when it comes to child care, although that is taxable as a benefit in kind, it will not be subject to national insurance contributions for the employer. Paragraph 4.47 is entitled "Encouraging employers to provide childcare." It states:
      To encourage employers to help employees with childcare, all provision in kind will remain exempt from employer class IA national insurance contributions when these are extended to other employee benefits from April 2000.

      645
      The Chancellor has therefore made it clear that it is possible for a benefit in kind to bear tax and that it does not need automatically to bear employers national insurance contributions as well.
      That has an unfortunate consequence for the Minister of State. It leaves the ingenious doctrine that he formulated in Committee looking rather threadbare. He cannot say that he must impose national insurance contributions on all these items because they are taxable, because the Chancellor has taken credit for doing exactly the opposite. He has chosen something that will bear tax but does not have to bear national insurance contributions.
      Amendment No. 62 takes the Chancellor at his word. It would deliver what the right hon. Gentleman was talking about in his Budget statement and would exempt child care from employers national insurance contributions. Perhaps this is the triumph of optimism over experience, but we rather hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It is absolutely in line with what the Chancellor said in the Budget. It would be a challenge even to the Minister of State's ingenuity to work out why he should whip his right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against an amendment that merely implements one of the Chancellor's announcements.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend to understand why the Government may not want to accept the amendment. If the provision is on the statute book, it will be in tablets of stone and they will be committed to it, whereas if it is not, the Chancellor can always change his mind in future.
      Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend makes an ingenious suggestion. I hope that he is not right, but he may be. We shall be interested to see what grounds, if any, the Minister offers for not accepting the amendment.
      Mr. Steve Webb: I intervene on a point of clarification. We are listening to the debate with genuine interest. The amendment refers to child care. Is that a reference only to employer workplace-provided child care? Does it include vouchers? What comes within the scope of the amendment?
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Willetts: I would be happy to accept the definition that the Chancellor offered in the Red Book. If the Minister offered a revised text of the amendment so that it exactly followed the lines of the Red Book, I would be happy with that. The Red Book states:
      This employer NICs exemption will apply to direct provision, childcare vouchers and payments under contracts between employers and third party providers.
      We would be happy with a provision that exactly matched what the Chancellor said. If any change in the drafting were needed to clarify the amendment, we would welcome that.
      Amendment No. 62 would merely implement through the Bill what the Chancellor said that he wanted to do in the Budget. We know from the fascinating exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and the Minister in Committee that changes to national insurance contribution rates may be better implemented in social security legislation than in Finance Bill measures.
      646
      If the Government do not do so now, it is not clear that they will be able to do so in the Finance Bill, so they may have to wait for some other social security legislation. Given that we want to get on with the policy, I do not see why the Minister would not choose to use the vehicle conveniently before us, so I hope that he will accept amendment No. 62.
      Amendment No. 63 applies the same philosophy to payments for insurance for medical care. If the Government recognise that employers NICs do not have to be applied to every taxable benefit, and if they proudly make a virtue of exempting child care from employers NICs, our view is that exactly the same arguments apply to health care and medical insurance.
      If an employer is so public spirited as to want to provide child care facilities for his staff, and will not bear employers national insurance contributions for that, and if he wishes to provide flu jabs for his staff, why is that not at least equally deserving? Why does not that, as well as the entire range of medical insurance payments, merit exemption from employers NICs?
      We say that if there is an argument for an exemption from employers NICs for child care, there is at least as good an argument for an exemption for private health care. If the argument is good enough for the Chancellor to use with reference to child care, we want to hear from the Minister why he thinks that employers providing medical care in whatever form for their employees should be taxed more heavily—should bear an extra 12 per cent. employers NICs—than for providing child care. We regard the benefits as equally desirable, and we see no basis for exempting one from national insurance contributions, but not the other.
      Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. As usual, he is intellectually right, but is not the reason why the Government may have a problem with the argument that although they have no known ideological objection to children, they have a known and inveterate ideological objection to private health insurance?
      Mr. Willetts: When my hon. Friend said that I was winning the argument intellectually, I knew that that was a polite way of saying that he thought I was losing. He may well be right about the reason why the Government may not accept the amendment—because of their hostility to private health care.
      I end my brief comments by referring the Minister of State yet again—I promise him that it will be the last time today—to what the Labour manifesto states on the subject. I found a couple of copies of the Labour manifesto remaindered in the fiction section of a bookshop, and I have enjoyed citing quotations from it all afternoon. On taxation, it states:
      Taxation is not neutral in the way it raises revenue. How and what governments tax sends clear signals about the economic activities they believe should be encouraged or discouraged, and the values they wish to entrench in society.
      That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was absolutely right. If the Government oppose amendment No. 63, it is because they do not like private health care and private medical insurance. That is

      647
      wrong and irresponsible, especially in view of the pressures on the health service. We therefore urge the Government to accept the amendments.
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: Unless the amendments are accepted, the Bill will discourage people from becoming good employers. After all the Government have said about encouraging people to be good employers, they should accept such amendments, which will enable people to become good employers by encouraging them to look after their staff.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) gave some good examples of charging income tax but not national insurance. He could have gone on to say that tax but not national insurance is charged on salaries that are above a specific amount. There are many different ways of viewing the matter. It is wrong of the Government to suggest that there are precedents and that, if something is subject to tax, it automatically has to be subject to national insurance. That is wrong and inconsistent.
      I believed that the Government intended to encourage employers to provide child care facilities. We have sat here time and again and listened to such proposals. I would therefore be surprised if the Government did not accept amendment No. 62.
      Our national health service is struggling and we have to find not only more private provision, but more money for the health service. We should therefore try to do that. If we are to build the sort of health service that everybody wants and that people rightly demand nowadays, we have to find new ways of putting money into the health service or any health care provision. It would therefore be rather perverse to discourage employers from providing money that would relieve the strain on the health service.
      With those few remarks, I support amendments Nos. 62 and 63.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Minister must explain why amendment No. 62 is not a Government amendment. If the Government do not take this opportunity to implement the Chancellor's proposals, what opportunity will they take? I look forward with interest to finding out why the Minister has not introduced such a proposal, never mind his reasons for not accepting the amendment.
      In addition to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on amendment No. 63, it strikes me that it is an employment-creating measure. Many small businesses provide insurance through the sort of cover with which the amendment deals because they cannot afford to lose key individuals through medical problems for a prolonged period. That would have detrimental consequences for the employment opportunities of other personnel in the small firm. They therefore provide for private health care insurance so that there is no delay when medical treatment is required for conditions such as hernias. We should encourage such activity by accepting amendment No. 63. That is desirable and will create greater efficiency in the workplace.
      With respect to what my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said, the Prime Minister has attached a target to the percentage of gross national product that we should spend on health care. He cited
      648
      the European average, but comparable economies such as Germany and France spend a great deal more on health care than Britain—approaching 10 per cent. At the current rate of growth in health expenditure, it will take us 19 and 25 years to achieve their respective levels of provision. Those countries achieve those levels by relying on private sector funding, which is precisely what amendment No. 63 would promote. It may be the answer to the problem for which the Prime Minister has been seeking a solution, and I urge the Minister to give it full consideration.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) pertinently asked why the Government have not tabled such amendments, but we shall not receive a frank answer to that question from Labour Members, and the reason for that must be exposed in the debate. The Government have a double agenda, which they do not want to reveal explicitly to the electorate, but which my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has exposed, and usefully so, by tabling the amendments.
      The first part of the double agenda is the extension of employer's national insurance contributions to such benefits. That is one of a range of stealth taxes that have been imposed on the British people since they misguidedly voted for a Labour Government in 1997. They were not least misguided by the Prime Minister's explicit promise, "We have no plans to increase taxes at all." That was a thoroughly dishonest promise: the pensions tax was introduced within a few weeks, there have been enormous increases in petrol duty, and married couples allowance and mortgage interest relief have been removed—an endless series of stealth taxes. The proposal is simply another in the series and it cannot be understood except against the background of the covert Government policy of increasing the tax burden while pretending to the British public that it is not increasing at all. The amendments have exposed that particular purpose and it is no surprise that the Government are not only not adopting them, but, I am convinced, will oppose them if my hon. Friends decide to put them to the vote.
      The second part of the agenda is also covert, but it has already been revealed as it has surfaced in a number of contexts and we ought to be alive to it: the Government intend to run down private sector medicine, private sector provision and private health insurance for the most destructive of ideological reasons. That cannot be in the interests of the country's health, and I shall explain why in a moment.
      The Government's agenda has already manifested itself in the removal of the tax break provided by the previous Conservative Government to people of retirement age for paying private medical insurance premiums. That compensating tax break was provided because people beyond a certain age, and certainly those in retirement, have to pay much higher premiums, but it has been taken away. That was also a stealth tax, though it has never been admitted as such, and an attack on the private medical insurance system. The Government want to reduce the flow of premium income to the private health sector and the proposal is part and parcel of that agenda.
      The Government is penalising employers by taxing them for providing such benefits to their employees and people out there who elected us to the House will think that particularly cruel as the national health service is

      649
      breaking down. This winter, the NHS has been in an unprecedented crisis. Waiting lists are increasing, and the nasty new phenomenon of a waiting list to get on a waiting list has entered the system in our country—and our country alone among EU countries, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West said.
      4.45 pm
      Against that background, the Government wants to penalise employers who try to help their employees because the national health service is falling down and may not be there when they need it. That is bad not only for the employers who are being penalised, but for the health of the country as a whole. The effect of the Government's proposals will be to reduce the total flow of funds through private health insurance premiums and the private health insurance system into the provision of health care. That is bound to happen. That flow will be reduced unless amendment No. 63 is adopted so as to restore the position. As night follows day, if the price of something is increased, the demand for it is reduced. The net price to employers of providing such protection will be increased by the Bill unless it is amended.
      We should clear our minds of any ideological prejudice on this matter, and consider the practical consequences of voting through the Bill without this amendment. If the amendment is not accepted, it will be very bad for the health of the nation for two reasons. If people have their own provision and can purchase private sector care, they no longer claim on the national health service. People can be taken off NHS waiting lists if their employer is providing private sector cover for them, and others who are not lucky enough to have an employer who can afford to provide such cover can be brought forward on the waiting list, all other things remaining equal. Under the Labour Government, no doubt the waiting lists will get worse, but all other things being equal, if the amendment is accepted, the position will be alleviated not just for the beneficiaries of private sector insurance, but for those who do not enjoy such private sector cover.
      Another aspect may not have occurred to the Minister of State. More resources coming into the health service means that more people are employed, and that those who work in the private sector and the NHS are provided with a higher total income than they would otherwise receive. It is well known that many consultants practise in the health service under NHS contracts for four days a week, and are at liberty on the fifth and sixth day—they often work on Saturdays—to provide care for their private patients. Those private patients do not therefore have to wait in line, and the consultants, junior doctors and nurses get more income than they would get if we did not have that system.
      If doctors and nurses were deprived of that income, the gap between medical earnings in this country and those in other EU countries or in the rest of the civilised world would increase even further. People would be dissatisfied with that, and fewer people would take up a medical career. Many people who practise medicine—especially the best people—would go abroad. They would obviously be allowed to work in EU countries, but they could also work in much of the world, even in countries where work permits are required. It is easy for a qualified doctor or nurse to acquire a work permit. There would be a real
      650
      loss. It would be a double whammy attack on the provision of health care if the Government were allowed to proceed in that direction.
      These two amendments are an attempt to save the country from a further manifestation—one more instalment—of the Government's two agendas: stealth taxes and the desire to penalise and ultimately to undermine private sector health provision. Those are two important issues. They are no less important because the Government continually try to bamboozle the British public so that people do not realise what agenda they are pursuing. On those two bases, we should support the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      Mr. Leigh: This has the makings of an interesting debate, and we can be justified in looking forward to the Minister's reply. It will enable the Government to clarify their attitude to the way in which employers should provide for their employees. What sort of tax and national insurance system do we want to create?
      To be fair to the Government, some argue that the tax system should provide no allowances. They argue that it should be entirely neutral, and that the Government should have no role in trying to persuade people to adopt particular modes of behaviour. That, they say, is why the married persons allowance and the mortgage allowance should be swept away. That is a point of view, although it is not one with which I agree, and it is relevant to our debate about national insurance contributions. The Government could say, "We are not interested in what provision employers make for their employees. It is not our business whether the provision involved relates to small matters such as Christmas parties or big matters such as health care or pensions."
      An employer may wish to provide not just a perk—something enabling him to avoid paying tax—but something that he considers to be essential to himself and his employee. The Government could say, "Whatever extra provision the employer makes for his employee, we are justified in taxing it." Again, that is not a point of view with which I agree, but the issue is now so confused that the Government should explain their position.
      Doing the right thing for society means saving for the future, for pensions, for health care that the NHS may not be able to deliver and for many other purposes. We can persuade people to do that only if we envisage a partnership between employee and employer. We are talking about good employers, not about fly-by-nights who try to do everything through sub-contractors, and do not care about their employees. When employers make provision for employees, we should welcome that, rather than saying, "This is another opportunity for us to raise £220 million in tax. The public will not notice, because it is buried deep in the Red Book. No employees will be affected. It will be a tax on employers, and they will not complain too much."
      I understand where the Government are coming from, in terms of trying to raise money. What I cannot understand is the mixed message that they are sending to employers and employees about how good employment practices can be created. My hon. Friends are making the powerful point that we cannot possibly catch up with countries such as Germany and France in terms of health care provision for all employees—all people—simply by raising more taxes to pay for the national health service.

      651
      If we are to improve health care for everyone, we must encourage private sector involvement. At present, people—many on marginal incomes—are given no encouragement to provide for their own private health care: indeed, they are given positive disincentives. What harm can it do to tell good employers that it is a good idea for them to help their employees with private health insurance, if they have reason for doing so?
      Mr. Bercow: Although many large companies already provide such assistance in the form of corporate medical insurance schemes, should we not do more to encourage small businesses to provide the same level of support, given that they constitute 99.6 per cent. of firms in Britain? They employ about 50 per cent. of the private sector work force, and generate two fifths of our national output. Should not Ministers be far more sensitive to their needs?
      Mr. Leigh: Of course Ministers should be sensitive to the needs of small employers. At present, arrangements involving private health insurance are very much the prerogative of larger, wealthier companies. As my hon. Friend said, if we are to make any progress on the matter, we must try to find ways of encouraging smaller employers to make such provision.
      There is, of course, nothing wrong with employers providing child care. However, I cannot understand why the Government are putting all their efforts and resources into child care. For Ministers, child care is a totem of their political correctness. Child care is the one thing that they are going to achieve—and I have no argument with that. If a good employer wants to help his employees with child care, I would welcome it. However, I cannot understand why the Government are promoting that type of social insurance—which in itself is an excellent thing to do—while ignoring all other concepts of social insurance.
      Child care is important, but making provision for one's old age, health and even travel are equally important. I therefore hope that Ministers will not simply dismiss this group of amendments, but deal with the arguments. Surely the House is entitled at the very least to a clear manifestation of the philosophy behind the Government's objectives. Are they simply trying to raise money, or are they trying to send clear moral messages to employees and employers about how they should try to create a better society? We look forward to hearing the Minister's speech.
      Mr. Howard Flight: All that I wish to add to the points that have already been made in the debate is that Governments of any party never consider the knock-on effects of this type of action.
      The old sectors of our economy are hard pressed—they are suffering from major competition and examining ways of saving money. What will be the consequence of the Government's proposed new stealth tax? The consequence of the Government's proposal to subject provision of child care, health care and other services to national insurance is that the old companies will cease to provide those benefits to their staff. I say to the people of Britain, "Just remember: when you lose your health care, you have this Government to thank for it."
      652
      What about the new economy? Cisco says, "You just try assessing national insurance contributions on our share schemes. If you do, we'll move our research and development business overseas." The new economy is much rougher and tougher, and it probably will not even begin providing health care or other benefits. Nevertheless, the new economy will not simply lie down and accept this type of stealth tax.
      Therefore—both on the specific issues of health care and child care, and on the wider issue of this wretched, bamboozling national insurance stealth tax—the Government are failing to take account of the impact of their actions on ordinary British citizens and on the quality of the total package that they receive from their employers.
      The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I shall do my best to respond as briefly as possible to this group of amendments. I should like, first, to deal with the stealth tax bit of Opposition Members' speeches. Those hon. Members are simply playing around—and destroying the English language on an unparalleled scale—with such nonsense.
      I am holding the regulatory impact assessment of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which was published last year, when the Bill was published, and is available free of charge. It contains 10 pages explaining the regulatory impact of the Bill on national insurance contributions. Some stealth tax! I also have the Inland Revenue's document on "Class IA National Insurance Contributions on Benefits in Kind", which, in draft, was sent to more than 1 million companies and employers. Some stealth tax! It is absolute nonsense to say that we are making proposals that people do not know about.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Rooker: I will not give way now.
      Conservative Members should be ashamed of themselves for some of their comments—such as saying that we are taxing Christmas parties. Conservative Members have just ambled into the debate from their City jobs. We should let those who are viewing the debate know that—this is the reality—employers do not pay tax on a Christmas party that they provide for employees unless they provide at least £75 a head worth of benefit. That is not the type of Christmas party that any of my constituents would recognise. I wanted to get those points out of the way and on the record before we dealt with the main issues.
      5 pm
      We ask the House to disagree with both amendments. The national insurance provisions in the Bill are a step towards the alignment of tax and national insurance benefits. They are part of a package for implementing the recommendations in Martin Taylor's report "The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System".
      The extension of class 1A was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his 1999 Budget. From April 2000, it will cover benefits in kind such as private health insurance, beneficial loans or the use of the company yacht. I am grateful to hon. Members for pointing out that employers will pay national insurance only on benefits in kind that are already subject to income tax. The employer will pay the same amount into the national insurance fund, however they reward their employees.

      653
      It seems to have escaped the attention of those on the Conservative Front Bench that national insurance has not been the bailiwick of the Department of Social Security since the Contributions Agency went to the Inland Revenue. It is not possible to deal with national insurance in a Finance Bill. Those who have served on Finance Bill Committees understand that. That is why we have included these clauses. The only reason why we do not have a Treasury Minister present is that it is only a couple of weeks since the Budget and it is an incredibly busy time for Treasury Ministers, with the Finance Bill about to be published. I am speaking on behalf of the Government, but in particular on behalf of the Treasury. We are putting a Treasury area of responsibility in our Bill.
      Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether we are elevating a new principle for our proceedings. We have just heard from the Minister that the issue that we are discussing is a matter for the Treasury, because that is the only Department that can make decisions on it, but Treasury Ministers cannot be bothered to come to the House because they have other things to do. Is not the House more important—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is for the Government to choose who represents them on their policy.
      Mr. Rooker: And it is not what I said, either. There is another aspect of the Bill that is essentially a matter for another Department, but it is wholly in order and 1 shall answer on that later in the debate, just as I did when we debated the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill last year.
      Mr. Eric Pickles: What about child care?
      Mr. Rooker: The decision on child care will be made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made the original decisions—and announced them in his 1999 Budget—on the extension of national insurance to benefits in kind. Since then, he has decided to introduce a child care exemption. I do not know the exact figure, because we do not have the necessary wording in the regulations, but it is about £1 million. The changes that we are considering will raise £225 million, so the child care element is peripheral.
      We can deal with amendment No. 62 very quickly. It is unnecessary, because of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget announcement. The Bill provides powers for the issue to be dealt with by regulation in due course. We shall carry that through for issues that are exempted. Section 10(9), to be inserted in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 by clause 69, provides for class 1A contributions not to be payable or to be reduced in prescribed circumstances. The issue is fully covered and will be dealt with in regulations in due course. There is no secrecy. Provision will be made, but not in the Bill.
      I also cannot support amendment No. 63. Excluding private health care provision from class IA contributions would undermine the main purpose of the measure, which is to align the tax and national insurance treatment of benefits in kind and to make the national insurance system fairer by bringing closer together the treatment of cash and non-cash earnings. The extension of class lA
      654
      will reduce the distortion in the national insurance system, which provides the incentive for employers to remunerate their employees with benefits rather than cash.
      Bearing in mind what hon. Members have said about the national health service, of the £225 million that will be raised—roughly half of which will involve health care—£17 million will go to the NHS.
      Mr. Pickles: Extra?
      Mr. Rooker: Of course it is extra. It is £17 million new income.
      The measure's prime purpose is to make the scheme fairer and to reflect modern pay practices. Rather than subsidising large firms, which can afford to offer their employees large packages of benefits in kind, at the expense of small firms and their employees, we prefer to level the playing field—and put more money into the national health service.
      The amendments would deprive the NHS of £17 million.
      Mr. Willetts: We have had a useful short debate. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on making some telling points, but I am afraid that the Minister's contribution was extremely depressing. It leaves us with no option other than to press the amendment to a vote, for two reasons: because we believe in encouraging child care and responsible employers rather than in imposing an extra 12 per cent. employers' contribution, which is a tax on child care; and because it will make the Government look absolutely ridiculous.
      We are trying to implement a Budget measure, and the Minister will have to explain why he has decided to put his troops through the Lobby to vote against something that was in the Budget. We know that the Budget has had a rocky couple of weeks, but it seems a bit much when, the first time that a Budget measure is presented to the House, the Government Whips decide to vote against it. That is getting rather carried away.
      The Minister's ultimate defence was, "Don't worry. We don't want to vote with you on the amendment tonight, but we will introduce a regulation that will have exactly the same effect." Why will he not simply vote with us to make the amendment? I look forward to seeing his correspondence with the Chancellor, explaining why he was not able to support an amendment that simply implements what was in the Budget.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 265.

      Division No. 134]

      [5.8 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Boswell, Tim

      Allan, Richard

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Amess, David

      Brady, Graham

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Brake, Tom

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Brazier, Julian

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Breed, Colin

      Ballard, Jackie

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Bercow, John

      Burns, Simon

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Burstow, Paul

      655

      Butterfill, John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Chidgey, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Chope, Christopher

      Malins, Humfrey

      Clappison, James

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Moore, Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Moss, Malcolm

      Cotter, Brian

      Norman, Archie

      Cran, James

      Oaten, Mark

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Day, Stephen

      Page, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Paice, James

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Pickles, Eric

      Evans, Nigel

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Faber, David

      Prior, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Randall, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Flight, Howard

      Rendel, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Robathan, Andrew

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Robertson, Laurence

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Ruffley, David

      Gale, Roger

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Garnier, Edward

      Sanders, Adrian

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gibb, Nick

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gray, James

      Soames, Nicholas

      Greenway, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Grieve, Dominic

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Spring, Richard

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Steen, Anthony

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hammond, Philip

      Syms, Robert

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hawkins, Nick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Hayes, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Heald, Oliver

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Health, David(Somerton & Frome)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Horam, John

      Trend, Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Viggers, Peter

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Walter, Robert

      Wardle, Charles

      Key, Robert

      Waterson, Nigel

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Webb, Steve

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Wells, Bowen

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Whittingdale, John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Willetts, David

      Lansley, Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Leigh, Edward

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Yeo, Tim

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Lidington, David

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      and

      Loughton, Tim

      Mr. Peter Luff.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Ashton, Joe

      Ainger, Nick

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Alexander, Douglas

      Austin, John

      Allen, Graham

      Barnes, Harry

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Barron, Kevin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Beard, Nigel

      656

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Goggins, Paul

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Berry, Roger

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Grocott, Bruce

      Blizzard, Bob

      Grogan, John

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Healey, John

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Browne, Desmond

      Heppell, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hill, Keith

      Burden, Richard

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Hope, Phil

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Casale, Roger

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hurst, Alan

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hutton, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Illsley, Eric

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Clelland, David

      Clwyd, Ann

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Coleman, Iain

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Colman, Tony

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Connarty, Michael

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Corbett, Robin

      Kemp, Fraser

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Cousins, Jim

      Khabra, Piara S

      Crausby, David

      Kidney, David

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Laxton, Bob

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Lepper, David

      Darvill, Keith

      Leslie, Christopher

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Levitt, Tom

      Davidson, Ian

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Dawson, Hilton

      Linton, Martin

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Lock, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Love, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Doran, Frank

      McCabe, Steve

      Dowd, Jim

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McDonnell, John

      Edwards, Huw

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ennis, Jeff

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      McNulty, Tony

      Fisher, Mark

      MacShane, Denis

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      McWalter, Tony

      Flint, Caroline

      McWilliam, John

      Follett, Barbara

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Foulkes, George

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Gardiner, Barry

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Gerrard, Neil

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Miller, Andrew

      Godsiff, Roger

      Moffatt, Laura

      657

      Morley, Elliot

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mountford, Kali

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Soley, Clive

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Spellar, John

      Norris, Dan

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Olner, Bill

      Stevenson, George

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pearson, Ian

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pendry, Tom

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Stringer, Graham

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pike, Peter L

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pond, Chris

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pound, Stephen

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Trickett, Jon

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Truswell, Paul

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Watts, David

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      White, Brian

      Rooney, Terry

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Roy, Frank

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Ruane, Chris

      Wills, Michael

      Ruddock, Joan

      Winnick, David

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wood, Mike

      Salter, Martin

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sawford, Phil

      Woolas, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Worthington, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wyatt, Derek

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Singh, Marsha

      Mr. David Jamieson and

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Don Touhig.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 38

      PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL PENSIONS
      '.—(1) In the provisions of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 that are set out in subsection (2) (provisions relating to additional pensions for surviving spouses)—

      (a) the references to 5th April 2000 (wherever occurring) shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, as references to 5th October 2002; and

      (b) the references to 6th April 2000 (whatever occurring) shall have effect, and be deemed always to have and effect, as references to 6th October 2002.

      658

      (2) Those provisions are—

      (a) sections 39(3) and 39C(4)(widowed mother's allowance and widowed parent's allowance);

      (b) sections 48BB(7), 48C(3) and 51(3) (Category B retirement pensions); and

      (c) paragraphs 4(3), 5A(2) and (3) and 6(3) and (4) of Schedule 5 (deferred pensions).

      (3) For section 52(3) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (power to substitute a later year for references to year 2000 in prescribed provisions of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992) there shall be substituted—

      "(3) The regulations may amend (or further amend) any prescribed provision set out in section (Preservation of rights in respect of additional pensions) (2) of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 (which sets out provisions falling within subsection (2) of this section) so as to substitute a reference to a later date for—

      (a) any reference in that provision to 5th October 2002 or 6th October 2002; or

      (b) any reference to a date inserted in that provision by a substitution made by virtue of this subsection."

      (4) After section 52(4) of that Act of 1999 there shall be inserted—

      "(4A) The regulations may provide, for the purposes of any provision made by virtue of subsection (4), for a case in which a person who, as a consequence of receiving incorrect or incomplete information, did not give any consideration to—

      (a) the taking of a step which is a step he might have taken had he considered the matter on the basis of correct and complete information, or

      (b) refraining from taking a step which is a step he did take but might have refrained from taking had he considered the matter on that basis,

      to be treated as a case in which his failure to take the step, or his taking of the step he did take, was in reliance on the incorrect or incomplete information and as a case in which that step is one which he would have taken, or (as the case may be) would not have taken, had the information been correct and complete."

      (5) In section 52(6) of that Act of 1999 (supplemental provisions of regulations relating to the scheme), after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted—

      "(ea) prescribing the matters that may be relied on, and the presumptions that may be made, in the determination of whether or not the prescribed conditions have been satisfied;".'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Rooker: 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 7—Widows'/widowers' SERPS entitlements—
      'In section 52 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act, subsections (1) and (2) shall be left out, and there shall be inserted—
      "(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as is authorised by subsection (2) and one or more of subsections (3) to (4),
      (2) The regulations may provide for any prescribed provision of Part II of the Contributions and Benefits Act (contributory benefits) which relates to additional pension for widows or widowers to

      659
      have effect, in relation to persons of any prescribed description (which shall include at least all those who had reached pensionable age on or before 5th April 2000), with such modifications as may be prescribed for securing—

      (a) that any such additional pension, or

      (b) in the case of any provision of Schedule 5 to that Act (increase of pension where entitlement is deferred), that any constituent element of an increase provided for by that Schedule,

      is increased by such percentage as may be prescribed (which may be 100 per cent, and which shall be 100 per cent for any person who had reached pensionable age on or before 5th April 2000).".'.
      Mr. Rooker: During the final stages of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill last autumn, we introduced legislative cover that would allow us to address, through regulations, the inherited state earnings-related pension scheme problem. At that time, we had not reached a final decision on what to do. On 15 March this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House that we had decided to postpone the change that would halve the amount of SERPS that a widow or widower could inherit until 6 October 2002—a 30-month delay—and to set up the inherited SERPS scheme to provide redress for those who had been misinformed.
      We are particularly keen to ensure that all who were misinformed and who might have acted differently had they had the correct information need not lose out. During further consideration of our more detailed proposals and, indeed, with the benefit of the reports of the ombudsman and the National Audit Office, it now seems to us that the powers in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 need amending slightly. This Bill, which is already in the parliamentary system, is the ideal place to do it. New clause 38, therefore, provides for the 50 per cent. reduction in inherited SERPS to come into effect in respect of deaths occurring on or after 6 October 2002.
      We also want to clarify the eligibility criteria for the inherited SERPS scheme. Currently, section 52 of the 1999 Act provides that the scheme may deal with claims made by people who, having received incorrect or incomplete information about the SERPS reduction, either failed to take any steps they would have taken or took any steps they would not have taken had they received correct information. Yet the ombudsman has pointed out that, 15 years down the road, it will be difficult for many people to demonstrate that they would have taken a particular course of action, or not, had they been correctly advised.
      The new clause will ensure that the scheme can provide redress for people who, because they relied on the wrong information, were denied the opportunity of considering taking relevant steps to protect their spouse's pension. I will roughly translate what I have just said as, by and large, replacing "would have" with "might have". In other words, we are loosening up the criteria—we are saying that people might have taken action, rather than that they would have taken action, which is what the Act provides for.
      Another point that the ombudsman made was that people should not be unfairly excluded from the scheme because, after so long, they were unable to provide documentary evidence. We want to address that concern, and the new clause allows for the regulations to make further specific provision relating to the manner in which decisions under the scheme may be taken.
      660
      New clause 7, in the name of Liberal Democrat Members, would effectively put off the policy change indefinitely for all who are pensioners at 6 April 2000. It is not clear what is intended for people who are still contributors and who might in the future be bereaved. That is not a criticism, but I must put it on the record. If the intention is to provide a lesser amount for them, there will be some contributors, perhaps nearing pension age, and on a low income, who have been misled and would therefore benefit from the scheme proposed. Yet the cost of the proposal, although less than the cost of overturning the policy completely, would still be enormous—probably more than £10 billion over the next 50 years. So under that proposal, we would spend considerably more money without helping some of the people who should be helped.
      Mr. Webb: I refer the Minister to his written answer to me of 21 March. Asked the cost of our proposal in lieu of what he has proposed, he replied:
      The estimated cost is £7,100 million.—[Official Report, 21 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 479W.]
      Mr. Rooker: I am sure that both figures are correct, but probably do not relate to exactly the same point. In pension discussions—this point arose in Committee—it must be remembered that a change to the national insurance system must be translated over people's working lives. I shall have the figures checked and shall write to the hon. Gentleman if there has been an error. However, I am sure that both figures are correct and deal with slightly different aspects.
      Our first principle must be that if the Government gives people the wrong information, they must provide redress. That is what we are doing. All who have been misled are being provided with an opportunity to have their rights restored. The alternative—deferral of the change for 10 or 14 years to reflect the gap between the 1986 legislation and our proposed changes—would merely postpone the problem. The widow of a man who died after that time would still lose out.
      Unlike new clause 7, our proposals on the future of inherited SERPS provide the fairest balance between the interests of pensioners and contributors. Full details—I said this at Question Time, but it is important to put it on the record again—of the inherited SERPS scheme will be put before the House. There will be a proper debate, and the details will not be slipped out in the way we have sometimes been accused of. The National Audit Office and the ombudsman will be fully involved in developing the information that we shall ask for and the procedures that will be followed in decision making. We must be certain that we have the powers necessary to cover those points in regulations, and that is why we propose the new clause.
      Mr. Willetts: I want to say how grateful we are to the Minister for making it clear that there will be a proper debate. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee asked for that after the original statement, and it is right that something of this magnitude should be properly debated in the House.
      Mr. Rooker: I am grateful for those remarks. We have gone beyond blame and must think about the future. Obviously, we inherited the current position, but I shall not labour the point. We need consensus across the House

      661
      on the way forward on an issue that will affect constituents of all Members over a long period. We want the widest possible support, and that is why we shall ask the NAO and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the ombudsman—to comment on our proposals and the way in which we intend to operate the scheme. I hope that the House will reject new clause 7, but approve new clause 38.
      Mr. Webb: New clause 7 was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, and we see it as consistent with Government new clause 38, but as a measure that goes further. We welcome and support new clause 38, but believe that our additional new clause deserves further consideration.
      We welcome the broadening of scope proposed by new clause 38, and the change of phraseology from "could" have to "might" have. However, I find new clause 38 rather bewildering. Can the Minister explain proposed new section 4A of the 1999 Act? It refers to
      a person who…did not give any consideration to…
      (b) refraining from taking a step which is a step he did take but might have refrained from taking had he considered the matter on that basis
      to be treated as a case in which his failure to take the step, or his taking of the step he did take, was in reliance on the incorrect or incomplete information.
      And so it goes on, completely impenetrably.
      It is hard to see how the Government will convert those words into language that people will understand. There is evidence that the scheme brought forward so far by the Government is already defective. For example, after the Secretary of State's announcement on the matter, newspaper advertisements in the national press said that people would be entitled to claim compensation on inherited SERPS if they "can" show that they were misled.
      We have heard a lot of promises from the Secretary of State that it will all be different and better this time, but the first thing he did—almost on the day of his announcement—was to send out 3,000 letters including the wrong telephone number, which did not fill us with confidence. Then he placed newspaper advertisements about the compensation scheme in new clause 38, which said that it would be available for those who can show that they were misled. I think that the Minister will agree that that is not an accurate description of the way the scheme will work. There is no need to be able to show that one was misled; it is necessary only to be able to claim that one was misled in a manner that the Government cannot disprove. The two are very different.
      5.30 pm
      My hon. Friends tell me that their constituents have telephoned them and said, "It looks as though I won't be covered by the scheme." The people whom the scheme is aimed at have read the advertisements and been misled. They have been confused because the advertisement was wrongly worded. I wonder whether the Minister, when he responds to the debate, will comment on its wording. I do not know whether his officials have briefed him on that.
      Mr. Rooker: No, I shall not comment on the advertisement. When the House has approved a scheme, having held debates on the regulations, there will be a full and fairly massive propaganda campaign, using television,
      662
      a helpline and advertisements—written and otherwise—and we shall then reflect the scheme that the House has approved. The initial notification of such a scheme, in the recent advertisements, was made, following the statement to the House, because we thought it right and proper to give an initial view that there would be a scheme; I shall not be pedantic about the words. Once we have a scheme to market, it will be thoroughly and properly marketed.
      Mr. Webb: The Minister cannot have it both ways. He is spending public money on placing advertisements that are designed to illuminate but which confuse. They were not accurate about the scheme as described by the Secretary of State a few days earlier. I find that very worrying, and I hope that the Minister will ask some questions in his Department about why that form of words was used and whether he should issue some clarification.
      We are dealing with people who have already been misled by the Department. Years have gone by, and they have now found out that they were misled. They have now read an advertisement that is also misleading, and they are starting to give up. That is not what we want.
      In new clause 7 we propose simply that those who have already reached state pension age by the time the original cut was due to come in should be protected from the cut, for two principal reasons. First, it is unreasonable to expect those who have only just found out about what happened, and who have already reached pension age, to save for their pension. It is too late for that.
      A charity dealing with older people says that every year new people come to it for help, having only just heard for the first time about the change as a result of the advertisements and the discussion of the subject in the press. Many people still do not even know about the change, although there has been a great deal of coverage, particularly in the specialist press. It is unreasonable to expect them to make alternative arrangements now. That is why we want to protect them.
      The second issue, which has not been addressed much in the debate, is the validity of the original policy. Was it right of the House, in 1986, to decide to halve widows' pension entitlements? New clause 7 gives us an opportunity to reverse that decision for those who have already reached state pension age for whom there is no other alternative. We know that widows make up one of the poorest groups of pensioners. Later we shall discuss the position of older pensioners, most of whom are women, many of whom are widows, who already have relatively dire pension positions.
      This afternoon at Social Security questions, the Government—I believe that it was the Minister—attacked what the Conservatives did to the state earnings-related pension scheme; one of their biggest cuts, if he does not accept new clause 7, he is about to implement. How can he have it both ways? He wants to attack the Conservatives for the cuts that they made in SERPS but to implement those cuts, and not reverse any of them, even when he has the chance to do so.
      The Minister raised the question of the cost of what we are proposing. The Government have introduced a bizarre new doctrine: they add up all the costs of the compensation over 50 years. They have got into enough trouble by adding up the figures for national health service spending and education spending over three years and double and triple counting, but trying to make out that the

      663
      compensation package is generous by working out what it would cost over 50 years is incredible. If the Government make an increase in the winter fuel payment which is to be paid for each of the next 50 years, they do not claim 50 years' worth of expenditure. If they put 75p on the basic state pension, they do not multiply the figure by 50 to say how much it has cost.
      I asked for a breakdown of the extraordinarily large figures being claimed for the cost of the scheme. The cost of deferral—which relates to new clause 38—never rises above £270 million a year, yet it has been costed at £2.5 billion: nearly 10 times as much. The compensation scheme has been costed at £5.7 billion if there is a take-up of 30 per cent., yet its cost never rises above £600 million in any of the next 20 years. Although the Minister says that our scheme is extraordinarily expensive, it is only by adding together the figures for 50 years that he can come up with his figure.
      As I said in an intervention, our estimate of the cost of our scheme in lieu of the Government's scheme is £7.1 billion. The Government's central costing is £2.5 billion for deferral and just over £5 billion for people who claim compensation, so the total is about £8 billion. We are not inventing enormous items of Government spending. We have come up with a scheme which, on the Government's figures, does not cost as much as the one they have themselves proposed. The Minister said that there would probably need to be some form of tapered provision for those aged 63 or 64, so I suspect that our scheme would cost something similar to the Government's proposal.
      The big advantage of our proposal is that it is clear and simple. Under the Government's proposal, pensioners will try to claim that they were misled and the Government will have to investigate those claims and attempt to disprove them. We have no idea how they will disprove the claims because they have no records with which to do so. That scheme will, as ever, miss out the inarticulate and the ill-informed, but will reward the corrupt because, if anyone says that he was misled, that claim cannot be disproved. Their system is costly, bureaucratic and complex and it creates a further worry for all the people who have been affected by the reduction in SERPS. They will not know until next year whether they will be protected.
      Mr. David Heath: My hon. Friend will recall that I asked the Secretary of State about receiving information at second hand and not directly from the Department. However, I did not receive a satisfactory answer. New clause 38 refers to
      receiving incorrect or incomplete information,
      but does not qualify that statement by mentioning the source of the information. Does that not suggest to my hon. Friend that someone who was misled by a professional adviser or another person, but who acted under the belief that he was taking the right steps, would be covered?
      Mr. WebbMy hon. Friend raises an important point, and I hope that the Minister will clarify the position. Clearly an adviser will act on the basis of the leaflets and the guidance given him by the Department. If that
      664
      information is misleading and is passed on to a member of the public, that member of the public will have been misled in just the same way as if he had received the information at first hand. People misled in that way should be covered and that is how I read the new clause. I hope the Minister will confirm that my reading of it is correct.
      Our constituents have been asking us for months and years what will happen. They want to know so that they have can have peace of mind in their old age about the provisions for widows or widowers. We still do not know what will happen and the scheme is so vague that it will be another year before we find out. We want certainty; older people deserve that if nothing else. That is why exempting those who have already reached state pension age is a neat, clean way of approaching the issue. People who did not follow the small print of the Social Security Act 1986—can we blame them?—and who have reached pension age have probably found out only now about the cut in their entitlements. They deserve to be looked after with a clean and simple solution.
      We accept new clause 38, because deferral is welcome. However, additional measures, as reflected in new clause 7, would also be welcome. Given the opportunity, we shall seek to test the opinion of the House on the additional measures.
      Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I shall be brief, because most points have already been made. However, it is important to clarify even further the degree of evidence and proof that the Government will seek to build into the regulations and their compensation scheme. Although we have accepted responsibility for the part that we have played in the problem, we stick by the policy—as do the Government—of the reduction in the rebates. We shall not, therefore, support the new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
      The key to the matter is what degree of evidence of whether people have been misled the Government can accept. For example, one could argue that people who have done nothing to find out about the cut have been misled. Will that be acceptable to the DSS, and will it be covered in regulations? Any sensible person planning for their retirement would, if they had known about the cut, have taken action, and the mere fact that they have not done so indicates that they have been misled.
      I welcome the change in the wording of new clause 38 from "would have" to "might have". However, even if the Government are prepared, in regulations, to alter the burden of proof, we need more clarification about what exactly they will do. It is clear that since the first announcements, the debate about recompense has moved on, and I suspect that that is why confusion is developing and the Government's statements are getting softer and softer and are increasingly trying to be helpful to people who feel that they are affected.
      The Minister indicated that there will be a proper debate on regulations, and my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) picked him up on that point. This may be nit-picking, but I wonder whether the debate will be in the Chamber or upstairs in Committee. What defines proper debate? This subject is of great interest to everybody, and it might be sensible of the Government to have the debate on the Floor of the House.

      665
      I was also slightly concerned to hear that the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee will consider the regulations. When does the Minister expect the regulations to be laid before the House? What delay will there be? Is this to be another example of the DSS's use of the word "shortly"? The right hon. Gentleman has castigated others for their use of grammar, but over the past few months "shortly" has stretched into infinity. It would be nice to have an indication of when the Department expects to introduce the regulations.
      Mr. Rooker: I must make it absolutely clear that I cannot answer most of the questions that I have been asked. We do not have the scheme yet. It is in the first stages of being designed. We have only just chosen one of the options that we considered. It is not possible to answer the detailed questions that I have been asked.
      I shall certainly not use the term "shortly" about any regulations, because I can tell the House that they are not expected shortly. As I said at Question Time, I am not even certain whether they will be introduced before the summer recess or in the autumn—the time scale is as wide as that. They might not be the ideal legislation for the House to consider in, for example, the third week of July, so we might hold them over.
      Mrs. Lait: Can I tempt the right hon. Gentleman to say that they will be introduced before October 2002?
      Mr. Rooker: Yes, I can definitely say that. If the hon. Lady reads new clause 38 in great detail, she will see that every conceivable contingency—or at least every one that we can think of—has been built into that new clause. However, I cannot answer all the questions.
      The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked me about the figure of £7 billion referred to at Question Time. That is the cost of paying the surviving spouses of all current pensioners 100 per cent. with no policy deferral. The new clause includes the scope to defer for those currently under pension age. All the figures that I am using are global—they have to be—and the only figures that I am prepared to rely on are those on page 39 of the National Audit Office report, because the NAO used our figures to make assumptions. I shall not go into detail about those assumptions now.
      The figure of about £10 billion that I quoted earlier assumes that the hon. Gentleman would intend to use those measures and reflects the cost of a 10-year policy deferral. Both figures are right, but the question differs depending on whether one takes account of the policy deferral that we have already announced. The cost of that policy deferral is £2.5 billion—that cost is there before we even start, and we have no idea what the take-up rate will be.
      5.45 pm
      I have honestly admitted that I cannot answer the questions asked, for reasons that I have explained. None the less, I hope that the House will accept new clause 38.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 33

      CALCULATION OF CATEGORY B RETIREMENT PENSION
      '.—(1) In section 46 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (modifications of section 45 for calculating the additional pension in certain benefits), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—

      "(3) For the purpose of determining the additional pension falling to be calculated under section 45 above by virtue of section 48BB below in a case where the deceased spouse died under pensionable age, the following definition shall be substituted for the definition of "N" in section 45(4)(b) above—

      "'N'=

      (a) the number of tax years which begin after 5th April 1978 and end before the date when the deceased spouse dies, or

      (b) the number of tax years in the period—

      (i) beginning with the tax year in which the deceased spouse ('S') attained the age of 16 or, if later, 1978–79, and

      (ii) ending immediately before the tax year in which S would have attained pensionable age if S had not died earlier,

      whichever is the smaller number."

      (2) In section 48BB of that Act (Category B retirement pension: entitlement by reference to benefits under section 39A or 39B) in subsection (5) for "section 46(2)" there shall be substituted "section 46(3)".

      (3) In paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (welfare benefits: minor and consequential amendments), sub-paragraph (b), and the word "and" immediately preceding it, shall be omitted.'.—[Angela Eagle.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 34, 35, 28 to 32 and 85.
      Angela Eagle: The House will be aware that we tabled a number of amendments in Committee relating to the calculation of state second pension and to SERPS. We tabled those amendments in Committee to ensure that time was allowed for adequate scrutiny of the clauses, but the result was that, in some cases, the provisions were not quite right when they were introduced. I explained in Committee that it would be necessary to table some minor amendments to correct or clarify the provisions. The group of amendments makes the necessary changes. I assure the House that the amendments do not represent major changes to the policy and that they are all beneficial to future recipients.
      Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are drafting amendments that clarify the legislation in relation to the calculation of national insurance rebates. They make it clear that the rebates must be calculated by reference to the state second pension given up, either wholly or in part.
      We come to the technical subject of earnings factors in SERPS and to amendments Nos. 30 to 32 to clause 36. In Committee, we pointed out that clause 36 was, in effect, a consequential amendment to the Pensions Act 1995, which had been missed at the time it was passed. Among other things, that Act changed the calculation of SERPS from 6 April 2000. However, the regulations that dealt

      667
      with part years—that is, years in which people have a mix of both contracted-out and contracted-in earnings—were not changed to reflect the new Act.
      The amendment agreed in Committee allowed us to introduce new regulations to put the situation right. However, since the current Bill will not be in force by 6 April 2000, it is necessary to ensure that the new regulations can deal with pension calculations that fall to be made between 6 April 2000 and the coming into force of the new regulations. That is the purpose of the latest amendments. The intention, as we discussed in Committee, remains to bring the regulations up to date and to maintain the status quo with regard to SERPS calculations.
      Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are technical; they correct the method of calculating the amount of state second pension that persons who, in the past, have received widowed parents allowance or bereavement allowance can inherit from their deceased spouse when they reach state pension age. Similarly, new clause 33 and amendment No. 85 correct existing legislation for the purposes of calculating the amount of SERPS that can be inherited in those circumstances.
      The new clause and the amendments would restore the policy intention that no one will receive less additional pension with their category B pension, which is based on their late spouse's contributions, than they would have done before the introduction of the new bereavement benefits. No one has been affected to date, because the new bereavement benefits are not due to come into effect until April 2001. With those assurances, I urge the House to accept the new clause and the amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 7

      WIDOWS'/WIDOWERS' SERPS ENTITLEMENTS
      'In section 52 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act, subsections (1) and (2) shall be left out, and there shall be inserted—

      "(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as is authorised by subsection (2) and one or more of subsections (3) to (4),

      (2) The regulations may provide for any prescribed provision of Part II of the Contributions and Benefits Act (contributory benefits) which relates to additional pension for widows or widowers to have effect, in relation to persons of any prescribed description (which shall include at least all those who had reached pensionable age on or before 5th April 2000), with such modifications as may be prescribed for securing—

      (a) that any such additional pension, or

      (b) in the case of any provision of Schedule 5 to that Act (increase of pension where entitlement is deferred), that any constituent element of an increase provided for by that Schedule,

      is increased by such percentage as may he prescribed (which may be 100 per cent, and which shall be 100 per cent for any person who had reached pensionable age on or before 5th April 2000).".'.— [Mr. Webb.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 273.

      Division No. 135]

      [5.49 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Ballard, Jackie

      Moore, Michael

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Oaten, Mark

      Breed, Colin

      Rendel, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Burstow, Paul

      Sanders, Adrian

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Chidgey, David

      Tyler, Paul

      Cotter, Brian

      Webb, Steve

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Mr. Tom Brake and

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Mr. David Heath.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Coleman, Iain

      Ainger, Nick

      Colman, Tony

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Connarty, Michael

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Allen, Graham

      Cooper,Yvette

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Corbett, Robin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cousins, Jim

      Ashton, Joe

      Crausby, David

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Austin, John

      Banks, Tony

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Dalyell, Tam

      Barron, Kevin

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bayley, Hugh

      Darvill, Keith

      Beard, Nigel

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Davidson, Ian

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Benton, Joe

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dismore, Andrew

      Berry, Roger

      Dobbin, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Doran, Frank

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dowd, Jim

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ennis, Jeff

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Fisher, Mark

      Browne, Desmond

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Burden, Richard

      Flint, Caroline

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Follett, Barbara

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foulkes, George

      Casale, Roger

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gerrard, Neil

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Clapham, Michael

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clelland, David

      Grogan, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cohen, Harry

      Healey, John

      669

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Olner, Bill

      Heppell, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hill, Keith

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Hinchliffe, David

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Pearson, Ian

      Hope, Phil

      Pendry, Tom

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Pike, Peter L

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Plaskitt, James

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hurst, Alan

      Pond, Chris

      Hutton, John

      Pope, Greg

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Pound, Stephen

      Illsley, Eric

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Purchase, Ken

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Rooney, Terry

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Roy, Frank

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ruane, Chris

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Khabra, Piara S

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Kidney, David

      Salter, Martin

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Sawford, Phil

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Laxton, Bob

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lepper, David

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Leslie, Christopher

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Levitt, Tom

      Singh, Marsha

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Linton, Martin

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Lock, David

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Love, Andrew

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McCabe, Steve

      Soley, Clive

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Macdonald, Calum

      Spellar, John

      McDonnell, John

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McFall, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Stevenson, George

      McNulty, Tony

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      McWalter, Tony

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      McWilliam, John

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stringer, Graham

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Maxton, John

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Miller, Andrew

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Morley, Elliot

      Touhig, Don

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Trickett, Jon

      Truswell, Paul

      Mountford, Kali

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Mullin, Chris

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Norris, Dan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      670

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wood, Mike

      Watts, David

      Woodward, Shaun

      White, Brian

      Woolas, Phil

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Worthington, Tony

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wills, Michael

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Winnick, David

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 8

      AGE ADDITIONS
      'For section 79 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 there shall be substituted—

      "79.—(1) A person who is above the specified age and who is entitled to a retirement pension of any category shall be entitled to an increase of the pension, to be known as 'age addition'.

      (2) Where a person is in receipt of a pension or allowance payable by the Secretary of State by virtue of any enactment or instrument (whether passed or made before or after this Act) and—

      (a) he is above the specified age; and

      (b) he fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed,

      he shall be entitled to an increase of that pension or allowance, also known as age addition.

      (3) In this section 'specified age' means an age specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.

      (4) Age addition shall be payable for the life of the person entitled, at weekly rates to be determined by the Secretary of State in regulations.

      (5) Regulations under this section may—

      (a) specify one or more specified ages at which age addition shall be payable;

      (b) provide for different rates of age addition to be payable for persons of different specified ages.".'—[Mr. Burstow.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Paul Burstow: 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 36—Annual increase in basic retirement pension—
      '.—The Secretary of State shall each year increase the basic retirement pension by not less than an amount equivalent to—

      (a) the percentage increase in the general level of earnings during the preceding year; or

      (b) the percentage increase in the retail prices index during the preceding year,

      whichever is the greater.'.
      Mr. Burstow: We believe that the quickest and most cost-effective way of getting help to many of our poorest pensioners is via the basic state pension. We hope, though, that the campaign that was finally launched by the Government last week, amid much publicity, to promote the take-up of the minimum income guarantee is a success. Who would not want to see between 530,000 and 870,000 of our fellow citizens who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee getting it? The sad fact is that

      671
      those pensioners and many others are living below the poverty line. We must make sure that we get help to them in the most effective way.
      We know from the Government's research that the success of the campaign that they have just launched is finely balanced. It will be tough for the Government to deliver a substantial increase in the uptake. A report published by the Government last year, entitled "Helping Pensioners—A Contextual Survey of Income Support Pilots", found that four out of 10 pensioners said that they would definitely claim as a result of the campaign. That is great.
      We welcome the fact that four out of 10 pensioners would claim the minimum income guarantee. Another 18 per cent. said that they would probably claim. Most important and disturbing, however, was the fact that a further 36 per cent. said that they would not claim. They cited a number of reasons why they would not claim. The research reports a feeling of stigma, uncertainty and unwillingness to deal with benefits offices. The report details in considerable depth pensioners' concerns and the reasons why they were not keen on going down the means-testing route.
      We know from parliamentary questions and statements from Ministers that the Government accept that the largest group of pensioners missing out on the minimum income guarantee are older women. Given that the evidence about income distribution on the basis of age suggests that the oldest pensioners are our poorest pensioners, why do we not consider ways of ensuring that they do not have to fill in any forms to get additional income into their purses?
      We believe that a cost-effective and stigma-free way of doing that would be to lift the basic state pension through further age additions. A precedent already exists. There is an age addition to the basic state pension when the pensioner reaches the age of 80. It was set at 25p in 1971, and has been frozen at 25p ever since.
      Hon. Members in all parts of the House know from meetings with pensioner groups in their constituencies that that 25p is a source of anger and frustration. Why on earth has it not been increased in all this time? There is no good answer to that. It is simply wrong that there has been no increase. If the sum had been indexed to earnings, it would now stand at £3.70 per week. More should have been done to uprate that figure, year on year. In our view, the age addition at the age of 80 should be set at £5.
      We believe that a new age addition should be introduced into the basic state pension at the age of 75. That would mirror the Government's recognition of the need for age additions. The only problem is that the Government have decided to attach age additions to the minimum income guarantee. Attaching an age addition to the basic state pension would provide a cast-iron guarantee that the money would find its way into pensioners' pockets. That is why our new clause proposes age additions to the basic state pension.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given his specific recommendations, why do he and his hon. Friends propose—rather feebly, if I may say so—in new clause 8 that in future the detail should be dealt with via regulation?
      Mr. Burstow: Unless the hon. Gentleman wants us to have to move amendments to primary legislation every
      672
      year to uprate the figures, it would be nonsense for Parliament to deal with the matter in that way. Our proposal signals the need for a proper mechanism for annual upratings. Given the hon. Gentleman's interest, I am sure that he will support the new clause now that I have explained that important feature.
      New clause 36, tabled by other hon. Members, gives us an opportunity to debate the future of the basic state pension. Our view is that age additions which targeted guaranteed additional income on older pensioners would ensure that the basic state pension had a future purpose, which it otherwise will not have because successive Governments have allowed its value to be eroded against earnings.
      Whereas in 1980 the basic state pension was worth 22.6 per cent. of average earnings, by 2050 its value will be about 6 per cent. of average earnings. Age additions are undoubtedly the way forward, but we should take the opportunity of today's debate to signal the importance that the House attaches to the basic state pension.
      A rally was organised a few weeks ago in London by the Greater London Forum for the Elderly to express its concern. People carried coffins to symbolise the demise of the basic state pension. That is a measure of what pensioners feel has happened to the basic state pension. The earnings link was broken by the previous Government, and has not been restored by the present Government. Many, many pensioners think that the earnings link should have been re-established.
      We know that at the general election, the Government included in their manifesto a commitment to establish a different sort of link, based on growth in the economy. Since the general election, that has not happened. This year there was an indexation on the basis of prices, which has given pensioners only an additional 75p in their basic state pension in the coming year.
      Mr. Christopher Leslie: Did the Liberal Democrat manifesto commit the party to re-establishing the link with earnings?
      Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman is not asking an awkward question; he is asking one that I am happy to answer. We did not commit ourselves to re-establishing the link. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I can explain that we continually review the matter, as do the Government. However, the Government have departed from their manifesto commitment and left our poorest pensioners with even less than they would receive if the Government had honoured the commitment to link the basic state pension to growth in the economy. No one can claim that 75p is a proper reflection of the growth in the economy.
      Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is courteous in allowing hon. Members to intervene in his speech. He made it clear that the Labour manifesto stated that the state pension should be uprated only in relation to prices. Does he accept that our manifesto did not mention winter heating additions or free television licences, which we have provided? Some of us have campaigned for that for years. It is a tremendous benefit to pensioners. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that?
      Mr. Burstow: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his campaigning and on the success that he believes that

      673
      he has secured. However, we believe that age additions constitute the most cost-effective way of helping our poorest pensioners. We have said that time and again, and our view was reflected in the amendment that I tabled initially. It is the most effective way of using the basic state pension.
      We have lately been worried about some of the comments that several Ministers have made from the Dispatch Box about channelling additional resources through the basic pension. They suggest that, because the benefit is taxable, it is somehow inappropriate to use it to target our poorest pensioners. Again, that is nonsense. Taxing the basic pension allows the richest of our pensioners, who are in the minority, to perceive that redistribution is taking place. What is wrong with that? Targeting money through the basic state pension is sensible.
      The incomes of the richest fifth of pensioners rose by £87 a week between 1979 and 1997, while those of our poorest pensioners increased by only £10 in the same period: 18 years of Conservative rule and only £10 in the pockets of the poorest pensioners to show for it.
      New clause 36 provides a useful opportunity to send a clear signal that the House believes that the basic state pension has a role as a key foundation stone of support for our poorest pensioners. That role should continue well into this century and beyond. The basic state pension should not leave pensioners in poverty, but should provide a reasonable standard of living.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: I support new clause 8, which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) moved, and new clause 36, which would uprate the basic state pension. I am a little shocked to be called, because I anticipated that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) would be called first, to speak to new clause 36.
      Our manifesto commitment gives the reason for the importance of uprating the basic state pension: the state retirement pension should remain the foundation of pensions provision. As I said at Question Time, in 1980 the basic state pension was approximately 23 per cent. of average earnings; the figure is now much lower. It is anticipated that by the time the Government's reforms are in place, the state pension will be worth about only 14 per cent. of average earnings. How can we have a foundation that is being washed away year after year? The Government's recent publication "The Changing Welfare State" provides a graph, which shows that in 2051 the basic state pension will be worth the equivalent of £25 a week at the rate of average earnings in 1999. How can the state pension thus be a foundation?
      6.15 pm
      The Government propose to introduce a state second pension, which will supplement the basic state pension. It is being promoted as a replacement for the state earnings-related pension scheme which will redistribute money to those on lower earnings and is therefore more generous than SERPS. That is true, but the combination of the state second pension and the erosion of the basic state pension will result in the pension constituting approximately 21 per cent. of average earnings in 2051, compared with a bigger proportion—23 per cent.—in 1980. The state second pension is a substitute not for SERPS but for uprating the basic state pension properly.
      674
      The Government are trying to tackle means-tested benefits; they are introducing the state second pension to try to ensure that people retire on incomes that are above means-tested benefits, but it will not work. The Government's figures in "Opportunity for All" show that after a lifetime of working, those who earn £300 a week will get only £16 a week more than they would receive if they relied on income support. A woman with caring responsibilities would receive £9 a week more than she would get if she relied on income support.
      We are creating disincentives to saving for retirement and taking out additional pensions. Parliamentary questions have shown that in 12 years and nine years respectively, the two individuals I cited would be back on means-tested benefit after a lifetime of work. We must tackle the nonsensical position whereby a means-tested benefit is far higher than the basic state pension. The proposal to uprate the retirement pension in line with earnings will ensure that the difference will not become even greater and that the disincentive will not increase.
      The Government say that additional increases to the minimum income guarantee target resources at the poorest. However, that is not the case. The poorest do not apply for the minimum income guarantee. I am pleased that the Government have a campaign to increase take-up, and I hope that it is successful. However, there is a marked reluctance among pensioners to apply for what they perceive to be a handout. People understand that they contribute to the basic state pension through a lifetime's work, or caring responsibilities such as bringing up children or looking after disabled people. They should be entitled to a reasonable state retirement pension at the end of that period.
      We should not forget that although the money will go to those who are better off, the pension also targets those who are only slightly above the level of income support. Those people feel most aggrieved that, after accumulating modest savings, and perhaps having an occupational or private pension, they are only a few pounds a week better off than they would be through relying on income support. They feel that they would have been better off spending the money when they were younger.
      The Government have made welcome moves to increase the savings that can be built up before benefit starts to be lost and I know that they are considering tax credits, but whatever they do there will still be a cut-off point at which people will feel that they might as well not have bothered to put money aside for their retirement. Having such a disincentive in the system affects people's behaviour, and many of those on modest incomes would be better advised not to save for their retirement and not to build up pensions, but to make sure that they spend their money on a well-built, well-insulated home and other possessions that they will not have to buy in their retirement.
      If people's behaviour is affected in that way, more will rely on means-tested benefits. Although the Government say that they want to reduce such reliance, they already predict that the number of people on them will increase. That was the conclusion of the pension provision group—an independent body set up by them to advise on their pensions policy—and its submission to the Green Paper predicted that although the reforms would reduce the number on means-tested benefit to a lower level than if there were no change, more pensioners would need means-tested benefit than at present. It is predicted that

      675
      one in four will rely on income support, as compared with one in five today, and that number could increase if there is a further disincentive to save and to opt for additional pension provision.
      During their years in government, the Tories learned that the more they tried to target benefit on the poorest, the more the social security budget grew. Our new clause aims to restore the incentive to top up the basic state provision with private provision and, in the long run, that will be the most effective and efficient way to spend public money. I beg to move new clause 36.
      Mr. John McDonnell: With some surprise, I, too, beg to move new clause 36, which stands in my name and in the names of many others, some of whom are on Council of Europe duty and send their apologies.
      Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. To assist the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), the lead new clause has been moved and he will be able to move his new clause formally when we reach the appropriate stage.
      Mr. McDonnell: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for a separate vote on our new clause, with your permission, because this is a matter of considerable concern in the House and in our communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has sought to legislate on it on 12 occasions and, more recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) initiated an Adjournment debate on it.
      Our new clause is simple and straightforward: it would restore the link between increases in pensions and increases in earnings that was established by a Labour Government in 1975. There had been years in which there was no increase in pensions at all, but we secured not only increases that protected pensioners against the erosion of their pension by inflation, but the earnings link. We wanted to ensure that pensioners shared in the wealth of our community as it developed and thought that the best indicator was average earnings. We decided that, if everyone's income increased, so should that of pensioners. I would rather establish a link between pensions and the biggest bonus in the City, but that is too moderate.
      The link was broken in 1980 by the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, and there was an angry response from the community and especially from Labour Members of Parliament. We gave a commitment to address the issue. As a result of the link being broken so many years ago, Age Concern and others calculate that pensioners have lost £30 a week and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) said, the pension represents only between about 21 and 25 per cent. of average earnings, which is significantly less than the pensions paid by many of our European partners.
      Pensioners feel that they were robbed by the break of the link because for nearly 20 years Labour Members told them that they had been robbed. There was a £2 increase
      676
      in pensions before the 1992 general election and a Labour spokesperson stood up in the House to call it
      miserly… not even enough for a pound of sausages and a couple of loaves, while workers on average pay are receiving increases of more than £20 a week and some executives increases of more than £2,000 a week.
      I do not want to embarrass hon. Members—that is not my purpose—but another hon. Member said that
      we cannot get a decent link for pensioners …—[Official Report, 21 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 645–651.]
      He wanted it to be restored and to be based on the pay of Members of Parliament. I do not want to embarrass the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).
      Mr. Llew Smith: Some days back, Lord Falconer said that he could live on current pension levels. I have to admit that I could not. Could my hon. Friend?
      Mr. McDonnell: Not only could I not live on the current pension, but I find it difficult to understand how many of my constituents do so and stave off poverty. I see that week by week in my constituency. The poorest groups in our society are those with young children and people with disabilities. We are trying to tackle the problems; this is a life-and-limb issue not only for the poor, but for the elderly. How many pensioners will die of hypothermia this year because they cannot afford decent heating for their homes?
      Ms Diane Abbott: Is the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, to whom my hon. Friend referred, the same Member who sits on the Front Bench and speaks for the Government on pensions policy?
      Mr. McDonnell: As I said, it is not my duty to embarrass Members.
      The inflation link this year will produce a 75p a week increase, but for most of my constituents that will be wiped out by council tax increases of 7 per cent. and above. As a result, they will be steeped in poverty and will sink further into it.
      The Government's record on pensions in all other respects is superb and I pay tribute to Ministers for what they have done. The fuel allowance has been increased from £100 to £150, which is excellent. We promised to reduce value added tax on fuel and we have completed that. We have restored eye tests, given free television licences to over-75s and increased capital sums for those who have saved. We are introducing concessionary fare schemes across the country and have offered free entry to museums and other facilities. That represents a superb record and I cannot understand why the Government are so resolute in refusing to budge on the basic pension demand. There is anger among pensioners at the 75p increase and, unfortunately, it is not assuaged by those other benefits.
      Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the poorest pensioners are particularly angry because income tax cuts are helping the

      677
      better off, most of whom pay no income tax at all? Combined with council tax increases and a small increase in the basic pension, that is particularly frustrating.
      Mr. McDonnell: A number of factors increase anger among pensioners, particularly poor pensioners. They feel that there is unfairness in society that goes against all that we stand for in the House and in the country. I draw on the Prime Minister's speech about British values of fairness and tackling hardship together. The Government's stance runs against all that we are saying about those values.
      We have had this debate time and again, and Ministers have reiterated their argument that the Government is targeting resources to help the poorest pensioners through the minimum pensions guarantee. The Government are trying to direct resources at the poorest pensioners, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak said, many pensioners continue to face the prospect of having to rely on a means test to gain access to the basic minimal level of financial support.
      6.30 pm
      Forty per cent. of pensioners rely on means-tested benefits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) said in an earlier debate, it is estimated that more than 750,000 people do not claim those benefits. Why? Because it is difficult to claim, although I welcome and support the Government's initiative on take-up. Such campaigns will be run in my constituency and elsewhere to ensure that people get what they need.
      People do not claim their entitlement partly because of the stigma attached to means-tested benefits. Anyone who has experienced a means test, or has a family folk memory of the means test from days gone by, realises the implications. People suffer a loss of dignity—the indignity of having to go through a means test.
      We should recognise the distinction between pension and benefit. A pension is paid in return for either a financial contribution or a service contribution, as with a war pension. A benefit retains the link with beneficence and paternalistic donations. People do not receive it as of right, but are subject to a test. I thought that my party stood for universal benefits as a right.
      We should consider an across-the-board increase in benefits. It is argued that they would also go to the richest pensioners, but there is a simple solution to that—tax them. The question is simple: do we target or do we tax? I believe that universal benefits are more efficient for the reasons that have been identified.
      Mr. Alan Simpson: It is not just a choice between tax or benefits. It would be perfectly compatible with Labour manifesto commitments to alter the thresholds so that the better-off would not be the beneficiaries, but the poorest off would not lose out. That is what many members of the Labour party and the general public believed we were saying in our pledges that referred to increasing pensioners' share of the nation's wealth.
      Mr. McDonnell: Exactly. The mechanism that we have identified is relatively simple. If we distribute the benefit, we maximise take-up. If we feel that that is expensive, we take it back through redistribution. Targeting puts the poorest pensioners at risk, because they may not receive
      678
      the benefit that they desperately need. Taxation makes certain that resources reach those who need it, and those who can pay back do so.
      It is curious that the Government have accepted universality on the fuel allowance and free television licences, and they have even linked the minimum income guarantee to increases in earnings.
      Mr. Llew Smith: And the NHS.
      Mr. McDonnell: As my hon. Friend says, the NHS is a universal benefit for us all. As we have identified in previous debates, the cost of administering a universal benefit is much cheaper than the heavy burden of means-tested benefits.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost of administering the state pension is about 1.5 per cent. of its value, whereas the cost of administrating most means-tested benefits is between 20 and 25 per cent. of their value? Can it not be argued that universal benefits save a great deal of money?
      Mr. McDonnell: I think that the expression is QED.
      There has been a debate in the House about the political implications of the Government's actions for voters who put us in power with such a large majority. In an earlier debate, some people said that pensioners could not vote for anyone else. No, they cannot. They would not vote for the Tories, and I am not sure who else they could vote for, but they could stay at home. They may not deliver our leaflets for us, and they may not vote. They feel a sense of betrayal—I do not like using that phrase, but it has been used enough times in the debates that we have had with pensioners groups in our community. Pensioners always looked to the Labour party as the champion of their cause.
      There are 11 million pensioners in this country. They consider that they created the welfare state from which my generation benefited, and which gave us life chances that we have used to provide for our families and to give them a good quality of life. We are now denying many of those pensioners that quality of life in their retirement.
      We should refer to the Prime Minister's sense of fairness. He talked about fairness in tackling poverty and reward for hard work. We should honour the undertakings that we gave to successive generations of people who voted Labour because they thought that we were their champions. I gave an undertaking to the pensioners in my community that I would do all I could to lift the basic pension at every opportunity. I want to fulfil that commitment today, so I shall press new clause 36 to a Division, and I shall vote for it.
      Mr. Robertson: I want to make a brief contribution to this debate. I suspect that, at the end of it, I may be persuaded to abstain, but that does not mean that I do not have strong feelings on this subject.
      At the general election, I went to house after house and met many pensioners who fell into one of two categories: those who said that they did not have enough money to live on—they perhaps did not bother or were not persuaded to claim the other benefits available to them; and those who said that, after years of saving and paying into occupational schemes, they did not feel better off.

      679
      My concern is that the minimum income guarantee offered by the Government will not satisfy either of those groups. It will not satisfy many people in the first group, because they will not be persuaded to claim what they regard as a state handout. For many years of their working lives they have paid into the system and are entitled to claim from the state, but they do not see it that way. At a time when the Government Actuary accepts that there is a surplus in the national insurance fund that is likely to grow, it seems mean-minded of the Government not to offer help to those people.
      The minimum income guarantee will not help pensioners who have been able to put money away for their retirement. They may have saved money or joined occupational schemes. They will continue to be aggrieved because they will think that they should be better off, but they will not feel better off for having saved because they will be no better off than the pensioners who claim every state benefit to which they are entitled. I do not think that the Government's actions will help either of those categories of pensioners.
      I would like more help to be given to pensioners who are retired now. I draw a distinction between those who are retired now and those who will retire in the future. If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye on the next group of amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall explain my thinking on that in greater depth. I recognise the enormous projected future costs of the state pension scheme. According to the figures from the House of Commons Library, serious problems will befall us if we do not address that issue.
      I want a complete reform of the pensions system for pensioners who are yet to retire. There is no excuse for people of my age who are on a reasonable income not to make provision for their future. However, those who are retired now deserve a better deal from a Government who claim that the economy is in such robust shape. People in manufacturing industry may disagree with and object to that statement, but having looked at the figures and questioned the Secretary of State in the Select Committee, I believe that people who are retired now could get a better deal from the Government.
      I shall probably abstain on these new clauses, because they are open-ended and commit Governments to expenditure that I do not believe is sustainable in the longer term. I want reform of the pension system for those who are not yet retired.
      Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman has told the House that he will abstain on both new clauses because they have open-ended commitments. However, his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out that no specific figures are given. I answered him by making the simple point that that will be dealt with through regulation, so the House will be able to decide on the levels year on year. Surely the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) could support such a motion to put down a marker.
      Mr. Robertson: I admire the hon. Gentleman both for tabling the new clause and for that intervention, but, if I may say so, the new clause demonstrates rather muddled thinking and a typical Liberal Democrat wish to have it
      680
      both ways. At the time of the general election, no commitment was made to do other than raise the basic state pension by more than the retail prices index. That is what the Government have done, and that is what has led to all the objections from pensioners. That is how the 75p increase came about.
      New clause 8 is open-ended. New clause 36 is similarly open-ended, in that it ties the Government down to a certain level of spending. Those who study the figures will become very alarmed by them.
      I have some sympathy with what is being proposed. I could have refrained from speaking in the debate—[Interruption.] Liberal Democrat Front Benchers chuckle, but it would have been easy for me to say nothing. I believe that there should be a better deal for pensioners who have already retired, but I also believe that we should think much more deeply about how pensioners of the future should be catered for. The state pension requires a great deal of radical thought, and it should not be a matter of party politics. It is too important for that.
      Mr. Tony Benn: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), and to look back a bit at the history of the issue. This is the centenary of the foundation of the Labour party. When Keir Hardie arrived, he demanded unemployment pay, and they laughed at him. "Work or maintenance," he said. "Wholly unrealistic: open-ended commitment," he might have heard in response.
      I campaigned in 1945, when Labour won the election. The first thing that the Government did was raise the widow's pension from 10 shillings to 26 shillings a week, when we were absolutely bankrupt. They did not have the money, but they had the will. What is lacking now is not the money, but the will. Later, the Cabinet—I am proud to have been a member of that Cabinet, in the days of what is now dismissed and rubbished as old Labour—linked pensions with earnings. That constituted a recognition of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that those who contribute to the increased wealth that we now enjoy are entitled to some part of that wealth. After all, pensioners looked after their children when they were young; it is not abnormal to expect the new generation to help the old.
      People forget that we are talking about a national insurance scheme. Let us take an example: there must be such cases. A man starts work at the age of 16, works for 50 years, never marries, is never unemployed, is never ill, and dies the day after his 65th birthday. He has poured money into the national insurance scheme, and has received nothing from it. What frightens me about the Government's argument is the use of the word "target". It is an aggressive word, which is normally used in wartime: people say that they will target this and target that. Moreover, once people introduce the idea of targeting, they are really saying that the whole principle of the welfare state must be rewritten.
      Why should the wealthy be able to call on the police when they can afford to pay for their own policing? Why should the wealthy be allowed to use the national health service, when they can afford to pay for their own health care? Why should the wealthy be allowed to call in the fire brigade, rather than returning to the old system of insurance? Under that system, those who were insured had a plate put on their houses and, if a house was on fire,

      681
      the insurance company would put the fire out. It is the principles underlying the Government's argument that I find difficult.
      It would not take long for the Government to say that they were targeting the poorest patients. That would mean saying, "If you need health care, we will help you, but you will be means-tested before you are given your operation." People would be means-tested before they went to school. They are already means-tested before they go to college. It is a question of will and philosophy. We are told every day that the Government's values are the same as the historic Labour values, but I am afraid that they are not.
      I have been a pensioner for 10 years today. The pensioners who come to my surgery are really angry. Let us make no mistake about this: people who have voted Labour all their lives say, "No one takes any notice of us. We cannot withdraw our labour, because we have already retired." They welcome the free television licences, the extra heating allowances and all the other little things, but some older pensioners remember the means test in the 1930s, when a man would be given some money only if he sold the piano. Not many people will remember that, but we hear stories about it.
      6.45 pm
      The whole idea of targeting is wrong. The pension is a benefit as of right: people pay for it while they are working. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, the administrative costs are almost nothing, because everyone receives the pension—which also means that people do not experience the humiliation of having to expose their finances to some probing officer.
      Income support, or what used to be called national assistance, is a safety net, which is entirely different from a benefit as of right. We do not want old people to feel that they are on probation. Pensioners have said to me, "I feel as if I have committed an offence. I must open my books before I can have enough to live on."
      I urge the Government to think again. I know that there is a shortage of money, but I think that a shortage of will is the real problem. The health service was set up when we were bankrupt, and there were no charges for that. I am the last Member who sat in this place when Aneurin Bevan was Minister for Health and I heard his resignation speech when prescription charges were introduced. If we are not careful, in the name of modernisation, we shall erode what we are all about—the idea of a national insurance scheme with universal benefits.
      A progressive income tax is about asking richer people to pay more to keep that scheme going. I am in favour of asking such people to pay more. I do not see why we should ring-fence the rich, and say that, whatever the Labour Government do, they will never ask the rich to pay more, because they will not increase income tax—but, of course, poorer people will be targeted and supervised and watched.
      I merely want to convey some of the disappointment, disillusionment, anger and frustration that is felt about the way in which this has been handled. The Government would be ill-advised to disregard my argument, because it is one that will also have to be tackled on polling day.
      Mr. Frank Field: I want to echo what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said about the view of many pensioners on our record so far.
      682
      Labour Members have rightly congratulated the Government on much of what they have done, which has significantly increased the income of some pensioners. The winter fuel allowance has been increased to £150 a week: that is a significant increase. [HON. MEMBERS: "£150 a year."] I mean £150 a year, but I hope that, after a few more Parliaments, what I said will come about. We also welcome the free television licences. However, it would be wrong for Ministers to assume that those two significant moves have reduced the genuine sense of grievance felt by many pensioners, a number of whom are extremely poor.
      Although the minimum income guarantee may help many pensioners, it will not help all of them, and it has led to a number of grievances—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) pointed out—on the part of people who have saved, and have managed to save only small amounts or could acquire only small additions to their company pension schemes. Those people are disqualified from the minimum income guarantee, although their income is less than that of others who qualify for income support and receive the guarantee.
      I received two letters recently—neither from a constituent. One came from a pensioner, who, as a widow, went back to work and acquired a small pension. She is £7 a week worse off than her neighbour, who did not acquire a smaller pension but who qualifies for the minimum income guarantee. She does not begrudge her neighbour that—her neighbour might well have saved a little, as the letter suggests, but did not do so—but she does not feel that she should be penalised.
      The second letter was from a pensioner in the east end. As she, too, receives a small work pension, she is not eligible for the minimum income guarantee. She is paying full rent and full council tax. After paying those two bills, she is left with £14.50 a week to pay for everything else. We would be foolish to think that there is not—to put it most gently—real concern about the issue not only among voters generally, but among some pensioners.
      As Dr. Johnson—like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), although in different words—said:
      when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.
      The Dissolution of Parliament is the hanging process in which we have to go back and face our voters. At this point in the Parliament, there is much in their pension's record for which we can give the Government credit, but I hope that we will not be fighting the next general election only on that record. The two new clauses in this group have been tabled to expand on that record.
      The Government always have to think about how £1 billion should be spent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak said, generally speaking, and for obvious reasons, the older the pensioner, the poorer he or she will be. If they have savings, they will have had to eat into them to ensure their own survival. Older pensioners have had less opportunity to make higher wages and to save greater sums, and they have had less chance of joining a company pension scheme. Therefore, although some older pensioners are—thank goodness—well placed, generally speaking, older pensioners are the poorest.
      When the debate ends, I hope that many hon. Members will vote for new clause 8. I say that not because I disagree with the sentiments that have been expressed—

      683
      or that we shall hear expressed later—on the general need for an increase in the state pension, but because I believe that the Government could most effectively use any given sum by significantly increasing the state pension for the oldest pensioners. However, as Labour Members have already said, it will not be adequate for us to go into a general election with only one single such action. We require a medley of actions to improve significantly the position of those pensioners who have not been able to include themselves in the bracket of those who are "well placed".
      For 20 years, when Labour was in opposition, I did not agree that we should increase the state pension in line with earnings. I am not likely now, when Labour is in government, to have a Pauline conversion on the matter—although I appreciate the strength of feeling on the issue of those who have always believed that the pension should be increased in line with earnings. However, I hope that Ministers, especially those who are arguing that we should do even more for pensioners, will use this debate to strengthen their hand—so that when we are "hanged in a fortnight" at the hands of the electorate, our pensions record is even better than it is now.
      The standard of living of some of our constituents is disgraceful, and any human being in our community should not have to survive in that way. The issue is urgent, and it will be pressed in the Lobby. However, when we press it, we shall do so to strengthen the hand of Ministers who are arguing not that all is fine on the western front, but that much more needs to be done.
      Mr. Corbyn: A few weeks ago, at Congress house, in Great Russell street, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and I addressed a conference of the Greater London Forum for the Elderly. It was a marvellous occasion, which was attended by more than 300 delegates from every single one of the London boroughs, who were unanimously agreed on three matters. The first was that, this week, far from a celebration, there will be deep anger at the size of the increase in the state pension. This week, as pensioners go into post offices to collect their pension and discover a 75p increase in it, they will be angry.
      Secondly, they were all angry because they realised that, from this month, across the country, many local authorities will be increasing council tax and charges for day centre use, home helps and home carers, meals on wheels, adult education and many other services. Those increased charges will wipe out the 75p increase many times over. Therefore, even with the increase, many pensioners will be worse off.
      Thirdly, the delegates were angry that—as many hon. Members have said today—many older pensioners are significantly worse off than other pensioners.
      The Minister will recall that, earlier in this Parliament, he gave various detailed parliamentary answers to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) which outlined the poverty levels among older pensioners, particularly older women pensioners—who have not had the opportunity to build up occupational pensions; who, in many cases, were too old to become involved in the state earnings-related pension scheme; and who are desperately poor. Age additions are insufficient to meet those pensioners' needs.
      684
      Although the free television licence and winter heating allowance are welcome, they are simply insufficient. The poverty in which older pensioners have to live is absolutely disgraceful. Women tend to live longer than men, and they tend to be poorer, colder and hungrier for it. It is simply immoral in our society to ignore the plight of many older pensioners.
      Older pensioners, unfortunately, are not the ones who are able to go along to pensioner forum meetings and demonstrations. I do not denigrate those who attend those events, but simply recognise that problems of age, infirmity and mobility make it impossible for many older pensioners to come along to express their point of view.
      It is good that the House is debating this issue this week. Nevertheless, we should also recall the history of the issue. First, I pay tribute to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I also wish him a very happy birthday; I hope that there are dozens more of them. I regret only that he will not have dozens more birthdays as a Member of Parliament. However, I am sure that his voice will be heard from outside the House, and that it will be like a breath of fresh air coming through an open widow.
      In 1980, the then incoming Conservative Government destroyed what had been achieved by the 1974 to 1979 Labour Government—who had taken the bold step of saying that, henceforth, pensioners should be able to share in the growing wealth of the rest of the community by linking pensions to earnings or prices, whichever was the higher rising in a given year. Those are precisely the terms of new clause 36, which was so ably spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). The Conservative Government's breach of the link has caused the state pension to decrease from 23 per cent.-plus of average earnings to about 14 per cent. of average earnings. It is continuing to decrease.
      Unless something is done to arrest that decline, the state pension will simply disappear as something that is worth claiming. Something similar happened with the dog licence. Although I am not particularly bothered about the dog licence, after a while, people stopped paying for it because it was so cheap. In 50 years, unless something is done to arrest the decline of the state pension, it, too, will be an insignificant detail.
      Mr. John Cryer: Like my hon. Friend, I shall be supporting new clause 36 in the Lobby. Is he aware that, if the state pension had been linked purely to prices since 1948, it would now be worth only £27 a week?
      Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. At current trends, in 2050, the state pension will be worth a similarly insignificant sum. We have to make the case to arrest the decline.
      I was first elected to the House in 1983, and I happily fought that general election on a pledge to restore the state pension's link with earnings. I fought the next general election on a pledge that we would increase the state pension by £5 and £8. In the subsequent election, we made a broadly similar pledge. In the following election, we said that we would increase the state pension at least in line with prices. We are only now increasing it exactly in line with prices. As any pensioner could tell us, however, those who buy in small quantities, in corner

      685
      shops and in declining high streets pay more than those who can drive their Volvo out of town to a hypermarket, where they buy in large quantities. Pensioners pay more to get less in many cases. We must recognise their outrage and anger.
      7 pm
      Worse was to come under the Conservatives, with the legislation introduced in 1985–86 by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), and by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who was then a junior Social Security Minister. They used bogus arguments against the state earnings-related pensions scheme, and misread the Government Actuary's report and used it to devalue SERPS, which was the secondary pension that everyone would be involved with. Over time, SERPS and the link with earnings would have guaranteed the lifting of all pensioners out of poverty. The Conservatives devalued SERPS to create a market for private pensions. I should like to know the final bill for the cruel mis-selling of private pensions during the latter years of the Tory Government.
      The incoming Labour Government were faced with serious problems. I pay tribute to the Government for introducing the free television licence and the winter heating allowance and for their recognition of the plight of the poorest pensioners. However, I have a serious question for the Minister. Some 1.5 million pensioners are entitled to income support, but do not claim it. There are various complex reasons for that, including pride, lack of information, lack of support or simply being unaware of their entitlement. Is there any certainty that the Government's proposed campaign will result in a significantly higher take-up of the minimum income guarantee? Are we going to spend a great deal money on a publicity campaign to promote the take-up of the minimum income guarantee, which will itself be expensive to administer? As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, the state pension costs 1.5 per cent. of its value to administer. The normal administration cost for a means-tested benefit is between 20 and 25 per cent. of its value, but the figure for the social fund moves up to the dizzy heights of 46 per cent. That means that we spend half the social fund telling people that they cannot have any of it. That does not seem a terribly sensible way of doing things.
      Mr. Rooker: We spend £100 billion on benefits. The Department has a running cost of £3.5 billion. I know that the figures are different for different benefits, but the figures for 1997–98 show that the administration costs of income support were 6 per cent. of benefit expenditure. The figure for retirement pensions is 0.9 per cent. A means-tested benefit will inevitably cost more because of the calculations involved, but the figure is nothing like the 20 per cent. that my hon. Friend is quoting.
      Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for that intervention. He has confirmed my argument that it costs six times as much to administer a means-tested benefit as it does to administer a direct benefit. I should be interested to see the figures for the administration costs of the minimum income guarantee when it gets going. Would it not be better if that money went into the pockets of pensioners? I shall move on, because I do not want to take up too much time.
      686
      The cost of administration is a serious issue, but the underlying principle is also important. The proposal will cost a lot of money without helping many of the poorest pensioners. It will also increase the market for private pensions. I belong to the school in the Labour party that believes that the welfare state should be universal. We should provide for all and we should tax for all on a fair basis. I have no problem with the state pension going to every retired person, because if pensioners have a great deal of other income, it will be recouped through taxation.
      However, many pensioners feel keenly the problems of poverty traps. With a small occupational pension, they can lose out on housing benefit and other passported benefits. We have to address that issue. We should aim to eliminate pensioner poverty. As the state pension is the building block of the pensions system, it must rise in line with earnings. If rising in line with earnings is good enough for the minimum income guarantee, the same rule should apply to the state pension.
      Let us put the issue the other way round. If the political will was not there in 1980 to maintain the link with earnings and it is apparently not here in 2000, who is to say that some future Chancellor in five or 10 years, when life is not so easy and there is not so much money about, will not decide to break the minimum income guarantee link with earnings? That would leave pensioners with a declining income once again. The Minister should think seriously about the anger of pensioners across the country. Younger people who think that pensioners deserve to be treated better are also demanding the relinking with earnings.
      I should also like the Minister to explain the issue at the heart of the debate. He mentioned the growth in the number of pensioner households that is expected over the next 40 or 50 years. That is clearly an issue that we can, must, should and will face. If there are more pensioners, providing for them will cost more. That is the price of a civilised society. We should pay for people to live in decency in retirement. I am alarmed to read the proposal in the Government's Green Paper on pensions to reduce from 60 to 40 per cent. the proportion of the cost that the Government pay in support for pensioners. That is a pointer towards the idea that people should make their own private pension provision during their working life. Private pensions cost more to administer, are less secure and generally provide less at the end than the security of a state communal system. That is where the socialist and social democratic parties of Europe came in, demanding a welfare state that was inclusive of all.
      I do not expect that we shall be successful in the vote tonight, but I hope that those in government who are arguing for a relink with earnings and who recognise the justice of the pensioners' case that they are hearing on the doorstep and in the high streets will at least have more power to their elbow to argue for justice for the elderly of this country.
      During the previous three Parliaments, I introduced private Members' Bills to try to give effect to that principle. I have not done so during this Parliament, because I believed that we would achieve justice for pensioners. I am sorry to tell the Minister that 1 am not happy with the Government's policies on this. We should restore the link with earnings and, over time, revalue the pension to its original level. That would be justice for the pensioners of this country.

      687
      It is said that a civilisation can be judged on how well it treats its elderly. We are not doing enough for our elderly and the very elderly are doing very badly. It is time that we addressed that issue.
      Mr. Webb: I shall make a brief contribution, reflecting on some of what has been said so far. I thank the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) for their support for the principle of higher pensions for older pensioners. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead has been such a powerful advocate of the cause that I find myself receiving letters from pensioners asking why I do not follow his lead on that.
      I should like to comment on the Conservative approach to the new clauses. The contribution of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) was thoughtful as far as it went. He said that he was concerned about today's pensioners, but did not support a means-tested response, a universal response or a targeted response by age. It was not clear where that rejection of all three options—the two advocated in the new clauses and the third in the minimum income guarantee—left the Conservatives. I am not sure whether we are going to hear from those on the Conservative Front Bench.
      Mr. Pickles: We are.
      Mr. Webb: That is reassuring. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has said that the Conservatives would simply have put 75p on the state pension and that any further response would have to wait for a manifesto. We have reached a sad state when the supposed principal Opposition party has no policy on the basic state pension.
      The Government has accepted the principle of a higher pension for the over-75s by introducing the free television licence for those pensioners only. When the Chancellor announced that in the Budget, he said that he had been asked to put money on the pension but was going to use television licences, presumably because of the political attractiveness of the issue rather than any reason of substance.
      When asked why the extra money was not put on the basic state pension, Treasury Ministers say that it is because the benefit is taxable. As we have heard, many of us support taxable universal benefits, with the better-off paying something back, freeing up extra money for the basic pension, so the fact that the benefit is taxable is no defence at all.
      The other defence is that the money would not go to the poorest pensioners, but, as the hon. Member for Selly Oak said, the poorest pensioners are those who do not take up their entitlements. The proposals in the new clauses are well targeted and would benefit the poorest pensioners, so I do not know why the Government do not support them.
      Two new clauses are on offer. New clause 8 is our party policy. New clause 36, on the earnings link, is not but we will support it because we now have a Government who do not believe in the basic state pension. They had hundreds of millions of pounds to give to pensioners, and the money has gone on the means test, the capital limits, the television licence, the prescriptions, the winter fuel
      688
      payments—everything but the basic state pension. We support the idea that the basic state pension should have not a funeral march but a future. Our preferred mechanism is new clause 8, but if that does not succeed we will support new clause 36 as a statement of our continuing belief in the basic state pension.
      Mrs. Alice Mahon: I support new clause 36. I welcome the help given to pensioners in the Budget. I am a practical person, and I have the figures. In Halifax, 18,000 pensioners were helped by the increase in the winter fuel allowance and by the free eye tests. Those measures are worth £3 a week to a household, so they should not be ignored. Because people seem to live a long time in West Yorkshire, I also welcome the free television licences from which thousands in my constituency will benefit, but I give notice that I would like the qualifying age to come down to 65 in the next Budget.
      I also welcome the abolition of VAT on fuel, the help with transport and the increase in the savings threshold. Furthermore, I am aware that the allocation of £8 million to Calderdale and Kirklees health authority will help pensioners more than any other group—and quite rightly, as they introduced the national health service and fully deserve that help.
      However, I am firmly convinced, and always have been, of the arguments for restoring the earnings link. That is why I shall vote for new clause 36. What is more, I believe that I speak for the majority of pensioners, especially in Halifax, when I say that they need a substantial rise in the basic pension now, and the restoration of the earnings link as soon as possible.
      I listen to pensioners. Before tonight's debate, I looked through all the submissions to the Green Paper "A new contract for welfare: partnership in pensions". One response was a booklet, "The Unwanted Generation", published by the National Pensioners Convention. In the foreword, Jack Jones, who has been a stalwart fighter for pensioners, says:
      We published our written submissions (Pensions, not Poor Relief) in March 1998. They amounted to a comprehensive and sustainable programme of reform, taking account of the needs of both today's and tomorrow's pensioners. We stressed the need to make good the loss of the value of the basic pension resulting from the breaking of the link with average earnings, and to restore the link for the future.
      I could have brought along a dozen publications giving such advice in response to the Green Paper, and I really wish that the Government had taken that advice.
      I have listened to Ministers' arguments about targeting and affordability, and I simply disagree with them. Elderly people think that they have a right to a non-means-tested pension. The arguments about the stigma and shame that some elderly people feel when they have to fill in forms and claim what they see as handouts have been well put. I really hope that the publicity that we are about to mount to ensure that the 1.5 million poorest pensioners take up their entitlements is successful, but I suspect that many of them will still slip through the net.
      7.15 pm
      If we are genuinely committed to helping pensioners—the Budget proves to some extent that we are—and want to convince a quarter of the people in our society that we will give them the security in old age that they deserve, we must restore the link with average earnings.

      689
      I have listened for years to the argument that wealthy pensioners will benefit if we restore the link. So what? They have contributed, too. I want to keep them in the system, contributing to the NHS and to everything else that makes society worth while. We have a tax system and we could use it, paying out at one end and taking at the other. There is nothing wrong with redistribution. I was brought up on it in my many, many years in the Labour party.
      I give the last word to Baroness Castle and Professor Peter Townsend, two eminent fighters for social justice if ever there were two. In line with what everyone else with a real interest in pensioners said in response to the Green Paper, their excellent pamphlet, "We CAN afford the Welfare State"—I believe that, as one of the richest countries in the world, we can—said:
      We must resurrect the basic pension as the foundation of security in old age for everyone. This means the restoration of the earnings link for future annual upratings.
      I believe that, and I hope that many hon. Members will join us in the Lobby tonight.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I support new clause 36. It was, however, right and proper that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and others paid tribute to the Government's achievements. I sincerely believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government are genuinely committed to creating a more tolerable society, as reflected in matters as diverse as constitutional reform, the peace process in Northern Ireland and tackling racism and other evils that bedevil our society.
      That more tolerable society is a wholly admirable objective, but our society is intolerable because of the demeaning position and the humiliation that our elderly people suffer. In the past few days, several of my elderly constituents have said that they warmly welcome the increase in the winter fuel allowance and the concession on television licences. Down the years, I have supported those measures, admirably campaigned for by my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and others who have worked to make life more tolerable for our elderly citizens.
      We have to do more, and one of our objectives, as a party in government, with the history to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referred, is to ensure that life becomes more tolerable for our elderly people. The other day, an old fellow, when talking about his bitter disappointment with the Government, reminded me—I confess that I needed reminding—that it was Charles de Gaulle who said that old age is a shipwreck. He told me that what makes old age so hazardous for him and for many of his neighbours is the rottenness of the treatment that they suffered under Tory Governments and the present Government's failure to do more for them, so I make that plea to the Government: they must seriously address the plight of elderly people.
      I guess that I am not alone in having an elderly forum in my constituency; I think that just about every constituency in the UK now has such a forum. My local one is led by a formidable female by the name of Mrs. Nell McFadden. As people say in the west of Scotland, if she is angry with someone, she does not miss
      690
      them and hit the wall. At some heated meetings that I have attended in recent times, she and her colleagues have said to me that they are bitterly disappointed although they greatly appreciate what has been done by the Government, which is in dramatic contrast with how they were treated by the odd job lot opposite when they were in power for so long.
      I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) that, in Scotland, disaffected elderly constituents do have a choice. Very few of them vote Conservative, rightly, but they can choose to vote for the infant Scottish Socialist party or the Scottish National party, both of which play to the gallery on the issue. [Interruption.] I remember Ayr well, and so should the Conservative party because it was the first election that it had won in many years. There are no Conservative Members representing Scotland in this place. I suspect that that will last for some years, but that is another story.
      If we are to honour our obligations to elderly citizens, we must lift them out of poverty. Up to now, we have failed them because we have not done that. With regret, I shall vote against the Government. I will vote for new clause 36 because it has long been my aim to restore the link, which was cruelly taken away from elderly people by the Conservatives when they were in power.
      Many of the people whom I represent are in their 70s, 80s or 90s. Because of the occupation that they followed—many experienced long periods of unemployment—they never had the opportunity to save money for their elderly and declining years. We must restore dignity and respect to their lives.
      The Government are doing that with some of their measures. In that regard, their achievements are admirable, but more must be done. If it means taxing those with the money, so be it. I have always argued for a progressive tax system. If we must have such a system to make life better for elderly people, that is what we should have. They deserve better from us and, at the moment, we are failing them.
      Ms Abbott: I support new clause 36. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). For many more years than he cares to remember, he has been an advocate for the elderly and taken up this issue, in season and out of season, on the Floor of the House.
      As many Members have said, if there is one group of people that feels let down by the Government, it is pensioners because, for 20 long years, we promised them the restoration of the link with earnings. Many of us are speaking to the two new clauses, but I am surprised that many more are not doing so because each and every Labour Member must hear what I hear from pensioners in my constituency about their disappointment in respect of the failure to restore the link. I suspect, perhaps unfairly, that those Labour Members who troop through the Lobby against the new clause will not publicise the fact in their constituencies.
      If I were not aware of the real feeling among pensioners about the issue, members of my local Hackney pensioners forum would have ensured that I was. I pay tribute to Hackney pensioners, who are some of the most vigorous and forthright in the land, although some Members might contest that claim.

      691
      Pensioners are not easily fooled. They cannot be deluded with spin, announcements and re-announcements. They know that they were promised one thing for many years while we were in opposition and that, now we are in government, suddenly those promises are out of the window. They have observed that. All the spin in the world and all the articles drafted by Alastair Campbell will not distract pensioners' attention from that.
      Ministers have said, and will say again tonight, that many pensioners are better off. That is true. Those with occupational pensions and so on are better off, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), most of the pensioners whom I represent did not have jobs which made it possible for them to have a big occupational pension and other benefits. The pensioners whom I see are among the poorest.
      In 2000, poor pensioners are seeing their income shrink alongside the erosion of social service provision, which pensioners in particular rely on. It is bad enough that the value of the pension is being eroded, but if, as is certainly happening in my part of London, pensioners are seeing cuts in the home help service, charges for that service, cuts in day-care services and cuts in adult education, that makes the decline in the state pension ever more acute. The safety net of social security provision, which they have come to rely on, is being eroded by overall cuts in public expenditure, not to mention—I hope to address the House on the matter on another occasion—the chaos in housing benefit in many local authorities throughout the country, which is hurting the elderly in particular.
      Members have spelled out the case against means-testing. It is a disincentive to save. It is six times more expensive to administer means-tested benefits, as the Minister has admitted, than to pay a universal pension.
      The thing that weighs with me most about means-tested benefits and pensioners is that more than any other single group in the land—more than the disabled or lone mothers—it is pensioners who feel the stigma of such benefits. If there is one group that should be excluded from having to claim means-tested benefits, it is pensioners.
      As I know from personal experience in my family, many pensioners, through sheer pride alone, will not claim means-tested benefits. Ministers talk about the minimum income guarantee and urge reliance by pensioners on means-tested benefits. They know that, however effective the take-up campaign, a considerable number of pensioners will not claim because of the stigma and the association.
      Kali Mountford: Can my hon. Friend explain why people do not feel the same stigma when applying for housing benefit and council tax benefit?
      Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend has not been here for the entire debate, but let me explain. When she has been a Member of Parliament for a considerable time—[Interruption.] When she has done that, she will know that pensioners believe that they are entitled to a pension as of right. What pensioners want is a basic income as of right. They do not want to ask for what they perceive as handouts in the form of means-tested benefits. If she does not believe me, I suggest that she discusses that with
      692
      pensioners in her constituency. Furthermore, the ultimate problem for pensioners who do not claim housing benefit is that they will be evicted, but—I am surprised that she makes that point—I cannot overstate the extent to which pensioners believe that they are entitled to a basic income as of right and should not have to claim for means-tested benefits.
      7.30 pm
      Kali Mountford: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
      Ms Abbott: No, I have to make some progress. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not aware of the strength of feeling among pensioners. If she has any doubt about pensioners' fear of the stigma attached to claiming means-tested benefits, she should come to the next meeting of the Hackney pensioners forum. That will remove her confusion.
      As has been said, pensioners appreciate the free television licences being granted to those over 75, and the fuel provision. However, they want the long-promised rise in the basic pension to be implemented and the link restored.
      Members of the Labour party across the country also want that link restored. By any test of opinion—a postal ballot, say, or an electoral college—that is what most party members want. I served for a few years on the party's national executive committee. I well remember the 1996 party conference, at which a composite resolution, heavily supported by the constituencies and trade unions, called for the restoration of the link.
      Behind the scenes, there was a momentous battle to prevent that resolution from going to a vote. The hapless delegate who was to move the resolution was told by the then shadow Chancellor that, if he went ahead and moved it, he would be responsible for losing Labour the next general election. The same shadow Chancellor telephoned that delegate's constituency party chairman with the same message.
      Delegates buckled under the incredible pressure exerted by officials and the shadow Cabinet. The composite was moved by Baroness Castle, in a brilliant speech—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am well aware of the background activities at that Labour party conference. However, the hon. Lady has made her point, and should keep to the amendment.
      Ms Abbott: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for acting as a witness to internal Labour party matters, but I will not dwell on those sadnesses.
      However, my point is that Labour party members—from the left, right and centre of the party—feel just as disappointed as pensioners. Even at this late stage, Ministers should consider their position on the matter.
      The Government are willing to give out money for fuel relief and free television licences, so why will they not do anything about the basic pension? There may be several reasons. Labour Members and pensioners forums around the country may not have put their case compellingly enough. Perhaps the Government want to keep overall public expenditure within the limits set by the Maastricht treaty—but I will not delay the House with such speculation.

      693
      For 10 long years as a Member of Parliament, I have attended meetings of the Hackney pensioners forum. I would tell them of the party's commitment on the matter, and the pensioners would talk about what would happen when the Labour party got into power. The Labour party is in power now, and 20 years of commitment to restoring the link has gone out of the window. Many pensioners will be left in poverty, despite the take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee. The sadness is that, after waiting so long for a Labour Government, pensioners are being failed by that Government. What hope have they now?
      I urge Ministers to re-examine this matter, which is at the heart of the concerns felt by many Labour party members across the country.
      Mr. John Austin: Some of the relevant figures may explain why there is so much anger among pensioners. The basic pension is £67.50 a week, or £107.90 for a couple. If the previous Conservative Government had not broken the link, those amounts would have been £97.45 and £155.80—£30 and almost £50 a week higher, respectively.
      How can people live on the basic pension? Many do not live on it, but merely survive. Sadly, some do not even do that, as the figures for hypothermia show.
      I accept everything said by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) about all the material benefits that the Government have given to pensioners. There is no doubt that pensioners are immeasurably better off than they would have been under Conservative spending plans and policies. We must remind ourselves that when the Leader of the Opposition talks about reducing taxation, he does so in the context of reducing spending on welfare. We know from the record of Conservative Governments in the past that tax cuts come from breaking the link between pensions and earnings.
      We must bear in mind the feelings of pensioners, despite the benefits that have come from the Labour Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said to me, the increase for a single pensioner on the basic pension this year was less than the price of half a pint of beer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North pointed out so clearly, the rate of inflation for pensioners is much higher than for other members of the community, as they cannot make savings through cheap shopping, bulk buying, and so on.
      The Government may argue that the cost of restoring pensions to what would have obtained had the link not been broken is too high and cannot be afforded. However, raising the pension level to that of the minimum income guarantee would cost about half as much, and I urge the Government to take that option.
      I have talked to Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, about this matter. I have been told about the cost, and that money put on the basic pension would not reach those most in need. However, the fuel allowance represents an inconsistency on the Government's part. It is universal and goes to everyone but, unlike pensions, it is not taxable. That benefit therefore goes to everyone, irrespective of income, and the Government cannot claw it back from the better off.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) spoke about means testing. She pointed out the problems associated with it: she said that it was a
      694
      disincentive to saving, and that, wherever the threshold or limit was set, some pensioners would be placed in a poverty trap.
      From our surgeries, all hon. Members will be familiar with people whose few pounds a week from occupational pensions remove them from eligibility for means-tested benefits. The Minister intervened earlier and admitted that it cost six times as much to administer means-tested benefits as it did to administer universal benefits.
      Mr. Rooker: I intervened to give the facts. It is six times more expensive to administer means-tested benefits, but not 25 times more expensive, as had been claimed.
      Mr. Austin: I am using the figure that the Minister gave—that it cost six times as much to administer means-tested benefits. However, that does not include the cost of a take-up campaign. Half my constituency is in the borough of Greenwich, which has one of the best welfare rights units in the country. The Conservatives have criticised the council for spending council tax money on a job that should have been done by the Department of Social Security.
      I think the job is better done by people outside the Benefits Agency, and the take-up campaigns have put hundreds of thousands of pounds into the pockets of the poorest people in the borough. However—perhaps because of the associated stigma, or for some other reason—hundreds of thousands of people do not claim their entitlement. A million people who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee are probably not claiming it.
      If we continue to uprate the basic pension in line with inflation, it will be worth half its current value by 2040. The argument for linking pensions with earnings is so that elderly people can share in the increased wealth of the country. Those who argue for a link with prices say that at least that maintains the purchasing power of pensioners. Hon. Members have shown that it does not.
      I wonder how many hon. Members read the report this morning about the rising cost of funerals. Someone from the National Association of Funeral Directors said that funerals may have increased above the rate of inflation, but they have fallen in relation to average earnings. So not only do pensioners suffer in life: they are penalised in death.
      Mr. Frank Cook: I have just returned today from a week in which I was leading a delegation from the NATO parliamentary assembly which was looking into nuclear matters in the Czech Republic. We also visited the comprehensive test ban treaty preparatory commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, both in Vienna. What has that to do with the debate? It is this—I was told this evening that a debate had taken place on this topic in the parliamentary Labour party meeting on Wednesday, that it had been a good debate and that everyone was satisfied. I was asked why I was going to vote against the Government, because as soon as I knew that this was to be debated on the Floor of the House, I sent a note saying that I have always promoted the concept of a link between earnings and pensions, so I would support new clause 36. I was told, "We have already had the debate." I said that I had not been there. When asked where I had been, I explained. I was told, "We did not know you were absent."

      695
      What does that say about how much I count for in the House? I am noticed only if I threaten to vote against the Government. I offer this explanation for people who have not been here as long as I have.
      I confess that I have a vested interest in the debate. I am 65 this year, and I do not know what will happen to me. The outcome of the debate may matter to me next year. However, that is a facetious remark.
      Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The hon. Gentleman is an extremely good example of a person with a substantial pension to come as well as his retirement pension from the state. He has no need for an increase above inflation in any event, because he is one of those with a second pension.
      Mr. Cook: I remind my honourable colleague—I am not sure whether he is a Friend yet—that, come the day, I shall enjoy paying my income tax. That is a distinction that many people miss. We are talking about people whose income is so paltry that they will be unable to pay income tax on their benefits.
      7.45 pm
      I have the greatest respect, in a fraternal sense, for some of my colleagues. I watched the performance of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) in Committee, and I admire her ability. Yet from a sedentary position, she said that she had spent 25 years in public service. I am sure that she spent 25 very praiseworthy years in the service. If that is the case, she should remember a time when pensioners were provided for better than they are today, or will be tomorrow.
      Kali Mountford: Not according to the report.
      Mr. Cook: If my hon. Friend has the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure she will be able to make her case.
      Another colleague for whom I have great respect and admiration said that the Tories are loving this. They might well be—
      Mr. Field: If they were here.
      Mr. Cook: Yes. It would be one of the few times the Tories have enjoyed something that is true. The truth is coming out of the debate tonight. The people who do not enjoy differences among Labour Members will be the pensioners—the people to whom we have given these promises year after year, election after election. I have been an associate member of the Teesside pensioners' association since 1971. I qualify for full compliance next year, and I will be proud to do so.
      I appeal to Ministers to listen to the arguments—arguments that they themselves have made repeatedly in the past. I appeal to colleagues who perhaps have more of an eye on career development than on the retention of
      696
      principle—[Interruption.] I invite my colleagues who think that that is a dirty remark to stand up and be dirty in return.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened to the debate throughout. As we do not want to lower its tone, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should not use such language.
      Mr. Cook: I accept your reprimand, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I withdraw that comment—which I do unreservedly—I am at a loss to establish the motive for the stance that has been adopted or espoused by some of my hon. Friends.
      I appeal to Ministers to listen to the arguments. I appeal to those who support the Government on this matter to listen to the arguments. I hope that we will have the opportunity to change course, even at this late stage.
      Kali Mountford: I had not intended to speak in the debate. I sat through the debate all day last Wednesday, I have been sitting here expectantly from 3.30 this afternoon listening to the debate on a range of issues relating to the Bill, and I served in Committee. However, I rise to speak because I feel that I have been patronised more thoroughly today than I have been in a long time.
      I have worked in public service since I was 20 and have been, for a substantial amount of that time, involved in the voluntary sector. I have come across many people in many circumstances, particularly those who felt stigmatised when income support was related not just to pensions but to all parts of the benefits system.
      Having thoroughly supported the Minister of State when he supported a link with earnings, I do so no longer, and for very good reason. State benefits, and pensions in particular, have changed since then. If I felt that a continued policy of a retained link with earnings gave a particular benefit to all pensioners, I would support it. I even went so far as to write to the Chancellor when the link with prices showed that the sum would be derisory.
      I was concerned about that, but to be frank, it was because it looked bad, not because it was bad in principle or because I felt that there were people who were more deserving. I mean, 70p just does not sound good. Hand on heart—it was not because I thought that that was the right thing to do.
      When I listened to the Budget statement, things changed radically for me, and I looked more closely at our own reports, what we were really saying and what we were trying to achieve.
      Mr. Stephen Pound: I appreciate that it may not look good, but is my hon. Friend aware that, over the past 15 years, the annual monetary increase in pensions has swung from 40p one year to £5.17 another year? We cannot make an argument about whether it looks good. It is linked with inflation—that is the reason for those figures.
      Kali Mountford: Obviously, if it is linked with inflation, that is the reason for the figures. However, we must look at the total amount of pensioner income. I do not believe that re-linking pensions with earnings would necessarily benefit all pensioners in all circumstances.
      The new clause would create a catch-all safety valve enabling us to offer the biggest pension increase possible at any time. I am not sure that that would be the wisest

      697
      use of public money. Why give large one-off increases to pensioners? The increase of £100 to £150, for example, seems huge. Why provide that rather than increasing the amount of money that we can give pensioners in line with earnings? The answer is simple, and it has nothing to do with taxation. Doing that helps pensioners who need it most, and it does so most swiftly, most effectively and most efficiently. It deals with the poverty gap.
      I advise my hon. Friends to read page 25 of "The Changing Welfare State", volume 2, which shows the growing gap between the poorest and richest pensioners since 1979. Clearly, there has been a vast change in pensioner incomes. If we wish to affect the lives of those about whom I care most—the poorest pensioners—there are several things that we must do.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend points to the growing gap. Has not that gap grown while the basic state pension has been linked to prices, not earnings?
      Kali Mountford: If my hon. Friend reads the report closely, she will find that there has been a huge increase in occupational and private pensions, which have changed what we should do for pensioners. We must target resources on people who have never had access to occupational or private pensions, which is why I support the second state pension, which will give money to carers, people with disabilities and those on low incomes who have not had access to second pensions. The minimum income guarantee, which includes the safeguard of a link with earnings, will lift people in poverty out of it. We must do something to close the poverty gap.
      I have heard nothing in the debate that would help to close the gap. We want to lift people out of poverty and make a real difference to their lives, and the Government's pensions policies do that. I have heard nothing to make me think that a return to a link with earnings would make an instant difference to people's lives.
      Mr. Field: My hon. Friend says that she has heard nothing said that would lessen the gap between richer and poorer pensioners. In fact, we are having two debates, and one of them is about ensuring a much more substantial state retirement pension for the oldest pensioners. Does anything in the volume to which she has referred disprove the point that one of the most effective moves we could make to combat poverty among the oldest pensioners would be an increase of, say, £15 in the state pension for people aged over 80?
      Kali Mountford: Obviously, a sudden huge increase would put money in people's pockets. How could I dispute that? We all know that the oldest pensioners receive the least and are the most likely to be in poverty. That is why I support the £150, which, rather than going through hoops, goes straight into people's pockets without a means test, and which is not discounted against means-tested benefits. I support it as a quick, efficient and effective means of getting money to people.
      We have taken great strides towards helping those in the greatest need, including policies such as free television licences for those aged over 75. Some people in my constituency have said that that is patronising, but several have stopped me in the street to say that they are pleased with what I am doing and that it has changed their lives—
      698
      and that does not happen often. An elderly constituent told me that she had received a £100 cheque in the same week as a £130 fuel bill. That makes a significant difference to people's lives; and that elderly person told me that she will be 75 this year, so she will receive a free television licence. She did not feel patronised; she felt a real difference to her life.
      Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have received not a single complaint about pensioners feeling patronised about the television licence or winter heating payments? The opposite is the case. Time and again, pensioners asked why Conservative Governments refused to help, and they feel no more patronised about television licences and winter fuel than they do about bus passes. Indeed, they would be deeply offended if the bus pass were taken away.
      Kali Mountford: My hon. Friend is right. Nor do pensioners feel patronised when they make claims for housing or council tax benefit. We must tackle the stigmatisation of particular benefits, and not just for pensioners. Across the board, people feel stigmatised if they think that benefits are not theirs of right. The Government must tell people that they have worked all their lives—in the home, as carers for elderly parents or someone who was disabled, on low pay, as part-time earners or as a disabled person who was unable to work—and that we all value them. We must tell them that extra income will go into their pockets not as a stigmatised, means-tested benefit but because it is theirs of right. The minimum income guarantee is theirs of right, and we should launch a take-up campaign beyond anything ever done before.
      Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am sorry to say that I cannot follow all my hon. Friend's arguments very well. Does she agree that even if pensioners claimed all their means-tested income support and did not feel that there was a stigma, that would not alter the fact that means testing is not right? We want a higher, non-means-tested state pension.
      Kali Mountford: I do not hold the same view as my hon. Friend. In all my time dealing with benefits, it troubled me that people stigmatised that sort of benefit. By doing so, we make it difficult to get benefits to people even when it is their right to have them. We should make it clear that people have a right to the benefits that the country has decided belong to them. As long as we talk in the way my hon. Friend does, we shall demean what we seek to do as a state and a Government.
      It is right to put money in people's pockets. I am very disturbed by some of what I have heard today. I do not think it right to demean people. We should put money into the pockets of those who need it, and that is what we are doing.
      Mrs. Lait: I shall not speak for long because I do not want to intrude on family grief. I have been interested to see that we face two parties—one below the Gangway and one above it, although even that distinction is beginning to splinter. I hope that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) will not think me patronising if I say that she made a brave speech. That was a difficult thing to do in face of the emotional appeals made on behalf of elderly pensioners.

      699
      I hope that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will accept congratulations from everyone in the Opposition on his birthday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Everyone?"] I am sure that everyone would wish a happy birthday to such a pillar of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman, as so often, put his finger on a good point. He mentioned the compact between the generations on which the whole national insurance system is built. The compact implies that those who pay should be prepared to do so. One reason for the break in 1980 between earnings and prices was a fear felt by the Conservative Government that the pay-as-you-go system would put an intolerable weight on the current generation. It was feared that the compact that produced national insurance benefits would be broken in the long run. We need only consider the structure of the population to realise that generations behind us—it will not be long before I can claim my pension, although I am not planning to retire—will ask whether it can afford me. That is the real problem.
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Cheap.
      Mrs. Lait: They probably do feel that they cannot afford me, because I am not cheap. However, I would just point out that I am just one of very many people.
      8 pm
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Surely the existence of a basic state pension to which everyone contributes reinforces solidarity between the generations rather than the reverse. People have to make provision, whether by pay-as-you-go into a state system or by paying into a private system.
      Mrs. Lait: The hon. Lady has rather missed the point, which is that if there is no money left in someone's pocket to pay for private provision, they will resent paying too much for the older generation. That is the point that needs to be addressed.
      Mr. Tony Benn: Pensioners have been productive during their lives. If the hon. Lady really wants an example of a completely non-productive unit, she should visit a hospital where babies are delivered. Not a single baby has ever produced a profit for anybody. A visit to such a hospital exposes the outrageousness of the argument that we cannot afford to look after old people. I visited the hospital in Chesterfield; I was shown round by an accountant. When we came to the premature baby unit, she said, "This is the most expensive part of the business." If premature babies are uneconomic units, why should we pay for them? The hon. Lady has misunderstood the whole purpose of the welfare state.
      Mrs. Lait: I think the point is that the premature baby who, luckily, because of the national health service, can survive, is the future payer of our pensions. That is the crucial thing, and that is why we need to ensure that all those pensioners who can are able to pick up all the benefits that are available. That is why the Conservative Government ran campaigns to encourage people to take up all the benefits; and we wish the Government well with their campaign on the minimum income guarantee.
      700
      I hope that the Government can crack the stigma and turn the issue into a matter of rights. As the hon. Member for Colne Valley said—and I am sure that my hon. Friends do not disagree—it is people's right; they have paid in, and they should accept their benefits without feeling any stigma. I sincerely hope that the Government's campaign works.
      I understand that the Government believe that about 600,000 people are eligible for the minimum income guarantee, not 1.5 million—doubtless the Minister will make that clear. In any case, we need to ensure that those people who need more benefits get them.
      We should also bear in mind the fact that one of the reasons why so many pensioners are so angry at the 75p increase is that they have been on the receiving end of the hidden stealth taxes that the Government and the Lib-Lab pacts that run so many local councils are piling on to council tax and all the other services that people receive through local authorities. Pensioners would not feel nearly so aggrieved if those stealth taxes had not been dumped on local authorities to enable the Government to sustain the hope of keeping their promise on income tax so that they do not offend the heartlands or middle England.
      Mr. Rooker: I shall do my best to respond to the debate, which I applaud. As I mentioned at Social Security questions today, a couple of weeks ago the Government arranged for a three-hour debate in Westminster Hall on pensions reform, and one Back Bencher turned up, who happened to be a Labour MP. I notice the dearth of any attempt at a debate by Conservative MPs on this important issue.
      I am in no way, in anything that I have to say, criticising the fact that new clause 36 has been tabled for debate, because that is what this place is for; the day we forget that, we might as well all pack it in. Nevertheless, I cannot accept all the arguments, even though, as I happily admit, I have made many of them myself in the past—indeed, more than most. [Laughter.] Well, I have. I suspect that I have attended more meetings of pensioners at factory gates and in pensioner groups, in trade unions and at particular companies, and more meetings of the National Pensioners Convention, than most hon. Members, simply because I have been in this place for 26 years.
      I argued the toss up and down the country in 1983, 1987 and 1992, on the Labour manifesto of restoring the link, using the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned—£5 and £8. At the end of each election I went back to my constituents—I never really left them—and told them, "I am sorry; I did all the speeches but we lost. We have not even got a crumb off the table."
      We lost every single election at which we made those commitments. My hon. Friends should start to think about why we lost all those elections. We made absolutely firm, positive commitments: no one was in any doubt about their clarity, because the manifesto promise even included the figures in pounds—£5 and £8. That was absolutely clear and unequivocal. No one could have doubted what we would do, but we did not get the chance to do it. I am not saying that we lost for that reason. We lost because people did not believe, by and large, that we could deliver the overall package that we were proposing: they thought, "Economically, it don't make sense".

      701
      At the last general election we made a different, more modest, commitment—more modest in the sense that we made the commitment of using the basic state pension as the building block. We said that it would not be means-tested, that it would rise at least in line with prices—which 1 accept is what has happened in the first three years of this Government—and that pensioners would also share, in ways that were not specified, in the wider economic gains of the country.
      I must tell my hon. Friends that this debate really should not be an argument for or against the means tests; it is much narrower than that. However, if my hon. Friends want to have the argument about whether pensioners should or should not be means-tested, they cannot ignore the past. The last Labour Government introduced the link between the pension and earnings or prices—whichever was the higher. I was here, and I was proud of what that Government did. We even raised pensions twice in one year. I might add that the reason why that we did it was that there was no annual pension increase before the Labour Government of 1974. There were some years—four or five since 1948, and always under a Tory Government—in which there was no increase whatever.
      We also maintained that link in a period of extremely high inflation. Both prices and earnings inflation were into the teens or the early twenties. The figures were astronomical—no doubt about it. But we introduced that pledge, and we carried it out. I know that it is a nit-picking point to say that, in the four years in which we did so, we got it wrong three times out of four because a system of forecasting was used rather than the historical system that we use now. In April, the Minister used to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "I think that, in November, earnings will be a certain figure and prices will be a certain figure. This is the higher of the two, so we are fixing the pension"—it had to be fixed 20 weeks in advance. When we reached November, in three years out of four, the figure was not quite right; and in one year, our forecast of which would be the greater of earnings and prices was wrong. We really got it in the neck for being wrong, even though there were often substantial monetary increases—although not real-terms increases.
      In 1979, when we got the boot, we had what looked like a good track record, because there had been a real increase in the pension package over those four years. And when we got to 1979, anyone would have thought that we had done so well that we had got the pensioners off the means test.
      I regret the fact that there are pensioners on the means test. I wish that we had a policy that would enable us to declare, "We guarantee that, in a year's time, no pensioner will be subject to the means test." As I said at Social Security questions today, even with our current package of so many measures, we cannot say that. We can get the number of means-tested pensioners down to one in five from one in three, but one in five is still a large number of people. Even today, some 28 per cent. of new pensioners go on to the means test. Today, 40 per cent. of all pensioners are on means-tested benefits.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Rooker: No; not at the moment—not until I have made the point that I wanted to make about 1979. In 1979,
      702
      when we left office, after those halcyon days of the link, 57 per cent. of pensioners were still on means-tested benefits—millions, more than half of all pensioners. So we have to ask ourselves, what has happened between then and now? The answer, in a nutshell, has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) and it appears on page 25 of the document that we published last week. An enormous difference has grown up between high and low-income pensioners—a massive change between the top 20 per cent. and the bottom 20 per cent. Therefore, fewer pensioners are on the means test than in 1979, but they are poorer by far. There is no doubt about that, and they have no hope of digging themselves out of the position that they are already in.
      Dr. Jones: My right hon. Friend said that his aim was to get the proportion of pensioners reliant on the means test down to one in five. Is that not the current figure?
      Mr. Rooker: As I have said, if we do nothing, one in three pensioners will end up on the means test. This overall package will get the figure down to one in five, and I regret that the number will not be less than that. However, I have described the effect of all the pension changes that we are making.
      Mr. Willetts: When will that be?
      Mr. Rooker: In the middle of this century—2047. I have never hidden that fact. I have always said that a pension is a pension. It is not something that one buys off the shelf and that is available today. One has to build it up.
      The halcyon days—the link lasted for only four years—left us with 57 per cent. of pensioners on the means test in 1979. There are still many on the means test today, but an enormous gap has grown up. Nobody who seriously wants to attempt to tackle that gap can do so by lifting everyone's income up. That does not make sense in anyone's calculation; there are no good grounds for doing that, either with public money or with private funds. Therefore, it is our moral responsibility to target resources on closing that gap by lifting the incomes of the lowest 20 per cent. up while not holding down those of the top 20 per cent. We must lift the bottom 20 per cent. up at a faster rate than the highest 20 per cent. That is the only way that we can tackle the gap, and we must do that as quickly as we can. One of the measures to deal with the gap is the introduction of the minimum income guarantee.
      Mr. Alan Simpson: I am grateful that my right hon. Friend has drawn the House's attention to the graphs on page 25 of the document. We are faced with the burgeoning gap between the richest and the poorest pensioners, so will he explain how free television licences and the winter fuel payments, which are tax exempt, will help to narrow the gap? Raising the state pension would bring more people into tax bands and would enable us to recoup income. That would be a redistributive measure and would be more effective in directing resources towards those on the basic state pension.
      Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend—like other hon. Members—has made the case better than I can for a mixture of measures. It is not possible to say that benefits should be either all universal or all means-tested. There must be a mixture of benefits for the foreseeable future.

      703
      We must ask ourselves why the gap came about. First, it is the result of the changes that took place in the 1960s to occupational pensions when millions more people had the opportunity to take part in an occupational scheme. In addition, it is a consequence of SERPS. Very few people recognise the fact—I regret that many of my hon. Friends have not raised the issue—that a male pensioner who was on an average income and who retires today, just over 20 years after SERPS started, will retire with a SERPS pension of near enough £60 a week on top of the basic state pension. Before we introduced the link with earnings or prices—whichever was the higher—there was no state second pension or SERPS. SERPS was the only hope for people who did not have the good fortune to be in an occupational pension. However, we had to say that they would have to wait 20 years before the scheme came to fruition.
      8.15 pm
      At that time, we tried to ensure that pensioners did not lose out in periods of high inflation, which is what we Shad at the time, and that, when earnings and prices were yo-yoing with each other, we tried to mix the best of both. I was not in the Government at that time and I doubt whether the matter was discussed, but I cannot prove that when the forecasts were made for what SERPS would deliver in 20 years, the policy assumed that the basic state pension's link with prices or earnings—whichever was the higher—would be retained. The scenario was different, because it was a different world.
      By law, the majority of the pensioner population is now forced into two pensions. They are either contracted in or contacted out, so they are virtually forced into two pensions. Obviously some people have missed out, and that is why have introduced the state second pension for the low paid and for carers.
      Mr. Austin: After all my right hon. Friend's fine words, will he tell the House whether he could live on the present state pension?
      Mr. Rooker: The answer is no. I would not dream of trying to do so. I do not think that any Member of Parliament should try that even though a Conservative Member once tried to do so. In one week, one does not face the problems of buying an iron or a kettle and there are not many clothes to buy, so that is not the issue. Nobody should be required to live on the basic state pension of £66.75 a week. That is not enough, and that is why the minimum income guarantee exists.
      Mr. Tony Clarke rose—
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood rose—
      Mr. Rooker: I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security.
      Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister is putting a brave face on the matter and concentrating on means testing and the relative incomes of pensioners. However, the national insurance fund is a contributory system and contributions
      704
      are, subject to the upper earnings limit, earnings related. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the national insurance fund—certainly in my experience, and probably even in his—has never been in a better condition. The Government actuarial quinquennial review, which was published last July, made it quite clear that the Government Actuary believed that relinking pensions with earnings was affordable. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that? If that is true, and given what was said in the review that was published last July, the money is available to re-establish the link as of this year.
      Mr. Rooker: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, and his argument is seductive. However, the Government Actuary's report that I want to see is the one that will be produced now that we have made a policy announcement on inherited SERPS. All the Government Actuary reports published to date, including the specific one on the Bill, assume that inherited SERPS was not an issue and that, from March this year, pensions would drop from 100 to 50 per cent. The scenarios of the possible costs to the Government of inherited SERPS are for figures of between £8 billion and more than £20 billion, and I must tell the House that that money must come out of the national insurance fund because it is a national insurance fund benefit. We simply cannot operate on that basis.
      Under the minimum income guarantee no one is expected to live on £66.75, the basic state pension. That is not enough. We know that the average single pensioner's total income—net of any tax—is £132 a week and, for a couple, the figure is £248. I know that people might argue that we do not come across many pensioners like that, but they exist and those are the average figures.
      I am the first to admit that averages can be misleading. However, we cannot ignore the fact that average pensioner income is virtually double the basic state pension. That has happened because of SERPS and occupational pensions and—despite the fact that some were mis-sold—because of some personal pensions. That explains how the extra income is made up.
      Although we shall not accept new clause 8, we recognise that the chances are that the older people get, the poorer they are likely to be. That is inevitable. By and large, they will be female. That is why, on the basis of next week's increase, MIG for pensioners aged 60 to 74 will provide an income of £78.45, which is well above the basic state pension. For those aged 75, the figure goes up to £80.85 and, for those aged 80, the figure is £86. The MIG figure for an 80-year-old is almost £19 a week higher than the basic state pension. We recognise that pensioner poverty is connected to age. There is no doubt about that, and, when we roll out the publicity machine for the MIG take-up campaign that we have announced, we shall target that group. We shall write to 2 million people.
      We estimate that between 500,000 and 700,000 people are currently missing out. Why should that be the case? I am not sure whether or not it is due to stigma. I meet constituents and receive letters from them, but I have not met anyone for a long time who has said that they do not claim because of the stigma of the means test. They might say, "I'm not going down the social. I'm not going to Soho road along with that lot." They do not consider themselves to be beneficiaries, and there is something in

      705
      that because Governments have in the past treated pensioners as a block and mixed them up with everyone else who claims from the Benefits Agency.
      Of our benefits payments of £100 billion a year, £47 billion, or 47 per cent., goes to pensioners, but only about 10,000 of the Benefits Agency's 80,000 staff work on pensions and pensioners, which is wholly disproportionate. That is why, three or four weeks ago, we announced that we will centralise pensions and move all aspects of pension planning and provision out of the Benefits Agency into a separate, free-standing agency responsible to the Department. We have started planning that only in the past couple of weeks, so I cannot say when it will start. That agency will deal with a big chunk of the Department's money.
      It has been said that many pensioners who are entitled to MIG do not claim it even though they readily claim housing and council tax benefits. Why do they claim one and not another? Housing and council tax benefits are central Government money but they are delivered via local authorities, and pensioners can pop into what is, in my constituency, their friendly neighbourhood office. It is different from the social. There is therefore a paradox, in that pensioners will claim one means-tested benefit but not another because the delivery of the first is perceived to be more pensioner-friendly. That is why we are, as I have said, separating pensions from the Benefits Agency.
      Many of my hon. Friends have read out the Government's record, including measures such as the free television licence for those over 75. The measure is worth £2 a week to those pensioners: that cannot be gainsaid. The winter fuel allowance this year is worth £3 a week to an individual or a household. For those over 75, that adds up to £5 a week that they would otherwise have spent out of their income. It is real money; it is not a token.
      That is on top of all the other measures that we have included in the pensioner package, including the first-time concessionary fares for areas of the country that hitherto did not know what the words meant. Of course my city invented concessionary fares in 1956. That is not a benefit that I would boast about to my constituents, and I might add that it has been under threat when we have had the odd Tory controlled-council.
      I say to my hon. Friends that it is unacceptable to use words such as "betrayal", "rottenness" and "failure". Those are unacceptable descriptions of the Government's package of policies for pensioners, rich or poor, since May 1997. Frankly, they feed the lie that those who are opposed to our party, from the left and the right, will permeate through society come the general election, and it is no good lending credence to that lie.
      Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although I have absolutely no illusions about the poverty of many pensioners and I am glad about the minimum income guarantee, I will not be supporting the new clause simply because the Government have done more than they promised at the general election? They gave £100 of winter fuel allowance, which has now risen to £150, which many of us campaigned for year after year when the Tory Government refused to take action, and the same applies with the free television licence. Although I
      706
      certainly want the Government to do more on pensions, I recognise that much has been done, and no one could accuse me of looking for a job.
      Mr. Rooker: Nor me. My hon. Friend is right.
      I want to finish on a point that is not generally appreciated, and when we make it, people do not believe us, but it demonstrates the scale of the problem that we are dealing with among millions of our fellow citizens. The minimum income guarantee is at present targeted at 1.5 million people, who happily apply for it and collect it. We want to encourage the other 500,000 to do so. With the changes to MIG and the winter fuel payments, the pensioner population are receiving £800 million more in the first three years of this Parliament than they would have done if we had restored the link between the basic pension and earnings. I ask my hon. Friends to think about that.
      We are unable to do everything that we want to do. I want to do more. There is not a single Minister or Back-Bench Labour Member who does not want the Government to do more. However, we have to tell the truth, and so far over this Parliament we have delivered £800 million more to the pensioner population—targeted, it is true, in the case of MIG, but as a balance the other measures are widespread—than we would have spent if we had simply raised the basic pension in line with earnings. That is a record that we should be proud of, and not one that we should attack.
      Mr. Burstow: I want briefly to pick up on one or two of the points that have been made in this full and useful debate, which is about the importance that Members on both sides of the House attach to the basic state pension and the ways in which its role might be developed.
      The Minister did not entirely address new clause 8. He said that the Government accepted its spirit but were unable to accept its terms. The new clause would give the Government a power, which they could choose whether or not to use, to introduce and uprate age additions to the basic state pension. That would be a useful power that the Government should take, and we urge hon. Members who agree with us to join us in the Lobby in support of the new clause to get extra money to our oldest pensioners, who the Minister and many other hon. Members have rightly acknowledged are almost always the poorest.
      The debate about new clause 36 has been particularly good, and many powerful speeches have been made by Labour Members. I do not want to add to those; they speak for themselves, and I hope that the House will have the opportunity to divide on that new clause.
      The debate has been about the future of the basic state pension. Is it a future of continuing erosion, so that we will have a state pension that is withering away, or is it one in which we will be able to be proud of the basic state pension, which people expect the House to protect? I believe that we should protect it.
      Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is some confusion about the voting pattern this evening. Can you clarify that the vote on new clause 36 will come after the debate on new clauses 18 and 19?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I say to the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members who

      707
      may be confused that the vote on that new clause—if the occupant of the Chair is disposed to accept a vote—will come in the appointed order on the amendment paper from which we are working, and not immediately.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 275.

      Division No. 136]

      [8.28 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Allan, Richard

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ballard, Jackie

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      McDonnell, John

      Brake, Tom

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Moore, Michael

      Breed, Colin

      Öpik, Lembit

      Burnett, John

      Rendel, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Sanders, Adrian

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Chidgey, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Cotter, Brian

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Tyler, Paul

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Webb, Steve

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Wood, Mike

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Harvey, Nick

      Mr. Bob Russell and

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Mr. Andrew George.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Allen, Graham

      Caplin, Ivor

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Casale, Roger

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Caton, Martin

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cawsey, Ian

      Ashton, Joe

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clapham, Michael

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Austin, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Banks, Tony

      Barnes, Harry

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Beard, Nigel

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clelland, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Benton, Joe

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cohen, Harry

      Berry, Roger

      Coleman, Iain

      Betts, Clive

      Colman, Tony

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Connarty, Michael

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cooper, Yvette

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Corbett, Robin

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Cousins, Jim

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Crausby, David

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Dalyell, Tam

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Browne, Desmond

      Darvill, Keith

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Burden, Richard

      Davidson, Ian

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dismore, Andrew

      708

      Dobbin, Jim

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Linton, Martin

      Doran, Frank

      Lock, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Love, Andrew

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McCabe, Steve

      Edwards, Huw

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ennis, Jeff

      Macdonald, Calum

      Fisher, Mark

      McFall, John

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      McNulty, Tony

      Flint, Caroline

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Follett, Barbara

      McWalter, Tony

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McWilliam, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Foulkes, George

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Galloway, George

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Gardiner, Barry

      Maxton, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Miller, Andrew

      Goggins, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Morley, Elliot

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mountford, Kali

      Grogan, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Healey, John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Norris, Dan

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Heppell, John

      Olner, Bill

      Hill, Keith

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hope, Phil

      Pearson, Ian

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pendry, Tom

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Pike, Peter L

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Plaskitt, James

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pond, Chris

      Hurst, Alan

      Pound, Stephen

      Hutton, John

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Illsley, Eric

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jamieson, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Jenkins, Brian

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rooney, Terry

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kemp, Fraser

      Roy, Frank

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Ruane, Chris

      Khabra, Piara S

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kidney, David

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Kitfoyle, Peter

      Salter, Martin

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Sawford, Phil

      Laxton, Bob

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lepper, David

      Sheerman, Barry

      Leslie, Christopher

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Levitt, Tom

      Singh, Marsha

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Skinner, Dennis

      709

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Trickett, Jon

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Truswell, Paul

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Snape, Peter

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Soley, Clive

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Spellar, John

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Watts, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      White, Brian

      Stevenson, George

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Stringer, Graham

      Wills, Michael

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Winnick, David

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Woolas, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wyatt, Derek

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Touhig, Don

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 10

      RATE OF INTRODUCTION OF STATE SECOND PENSION
      '—(1) In this section—

      a "SERPS year" is any financial year from 1978–79 to the year before the first appointed year; and

      a "State Second Pension year" is any financial year from the first appointed year onwards.

      (2) This section shall apply to any person reaching pensionable age after the end of the first appointed year.

      (3) In each State Second Pension year in which a person accrues state second pension entitlement, that person may elect to accrue an additional year's entitlement in respect of that year in substitution for their additional pension entitlement in respect of one SERPS year.

      (4) Such substitution may only take place in respect of SERPS years in which that person either paid National Insurance Contributions or was entitled to credits in lieu of National Insurance Contributions.

      (5) The Benefits Agency shall be required to notify any person to whom this section applies of their rights, and shall explain how those rights may be exercised to produce the maximum total entitlement to additional pension.'.—[Mr. Webb.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Webb: 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 14—Enhancement of the state personal pension—

      '.—(1) A person shall be entitled to one extra year's accrual of State Second Pension—

      (a) for every four years in which that person paid National Insurance Contributions; or

      (b) for every four years in which that person was eligible for Home Responsibilities Protection.

      (2) The accrual to which a person is entitled under subsection (1) above shall be at the Stage 2 flat rate of the State Second Pension.'.

      Amendment No. 67, in clause 30, page 26, leave out lines 30 and 31.
      Amendment No. 64, in page 27, line 33, at end insert—

      '(4A) an employee who is of pensionable age within subsections (2), (3) or (4) above shall be entitled—

      (a) to have secondary contributions paid by an employer on his salary which shall contribute to his pension entitlement; and

      (b) to make primary contributions which shall accrue towards the state second pension.'.

      Amendment No. 69, in schedule 4, page 94, leave out lines 23 to 27.
      Amendment No. 6, in page 94, line 38, at end insert—
      '(9) If the application of the above percentages should produce an entitlement to additional pension such that a person entitled to a full basic pension and a full additional pension on reaching pensionable age would be expected to have recourse to Income Support within 15 years of pensionable age, there shall be inserted instead of '40' in Table 1 and Table 2 the lowest such percentage as would be required to ensure that he did not become entitled to Income Support within 15 years of reaching pensionable age.'.
      Amendment No. 91, in page 95, line 5, after second "tax", insert "quarter".
      Amendment No. 94, in page 95, line 7, leave out "tax week" and insert "quarter".
      Amendment No. 92, in page 95, line 10, after second "tax", insert "quarter".
      Amendment No. 93, in page 95, line 11, after "the", insert "quarter".
      Amendment No. 96, in clause 34, page 31, line 9, after "appointed;", insert—
      'and the first appointed year shall not precede the publication and distribution of guidance from the Financial Services Authority concerning those income groups for whom in its opinion, stakeholder pensions are likely to be suitable, and those for whom State Second Pension is likely to be suitable.'.
      Mr. Webb: The purpose behind new clause 10 is to introduce the state second pension more quickly, and amendment No. 6 deals with the level of that pension. The new clause recognises that many people at a late stage in their working life will, potentially, have had many years under SERPS and relatively few years under the state second pension scheme. Under the Government's proposals, those people will see virtually no improvement in their eventual second pension from the state.
      If the new clause were accepted, for each year that such people were members of the state second pension scheme they could substitute an additional year's membership of that scheme in lieu of a year's membership of SERPS. Given that the Minister has said that the state second pension is more generous for the low paid and for carers, the new clause would in effect say to those people, "We are concerned about your inadequate second pension provision not only in 2047 but for the next few years, and we shall bring in the new scheme more quickly."
      How quickly can a new pension scheme be introduced? The Minister's response generally is that these schemes take a long time to mature and cannot be hurried. Schemes like SERPS allow 20 years to take effect; the danger is that, by the time 15 or 10 years have elapsed, they will have been hacked by successive Governments. The state second pension scheme will take about 45 years to come in and will probably never see maturity. The graduated pension scheme lasted for about 15 years. SERPS,

      711
      before it was modified, lasted for about 10 years; the state second pension scheme will never get there if it is not allowed to establish itself quickly in the public's perception. It is much harder to cut something that people are starting to get than something that they might get in some distant decade.
      We believe that the needs of pensioners in poverty are much more urgent than the leisurely pace at which the state second pension will be introduced. The Minister tells us that it will double the figures for people on certain income levels and quadruple them for those on others, but none of these statements will be true until 2047, when the whole scheme takes effect. That is beyond a realistic time scale.
      The Government have set out their strategy for doing something this year if there is a problem of pensioner poverty. They have also set out their strategy for doing something in 2047, but there must surely be something between now and then. If the Government believe that second state pensions are a key part of that process, as the Minister has said he does, it will be a mistake to allow decades to pass before any real benefit is felt. In a written answer to me, the Minister indicated that by 2025, which is surely a reasonable time for Government policy to begin to have an impact, the poorest 20 per cent. of pensioners will on average be only £1.30 a week better off. The richest 20 per cent. will be better off by a similar amount. The scheme will not be redistributing effectively in 25 years' time.
      The thinking behind the new clause is sympathetic to what the Government are trying to do through the state second pension. It is not how we would have done things, but if they are to go ahead with the second pension, we are saying that it should take effect more quickly, and new clause 10 would have that effect. The clause would especially favour women, who could forgo their entitlement under SERPS for a given year and substitute a state second pension year of entitlement. That would favour parents with young children and the lower paid, who predominantly would be women. Given that we know that pensioner poverty of the future, as of the past, is predominantly a female phenomenon, the new clause would target that poverty without means testing.
      Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Can he confirm that, even when the state second pension reaches maturity in 2047, those who start to draw it will rapidly—within five, 10 or 15 years—fall back on to means-tested benefits?
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend gives me an unscripted but neat link into the second part of my remarks, focusing on the level of the state second pension. Amendment No. 6 would ensure that the combined value of the basic state pension, which is gradually ebbing away, and the state second pension would not be such that when a person reaches state pension age and lives an average life expectancy, he would be back on means-tested benefits before he dies. That is the nub of amendment No. 6.
      We have used the figure of 15 years in the amendment as the typical life expectancy for a man aged 65. The accrual rate of the state second pension should be such
      712
      that someone who lives an average life span from the state pension age should not have to claim the means-tested benefit before he dies.
      Clearly, we can argue about the detail of the amendment, but we are trying to highlight the principle—the adequacy of provision. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) pointed out that the combined value of the basic and second state pension as a fraction of average earnings will be below the level of the basic state pension at the end of the 1970s as a fraction of average earnings. A Government who seek to tackle pensioner poverty, but who leave many people who will reach pension age in 40 or 50 years expecting to draw a means-tested benefit before they die, are not being brave enough.
      We can argue about the adequacy of present provision, but with 50 years to sort the system out, surely the Government could at least ensure that our oldest pensioners do not have to rely on means-tested benefit, especially if they are getting the full basic and the full state second pension.
      That is the Government's answer to pensioner poverty—the basic pension combined with the state second pension. If that is not enough to keep pensioners out of poverty—not just the year that they retire, but into old age, which is likely to be increasingly old age as the years go by—it is an inadequate response.
      Two issues are raised in our amendments. New clause 10 deals with the rate at which the state second pension comes in; 50 years is too long. Amendment No. 6 deals with the level; letting people end up on means-tested benefit is not adequate.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: I shall speak to amendments No. 67 and 69. I had hoped that today I would be in Washington with the Select Committee on Science and Technology to conduct our inquiry into cancer treatments. However, I feel so strongly about the issue of pensions policy that I am here today instead.
      The Government are not getting it right on pensions. I offer these and other amendments later as suggestions for improving the Bill. I offered to participate in the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, and I thought from the Minister's comments in his winding-up speech on Second Reading that there might be an opportunity for me to contribute, but unfortunately the Whips seemed to think otherwise.
      It is no secret that I believe that the framework of the Bill is far from perfect. I hope that the Government will use opportunities elsewhere to bring about some improvement.
      During Question Time, the Minister did not dispute my assertion that the combination of the basic state pension and the state second pension, when they are fully mature in about 50 years, will pay out a lower proportion of average earnings than did the basic state pension in 1980.
      The Green Paper on welfare reform was subtitled "New ambitions for our country". I hardly think that in the middle of the 21st century, in one of the richest countries in the world, to be paying out to a large proportion of pensioners a level of income that is scarcely above the means-tested benefit is much of an ambition.
      "Opportunities for All", which the Government published, showed that after a lifetime of working, pensioners would be between £9 and £16 better off on the

      713
      state second pension and, as Liberal Democrat Members pointed out, that sum would be eroded in a few years and pensioners would be back on means-tested benefit.
      The state second pension is a substitute for properly uprating the basic state pension, against which the Government have set their face. However, I cling to the Minister's words that the manifesto commitment was to uprate the basic state pension at least in line with prices. I hope that there will be an improvement in future uprating.
      The state second pension replaces the proper basic state pension. Amendment No. 67 would therefore extend the category of people who will be credited into the state second pension to include those who are unemployed or whose earnings are below the lower earnings threshold, which is currently £67 a week.
      Even someone on the minimum wage who works for 16 hours a week—for example, many women who cannot work full-time because of family responsibilities—will not be passported into the state second pension. That also applies to the unemployed. At the moment, unemployed people are credited with national insurance contributions for the basic state pension. If the state second pension really replaces the basic state pension, it would be logical to credit unemployed people into the state second pension.
      The Government may argue that that is a disincentive to work. However, we are considering a deferred benefit from which people derive no immediate gain. When people who have been out of work have a period of employment, the disincentive to save that the prospective loss of means-tested benefit represents will be greater than for other groups. Their basic state pension will be further from the minimum income guarantee than the state pension is now.
      Crediting the unemployed into the state second pension will not discourage them from working but will encourage them to save for retirement when they are in work. We should not forget that, for the better off, breaking the link between employment and tax relief for the stakeholder pension means that a substantial tax benefit per pension is available to those who do not work. However, making pension contributions is out of the question for most unemployed people. I hope that the Government will consider granting entitlement to the state second pension to those who are unemployed or whose earnings mean that they do not qualify under the proposed arrangements.
      The Government intend to change the state second pension from an earnings-related pension to a flat-rate scheme. Amendment No. 69 would delete the power to make that change. The first stage of the state second pension will be earnings related. The Government state that, at that stage, people who earn less than £21,600 will receive more than they would have received under SERPS, while those earning £21,600 and more will receive the same amount. However, in time the Government want to encourage everyone earning more than £9,500 to contract out to a non-state-funded scheme.
      The second stage, which is to be introduced once stakeholder pensions have become established, will change the state second pension into a flat-rate scheme for those with a significant part of their working life ahead of them—for example, those under 45 at the point of
      714
      change. Once the scheme becomes flat rate, the intention is that everyone will be better off contracted out to a stakeholder pension or another non-state-funded scheme. To encourage the better off to opt out, the Government are prepared to put up a lot of money in generous rebates, which they say are likely to cost about £12 billion to £15 billion. That will be all very well if people contract out to good, defined benefit pension schemes, but it will be another matter if they make money purchase pension arrangements with no guaranteed level of benefits.
      The Government can do and are doing a lot to provide better value for money from private pension arrangements by driving down charges. Even so, a 1 per cent. charging regime will eat up 25 per cent. of any pension fund and there is no guarantee that stakeholder pensions will give a good return. Are people on modest earnings keen to have their pension on a risk basis? Do we approve of people on low incomes gambling with them? Many may do no more than put the minimum national insurance rebates into their scheme, as many did for personal pensions.
      The position of those with earnings that vary above and below the £9,500 threshold ought to be considered by the Government. Women in particular are in that category and their incomes often fluctuate when they take time out for their caring responsibilities. Would it make sense for them to switch between the state second pension and stakeholder pensions, as each at times apparently offers better value? Will they stay in the state second pension and lose in their good years what they had gained in their bad? Despite all its shortcomings after Tory cuts, SERPS still enjoys considerable public support, which can be interpreted sensibly only as support for a concept. That concept is a decent, good-value, earnings-related defined benefit scheme that offers a natural home for all those on moderate earnings who are not fortunate enough to be in a good employer scheme.
      Under the Government's proposals, the state second pension scheme will become a pension for the low paid. Encouraging everyone earning more than £9,500 to opt out means that it will become solely for people with no or very low earnings—a pension for the relatively poor. That could mean that voters will have less interest in maintaining it, particularly if it takes a long time to build up, which seems to be the case. It will also limit choice. I see no reason why those with higher earnings should not have the choice to continue to join the scheme, with benefits reflecting the contributions made. The Government should consider being as generous to those who want to stay in the state second pension as those who want to opt out.
      In opposing stage 2—making the state second pension flat rate—we could at least argue that we are honouring our manifesto commitment to retain a state earnings-related pension, even if it is not exactly SERPS. It is appropriate to remind my right hon. Friend the Minister of that commitment and I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision to move the state second pension to a flat-rate scheme.
      It is important to put those arguments on the record, but I shall not press the amendments to a vote. The pensions officer of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union helped me with the drafting and 1 hope that the Government will consider these suggestions, which are supported by Age Concern, as a positive contribution to improving the Bill.
      9 pm
      Mrs. Lait: I shall speak to new clause 14 and amendments Nos. 64 and 96, but not to amendments Nos. 91 to 94, as we want to move on. May I say how sad I was that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) did not join us on the Committee? We noticed the offer that was made to her, and were looking forward to some entertaining debates.
      Mr. Rooker indicated assent.
      Mrs. Lait: I see that the Minister agrees. Unfortunately, the iron hand got in the way.
      It is obvious from what the hon. Members for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and for Selly Oak said, and from new clause 14, that there is serious concern in the House about the state second pension's ability to keep people off means-tested benefits. All of us would agree that that is what we want to achieve. We had endless debates in Committee on this subject, and we received many reassurances that the state second pension would achieve that.
      Last week, in Westminster Hall, we had an exchange on this subject, when the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that, if a couple were both on at least the state second pension, they would be above the minimum income guarantee level. We acknowledge that, but the problem is that not everyone will be in that situation. Often, only one of a couple is left at retirement age. I regularly argue that, when people are earning a moderate income and the children are at their expensive stage, if it is a question whether to spend money on a pension or on the kids' trainers, the trainers usually win. However flexible we make the state second pension or the stakeholder pension, those people will unfortunately find it difficult to save.
      The hon. Member for Northavon referred to the attraction of the state second pension or the stakeholder pension in 2025 or 2050. There is much doubt about how much extra pension people will get, and whether, being rational economic beings, they will decide on the balance of probability that they are better off with a pension than relying on a minimum income guarantee related to earnings. There are problems with trying to make the state second pension in particular sufficiently attractive for people to want to save for their retirement under such a scheme.
      I wish the campaign on the minimum income guarantee well. We shall keep an eye on its success, and will monitor it to see how effective it is, because we can always learn good techniques to encourage people to do the right thing. If we truly believe that people should have a pension and not benefits, we should address the issue of the interaction between the MIG and the state second pension.
      I believe the Minister of State because he is a most determined and clear-thinking person. I believe that he is seriously committed to the success of the state second pension, but I have a feeling that there is a lack of understanding and that the Government are not prepared to admit that there is a flip-side to this argument, which is that people may opt for income support in retirement.
      Our suggestion is another version of the variations proposed by the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Selly Oak. We have come up with yet another way of making the state second pension more attractive to people.
      716
      We suggest that, if someone is deemed to have had four years' credits towards a state second pension and/or four years of working entitling them to credits towards the state second pension, they should get an extra year's accrual. The objective is to lift those people out of the area in which income support is more attractive.
      A knee-jerk reaction is that this must cost money but, set against the cost of income support, the cost of the extra year's accrual would be modest, and would moreover be worth while in giving people the self-respect that having their own pension would confer. It would also give people an incentive to save for that pension.
      In Committee, I presented a proposal which, I freely admit, may not have been drafted as well as it might have been. I am equally prepared to admit that amendment No. 64 may not have been drafted as well as it might have been, but, as we are not going to press it to a vote, it may be useful to have an exchange about it.
      Amendment No. 64 suggests that those who are over the inflexible age of 65 for the purposes of the state pension—for women, 60, moving up to 65—should, if they wish to continue working, be able to contribute further, through national insurance, to enhance their state second pension. Obviously, we want to encourage people to have a better second pension, but we also want the state to recognise, as it does not, that there will almost inevitably be a need for people to retire flexibly as demography changes.
      Fewer and fewer younger people will enter working-age groups. Meanwhile, those whom we have historically regarded as being of an age to retire will want to work, will be well enough to work, and will present great value to employers because of their knowledge, experience and steadiness. They will also play a key role in charitable and voluntary work, for which more and more people are being paid. It would seem sensible to allow people over the state pension age to contribute if they wish to.
      As for amendment No. 96, let me pick up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Selly Oak about the success of the stakeholder pension before the target group moves from the state second pension. We have received many assurances from the Minister—I believe him—that, before stage 2 of the state second pension is reached, when everyone goes on to a flat rate, there will be a debate in the House, and the success of the stakeholder pension will be assessed. What we have not heard from the Minister is a description of the target market.
      No one puts a new product such as this into the market without having a clear idea of what the market is. In simplistic terms, we are talking about people earning between £9,500 and £21,000 a year, but subsequent clauses and amendments suggest that not just that group is involved. Excluded from it are people who could potentially take advantage of a tax break. There are people who may be earning a small amount, but whose husbands or wives are earning a reasonable income. Are they part of the target market? How many people are in the target market? From what circumstances are they meant to be able to benefit in the target market?
      We are asking the Financial Services Authority—which, because of its wide experience of different financial products, will understand markets—to help the Government to define the target market, and to say whether it represents a good deal. We have a serious concern about whether the stakeholder pension and the

      717
      state second pension will be a good deal, and about whether, rationally, people should not go on to the minimum income guarantee.
      Before people make those decisions, they should go through the process illustrated in a decision tree, and the Government have rightly included types of decision trees in some of their consultation documents. However, the purpose of any decision tree is to guide people through a series of yes/no questions, whereas the decision tree in the Government's document regularly states, "Seek help," "Always seek help," "Ask your employers for details," "Should seek help," "Probably will be a better choice for you—seek help." The Government's decision tree regularly admonishes people to seek help, but it does not assist them in making a decision.
      Unless the Government are careful, they are in grave danger of setting themselves up for another mis-selling scandal. There is a danger not only because the Government are encouraging people to make a decision that would perhaps not be in their best interests, but because they are not encouraging people to make a more fundamental decision. There is a presumption that a pension is best for everyone. Although I would not disagree with that, there are those whose best interests may be served by being on income support.
      I suggest most humbly that, if the Government wish to encourage people to choose a state second pension or stakeholder pension, people should first be clear in their own minds about whether that is the best choice for them. The decision tree that the Government are encouraging people to use should deal with those basic issues.
      I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to deal with the points that I have made on those three amendments. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
      Mr. Jim Cousins: I support amendments Nos. 67 and 69, with which I have identified myself. I do not intend to detain the House for very long.
      I have a slightly different view on the issues that we are debating from some of my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate, broadly speaking, from below the Gangway. The opinion that I expressed in the debate on Second Reading—I hold it even more strongly now—was that the state second pension proposal is a fundamental and significant innovation for two reasons. The first is that it will extend the network of the state pension to spheres that the current contributory system simply does not reach. The proposal is therefore extremely radical. It will affect those who live in social conditions that are not reached at all by the state pension system. I give great credit to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for his part in developing the proposal, which is a powerful mechanism for the future.
      I tell the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that many people will accrue entitlements to the state second pension when they are experiencing particular responsibilities or obligations that they do not have in other times of their lives. Therefore, the state second pension will continue to top up a pension entitlement that, in other times of those people's lives, was generated by quite different mechanisms. It is an extremely important aspect of the proposal.
      The accrual rate of the benefits generated by the state second pension is the second significant feature of the proposal. For those earning £10,000 or £11,000 annually,
      718
      the state second pension will be the best pension product ever offered to the British people. The Government should be given considerable credit for that.
      The point of amendments Nos. 67 and 69, however, is to make it clear that it would be very good indeed if the benefits of the state second pension could be extended even further to those who are not reached by the contributory system.
      9.15 pm
      It is also important that the state second pension is not later switched back to a flat-rate benefit. My right hon. Friend the Minister said during Question Time today that there were 18 million potential beneficiaries of the state second pension. He will correct me if I am wrong. More than half of those have earnings above the target level of £9,500 a year. The bulk of the benefit of the state second pension will go to people who, at some point in the future, may be excluded from it.
      Part of the purpose of the amendments is to put off and change that exclusion. If people are to be excluded from the non-flat-rate parts of the state second pension, the stakeholder pension—a voluntary, defined contribution scheme in which the pattern of contributions is determined by the contributor—will bear an unreasonable weight of responsibility throughout the income ranges. The stakeholder scheme will be rescued if a non-flat-rate state second pension is able to continue to provide earnings-related benefits on the favourable basis on which the scheme has been designed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will find that my simple points are sympathetic to his scheme.
      This brief debate has been interesting. When the state second pension scheme was first proposed, there were all manner of doubts about it. Interestingly, many of the Opposition amendments tonight would extend its benefits. The power of the state second pension scheme is now acknowledged by all. It does not seem unreasonable to extend its benefits to wider categories of people and embed it firmly as an essential building block of the pensions system of the future.
      Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said that there were certain issues that she would not raise, so I junked most of my notes in the interests of brevity. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was very brief and stuck to the point. If I do not cover something that I should, hon. Members should come back to me on it. I am trying to truncate my speech.
      It bears repeating that the state second pension is a reform of SERPS that refocuses help on those who need it most. Some 4.5 million low earners will get more than double what they would have got under SERPS. Two million carers and a similar number of long-term disabled people will also build up a second tier pension for the first time. In addition, 9.5 million moderate earners—earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year—will gain.
      It is probably better for me to respond to the points that have been made than to whip through my notes. Commentators often suggest that people would be better off on the minimum income guarantee. Some highly paid so-called journalists have given unprofessional advice. It is compulsory for people to pay into a second pension—either SERPS, which will become the new state second pension, or an occupational or personal pension scheme. Employees

      719
      cannot choose to clear off out of all the provision and go into the MIG, because if they are working they will be paying national insurance, and if they are not contracted out they will be paying it at the full rate.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) for what he said about the fundamentals of the scheme. It is true that it is our intention that in stage 2 the state second pension should be a flat rate, but we will not do that until we are satisfied that the stakeholder system is established. We have not yet defined what we mean by its being established, but we will certainly have to in due course. It would not mean a short time, and I would generally take the lifetime of a Parliament—certainly not less than three to five years—to be a suitable period.
      The hon. Member for Beckenham referred to the target group. There is not a moving target, although it might look that way. The target group consists of those with moderate incomes of between £10,000 and £20,000 a year, with no second pension provision, whose jobs may be peripatetic and who may move in and out of different scales.
      There are 5 million people with earnings between £10,000 and £20,000 a year, 3 million of whom have no second pension provision. I am not denying that, in order to encourage those people and make pensions politically sexy for them, we have made the system user-friendly and flexible, so—it is true—it can be used to purchase a pension for a non-earning spouse or a child. People may call that tax avoidance, but I say that it is still a pension at the end of the day. It is not a tax fiddle, because it is not like putting the money into an individual savings account, which can be cashed in. Money in a pension stays there until it is drawn as a pension.
      The price that we pay for flexibility and user-friendliness is that many people other than the target group will have a stakeholder pension, and some will no doubt move from personal to stakeholder pensions. That is not how we will measure our success; we will measure it by the results in the target group.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) rightly raised the question of those with earnings fluctuating around the limit. I deeply regret the fact that she could not join us in Committee. Of course, I do not organise these matters, but I certainly cast a vote for her. The new arrangements for people who are contracted out were designed specifically to deal with fluctuating earnings.
      The state second pension top-up payments will be payable for earnings under £9,500. If people's earnings go above that amount, the national insurance rebate will be sufficient to give them an amount of pension broadly equivalent to what they would have received had they remained in the state scheme. The top-up system means that people will not have to face what I recognise would be extremely difficult decisions.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak asked me about another matter at Question Time. I now have some more information and I certainly want to give her the best answer that I can. The state second pension and the basic pension in 2050 for low earners will be about 25 per cent. of average earnings—roughly the same proportion as the basic pension was in 1980—but that level of average
      720
      earnings will be more than double today's level in real terms. If she is not satisfied with that answer, I will be happy to answer further parliamentary questions.
      Amendment No. 96 would require the introduction of stage 1 of the state second pension to be postponed until the Financial Services Authority had published guidance setting out for which income groups stakeholder and state second pensions were suitable. We do not think that it is necessary to put everyone through that hoop.
      Stakeholder pensions are not compulsory—people can remain in the state second pension—and we have no plans for them to become compulsory. A judgment will have to be made in due course as to whether enough of the target group have been persuaded to join the stakeholder pension and, if not, why not. We need to get everyone who is working into a good second pension. If they are not, they will be in real trouble when they retire. The policy has not been ruled out, but there are no plans—let us be realistic about that.
      We have worked closely with the FSA to develop the policies on the stakeholder pension. I have not seen the latest versions of the decision trees. As I said in Committee, just before Christmas, I went to one presentation of the FSA's work, which is highly sophisticated. There is a good understanding among those involved in the industry, among those in my Department and among the regulators that we must get people into such schemes, without mis-selling, making it simple and easy to do that and to understand the scheme. The decision trees are part of that. They are not the only answer, however.
      Mrs. Lait: Does the work on decision trees go back to the basic balance between income support and pensions?
      Mr. Rooker: I am coming to income support. I will not dodge that issue, but the hon. Lady is right to raise it.
      Amendment No. 69 would remove the provision to introduce the second stage of state second pension, making it a flat rate. As I have explained, our proposal to move to the second stage when conditions are right is designed to give the Government flexibility to give a strong incentive to moderate and to higher earners to move to funded schemes.
      We make no bones about that. We make no apology. It is not a secret policy. It is part of the overall big picture—the plan to shift pension provision from 60 per cent. state and 40 per cent. private to 40 per cent. private and 60 per cent. state. [Interruption.] I shall do it the other way around. It is part of our overall plan to move from 60 per cent. public and 40 per cent. private to the other way around. Everything fits into that. I have said that so many times it is ridiculous to get it wrong.
      New clauses 10 and 14 would both boost entitlement. The ideas behind them are wholly laudable; I make no criticism of that. They would do it through retrospection and by allowing contributors to accrue more years' entitlement than they actually pay for. It is novel and innovative. It is one extra year for every four. It has some seductiveness.
      There are two arguments in respect of those new clauses: first, whether we should provide additional help to specific groups; and, secondly, the need to maintain a balance between providing help to those who need it most

      721
      and managing the overall cost. We do not believe that it is fair to provide additional boosts to certain groups, rather than to all state second pension beneficiaries.
      It is no secret that retrospection is an issue that we have considered. We discussed it Upstairs in Committee, but to allow retrospection for everyone would be prohibitively expensive and operational difficulties mean that it is not possible—I am sorry; it is those computers again—to allow retrospection in many cases. It is not just computers but lack of records. As a result, it is not a viable proposition.
      Our proposals for the state second pension strike a balance. The amendments would change that balance. For example, new clause 14 alone would add £8 billion a year to the long-run cost—the cost by 2050. New clause 10 would add £3 billion to the long-run cost. That gives hon. Members some idea of the scale. I shall not repeat the points that we have made: without the changes, many more people would retire on the MIG.
      Amendment No. 67 seeks to exclude the requirement for low earners to have earnings at or above the annual lower earnings limit to benefit from the low earner's boost. However, the state second pension is a contributory benefit based on earnings factors. There is no doubt about that. It is not a free ride. To have an earnings factor, a person must have had earnings on which national insurance contributions have been paid, or treated as paid.
      The amendment would give the low earner's boost to anyone who had as little as one week's earnings in a year over the weekly lower earnings limit, which, from this April, will be £67. However, it would not include people with earnings of less than £67 for every week of the year. That would lead to some pretty perverse outcomes. There would be an incentive for the economically inactive to find part-time work for a single week to qualify for the state second pension. We do not think that that is fair.
      9.30 pm
      Finally, I turn to the minimum income guarantee, which is generally quoted in relation to individual citizens. I accept that not everyone is part of a couple, even at retirement, but that is the norm for most of the population. However, the key point is that the MIG is not an individual benefit. The means test is applied to the couple, not the single person. Therefore, although the relevant figures, assessments and advice for single people are necessary, it is right and proper to consider the circumstances as they apply to couples.
      The minimum income guarantee for a couple is not twice the rate for a single person, but about one and a half times that rate. I shall give one example of that. In 2025, a husband has had a full working life, and his wife has had 20 years of caring for children, 10 of those years being devoted to children under six years of age. The man has earned £180 a week, at today's value, throughout his working life, and his wife, when she has worked, has earned £120, again in today's terms.
      Under SERPS, the couple's pension would be £121.40 a week, nearly £5 more than the MIG. Under the state second pension, the couple's pension would be £150—15 years before they fall back on the MIG. Such factors must be taken into account. I have recently complained to the financial experts on The Guardian and The Observer, and will do so again to the experts on
      722
      The Sunday Telegraph, who have all advised that it is better not to be involved and to let the state have a ride on the MIG. That advice can give people the false impression that they do not need to provide for themselves.
      What is the price of being on the MIG? First, people are limited with regard to the amount of savings that they can have. Those capital limits are being raised, and it is important to ask how many times they will change in the future, because otherwise people might take a risk that is not worth the candle. If a couple can be in SERPS or the second state pension, or a combination of the second state pension and a stakeholder pension, their income, generally speaking, will be way over the MIG. There will be no pressure on their savings, or any of the other factors that go with the MIG.
      When journalists write on this subject and give examples about MIG, I wish that they would give the relevant figures for couples as well as for individuals. We shall do that when we compile the leaflets for stakeholder pensions, and the picture that is painted as a result will be entirely different simply because the MIG for a couple is nowhere near twice the rate for a single person.
      Mr. Webb: I thank the Minister for responding seriously to the points raised in this section of the debate. It is extraordinary that the Conservative amendment outspends the Liberal Democrat one—it would cost the Government £8 billion, as opposed to our amendment's £3 billion. That must make the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) feel a bit uncomfortable.
      The Minister ended on an important point. It is true that a couple in which both partners are on full state second pension and basic pension, for example, will be clear of the MIG. In terms of pension planning, however, individuals cannot assume that they will be part of a couple when the time comes. Far too many women's pensions in the past have been built on the assumption that their husbands would provide, only for that relationship to break up. A lot of people are single at pension age, many of them never having thought that that would happen. That has to be taken into account.
      The Minister said that new clause 10 contains an element of retrospection, and that the computers were not up to the task. When the decision is made about how much someone will get on retirement, the computers will have to know, in each year of SERPS, how much SERPS that person would be entitled to. We suggest that they disregard one of those historic pieces of information and use a current piece of information. A current year's entitlement should be substituted for an old year's entitlement. As, presumably, the data and the computers are better now, and given that the figures will have to be worked out anyway, I do not understand why the computers should be a barrier.
      In the scheme of 50 years of pension reform, the scale of the improvement to the state second pension that we propose is reasonable and modest. We have sought to divide the House on a number of occasions, but we believe that the state second pension is a key aspect of the Bill. We believe that the state second pension is flawed because it will take so long to come in, and new clause 10 would address that in a measured and reasonable way.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 36, Noes 282

      Division No. 137]

      [9.36 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Keetch, Paul

      Brake, Tom

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Breed, Colin

      McDonnell, John

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Burnett, John

      Moore, Michael

      Burstow, Paul

      Öpik, Lembit

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Rendel, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Chidgey, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Cotter, Brian

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Tyler, Paul

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Webb, Steve

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Mr. Bob Russell and

      Harvey, Nick

      Sir Robert Smith.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ainger, Nick

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clelland, David

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clwyd, Ann

      Ashton, Joe

      Coaker, Vernon

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cohen, Harry

      Austin, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Banks, Tony

      Colman, Tony

      Barnes, Harry

      Connarty, Michael

      Barron, Kevin

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cooper, Yvette

      Beard, Nigel

      Corbett, Robin

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Cousins, Jim

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Crausby, David

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Benton, Joe

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Berry, Roger

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Betts, Clive

      Dalyell, Tam

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Blizzard, Bob

      Darvill, Keith

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Dismore, Andrew

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Browne, Desmond

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Doran, Frank

      Burden, Richard

      Dowd, Jim

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Edwards, Huw

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Ennis, Jeff

      Caplin, Ivor

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Casale, Roger

      Fisher, Mark

      Caton, Martin

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Cawsey, Ian

      Flint, Caroline

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Follett, Barbara

      Clapham, Michael

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      724

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McWilliam, John

      Foulkes, George

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Galloway, George

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Maxton, John

      Goggins, Paul

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Miller, Andrew

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Grogan, John

      Morley, Elliot

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Mountford, Kali

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mullin, Chris

      Healey, John

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Heppell, John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hill, Keith

      Norris, Dan

      Hinchliffe, David

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Olner, Bill

      Hope, Phil

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pearson, Ian

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Pendry, Tom

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pike, Peter L

      Hurst, Alan

      Plaskitt, James

      Hutton, John

      Pollard, Kerry

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Pond, Chris

      Illsley, Eric

      Pound, Stephen

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jamieson, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Purchase, Ken

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rooney, Terry

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kidney, David

      Roy, Frank

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ruane, Chris

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ruddock, Joan

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Laxton, Bob

      Salter, Martin

      Lepper, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Leslie, Christopher

      Sawford, Phil

      Levitt, Tom

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Linton, Martin

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Lock, David

      Singh, Marsha

      Love, Andrew

      Skinner, Dennis

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McCabe, Steve

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McFall, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McNulty, Tony

      Snape, Peter

      MacShane, Denis

      Soley, Clive

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      McWalter, Tony

      Spellar, John

      725

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Stevenson, George

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Watts, David

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      White, Brian

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Wills, Michael

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wood, Mike

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Woodward, Shaun

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Woolas, Phil

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Touhig, Don

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wyatt, Derek

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Mrs. Anne McGuire.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 11

      Date of payment of benefit
      '.—In section 5(1)(k) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, at the end, there shall be inserted—
      "except that where the conditions of entitlement are satisfied, a retirement pension shall become payable from a date no later than the date on which the claimant reaches pensionable age.".'.— [Mr. Webb.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Webb: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The House will be relieved to hear that this will be a brief contribution, prompted by two cases of perceived injustice in the way the benefits system treats people who have just reached state pension age. People receive their first state pension on the Monday after they reach state pension age, even though they may have been 65 or 60, as the case may be, for up to six days. That is six sevenths of a week, and it can leave a person reaching state pension age short, to their way of thinking, by as much as £100.
      I should like to draw attention to the cases of two people. The Minister will be familiar with the case of Mr. Maiden, constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who felt aggrieved by the fact that he missed out on several days' worth of pension. He took the Benefits Agency to a tribunal and won. An article in Choice magazine, from April 1999, says:
      Ron was triumphant…although the Department of Social Security says his success doesn't set a precedent.
      In other words, the tribunal decided that this man should have been paid his pension from when he was 65, not from the following Monday. However, the Department of Social Security decided that although the tribunal had found against it, it would not apply that rule to other people.
      That case was brought to my attention by a constituent, Mr. Wells, who was 65 on a Tuesday and therefore lost six days' worth of pension. He says that although it is not
      726
      a huge sum, it is a matter of principle. He took his case to appeal and lost. I told him that I would bring the matter to the attention of the House with a view to rationalising the slightly odd situation where a person can have reached the qualifying age for the state pension but not be entitled to draw it for nearly a week thereafter.
      I have written to the Minister on the issue previously, and the responses tend to say that the same is true of other benefits, so if the person was receiving another benefit before reaching state pension age, that would run on for the six days and there would be no loss; but of course that is not true of someone who is in employment immediately prior to reaching state pension age.
      Thus the purpose of new clause 11 is to try to tidy up the legislation, to make it plain that entitlement starts when one reaches 60 or 65. It does not matter terribly that the payment may not be made until the next Monday; but the entitlement should date from the date of reaching state pension age. That seems only just and fair. I hope that the computers are not a barrier and that the Minister will accept the new clause.
      Mr. Rooker: First, I make it clear that the way in which the pension is paid does not cheat pensioners. When I was elected to the House years ago, my constituents asked me similar questions. I received replies from Ministers and asked parliamentary questions, so perhaps this is a generational issue.
      I wish to put several points on the record, and one is that we must be careful about the language we use. Two principles were set down in 1948 and they have remained the same since. First, retirement pension is paid weekly in advance, so I shall not return to the arguments about ACT and whether it should be paid four weekly in arrears. Secondly, it is paid in whole weeks, not in part weeks.
      There is no sense in beating about the bush and, earlier today, I answered a question from the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). The consequence of making the pension payable from someone's birth date is that, when the payment is no longer required because the pensioner has died, we would have to try to claim back the extra few days' payment. Frankly, we are not prepared to countenance that.
      A pension is paid from the Monday following someone's 60th or 65th birthday and continues to be paid until the Monday after it is no longer required. In the sensitive period after someone has died, no attempt is made to claim back from the family any extra days paid.
      I must disabuse hon. Members of their notions of the effects of ignoring the consequences of the new clause. The oncosts of part weeks would be £20 million a year. Because of the Public Accounts Committee and the requirements of accounting officers, we simply cannot write off £20 million.
      Nobody loses out under the present system. Pensions are paid from Monday to Monday and they are paid in whole weeks. It has always been like that, and we do not propose to change the current system. I do not deny that, in due course, we want to pay pensioners by ACT, and the period covered by the payments will form part of the discussions in the next couple of years. Obviously we shall not pay four weeks in arrears; that is totally out of the question.

      727
      I do not want to offer any hope for change, because the consequence of paying pensions in part weeks is that we would have to claim back money after a pensioner was deceased. We are not prepared to countenance that. Frankly, I doubt that, if Members of the House were in my position, they would take a different view.
      Mr. Webb: That was an interesting response, but not the one that I expected. I fear that I must report back to my constituent that he did not get his £100 when he was 65, but that his estate will receive it the week he dies. That seems to paraphrase the Minister's reply. I am not sure that my constituent will be happy with that, but I shall not try the House's patience any further. Given that I have received a different response from the ones that the Minister has given me in writing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 18

      CONCURRENCY OF PENSIONS, REBATES AND EXTRA MONIES
      '.—(1) A person shall be able to hold both a stakeholder pension and an occupational pension concurrently and without financial penalty.

      (2) Any rebates or extra monies that may be payable to a person, and which are greater for Stage 1 of the State Second Pension than for SERPS, shall be paid into a stakeholder pension.'.—[Mrs. Lait.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Lait: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Use of rebates and extra monies—

      '.—( ) Where rebates or extra monies are payable they shall be applied as follows—

      (a) rebates shall be paid into Contracted Out Money Purchase Schemes; and

      (b) extra monies shall be applied to Contracted Out Salary Related Schemes.'.

      Mrs. Lait: I am afraid that these new clauses are rather technical, but I shall try to be as brief as possible.
      New clause 18 relates to the principle of stakeholder pensions' concurrency with other pensions. The Government have recently suggested that they did not want concurrency, but that they would consider it for people on lower earnings. Why is it not a good idea for all people to use concurrency if they have the ability to pay and if it falls within the amount that they can use tax free?
      The objection is that concurrency would mean a tax break for the rich. Many people, whatever their income, do not put enough money into pension schemes to give them a reasonable retirement income, and I suggest that if there is scope in the tax system for them to use up more money on pensions, it is, to say the least, shortsighted not to allow them to use stakeholder pensions to do so.
      728
      There are a number of other arguments for concurrency which I shall briefly deal with. The first is simplification. Concurrency would reduce the need for individuals to get advice on whether they should stay in or join an occupational scheme. The second argument concerns the complication of additional voluntary contributions. Stakeholder pensions could replace AVCs and freestanding AVCs because they would be better value for money.
      Concurrency would also simplify regulatory issues, because there would not be the same need for stakeholder scheme providers to police members' employment arrangements. It seems odd to use the word "inertia" about pensions, because the last thing we want is for people to be inert when it comes to providing for themselves. However, there is an argument for making inertia work for, rather than against, pension provision. It would be easier for somebody to continue to pay into their stakeholder scheme when they joined an occupational scheme.
      Another argument that has reared its head before is that there would be a potential for mis-selling if somebody opted out of a good occupational scheme because there was no concurrency. Concurrency is also useful for a flexible labour market and it would help existing schemes. There is plenty of scope for people to take up concurrent stakeholder pensions, because the average private sector employee in an occupational scheme contributes 4.7 per cent. of earnings to that scheme, so there is plenty of room for a stakeholder pension on top.
      The arguments against concurrency relate to revenue loss, but there will be future savings to the Government on means-tested benefits. People are not already using up all their legal entitlement to pension contributions, and as we work on the basis of people paying tax as they get money out of their pension scheme, more tax will be paid in the longer term, because we will have better-off pensioners.
      There are strong arguments for concurrency, and it has been recommended by bodies as disparate as the TUC, the Engineering Employers Federation and the National Association of Pension Funds. I urge the Government to reconsider concurrency on the basic policy principle of ensuring that as many people as possible take up as much of their pension entitlement as they can.
      The second part of new clause 18 deals with rebates, and it, too, aims to encourage people to make better provision for themselves. There may be rebates in excess of those for SERPS which could be paid into a stakeholder pension. They would be small sums, but a stakeholder pension is designed for such sums. That would be a sensible way to enable people to use their allowances and, with concurrency, would help people to make pension provision. It would also be a useful pensions vehicle for large numbers of employees.
      New clause 19 deals with where the line is drawn between the use of rebates and the use of top-ups to offset the impact of the state second pension. The proposed dividing line is drawn between occupational and personal pensions. That would sacrifice the level playing field between different sorts of pension—personal, occupational and stakeholder—but during the consultation process, the Government found that maintaining the level playing field would impose excessive administrative burdens and complexity.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That at this day's sitting, the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.
  As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mrs. Lait: Our concern focuses on where the Government have chosen to draw the line. The issue was brought to our attention by the Association of British Insurers: it made its concerns clear to the Government, but they have not yet responded.
  We suggest that top-ups are preferable to deeper rebates for defined benefit schemes, given the problems of getting the benefits of those rebates to filter through to lower-paid scheme members. It is less clear why the rebate approach is not applied to occupational schemes that are money purchase or defined contribution schemes. We suggest that the line should be drawn, not between occupational and personal pensions, but between defined benefit and money purchase schemes. Personal pensions might appear superficially more attractive than occupational money purchase schemes because of the deeper rebates. In theory, the S2P top-up should take care of that, but it will be 40 years before anyone sees any more jam.
  It is also possible that the current proposals will add to providers' costs. Many insurers have moved out of COSRS, which are contracted out, salary-related schemes, and focused instead on COMPS, which are contracted out money purchase schemes that can run off the same systems as personal pensions and are therefore far simpler to use. We suggest that the Government take another look at the whole issue of COMPS and COSRS to see whether the impact of the stakeholder and state second pension will lessen the attraction of saving for pensions.
  We are most concerned about the issue of concurrency. I hope that the Minister of State will display a positive attitude toward changing his mind about concurrency. If he does not, we shall press the new clause to a Division.
  Mr. Flight: I rise to add to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). If the Government want stakeholders to be successful, it is in their interests to permit concurrency. The pattern of employment as it is now developing appears to require concurrency for both money purchase and final salary schemes. There will be an accelerating trend of people moving in and out between permanent employment, subcontracting and self-employment. For such people, there is a high risk of being left with little bits of several deferred occupational defined benefit schemes, so it must be desirable for them to have an on-going stakeholder pension scheme to provide the bulk of their retirement income.
  What has happened to LISAs—lifelong individual savings accounts? The danger is that many people, especially those who are not in regular employment, will be underprovided for; at best, they will find their way
  730
  into the second state pension scheme. However, the concept of a pension tax wrapper—analogous to the old personal equity plan tax wrapper and fairly similar to the individual savings account tax wrapper, whereby everyone can save for their pension, choose the unit trust in which they want to invest, and so on—is a necessary ingredient of the stakeholder system if it is to attract the desired membership.
  About 2.8 million of those targeted for the Government's stakeholder pensions are in occupational schemes. The House does not want occupational schemes to be undermined by stakeholder schemes, and it can be argued that concurrence lessens the incentive for businesses with occupational schemes to replace them with stakeholder schemes.
  On new clause 19, I echo the point that there is little logic in having completely different regulations for occupational money purchase schemes and personal pension money purchase schemes. Both types of scheme are in essence a pot of money that attaches to the individual. Many complications are caused by the different regulations and many companies are gradually ending their final salary schemes and moving to money purchase schemes. They are tending to move towards group personal pension schemes because they are more flexible. Surely the time has come to put the regulations together. As I have said, we are talking basically about one product.
  Mr. Leigh: I have one simple question for the Minister, which I hope I can ask in a couple of minutes. What will happen when stakeholder pensions are made compulsory? I know that the Government would deny that it is currently their intention to make such pensions compulsory, but it is a generally accepted opinion in the industry, and in other circles, that were the Government to win the next general election, one of their early steps would be to make them compulsory.
  Incentives are built into the minimum income guarantee system not to save and not to provide for one's pension. The more an individual saves and provides for his pension, the more he falls out of means-tested benefits. There will be so many people tempted for these reasons not to take out a stakeholder pension that it will not make sense from the Government's point of view to make such a pension compulsory. Other systems that have brought in stakeholder-type pensions have made them compulsory.
  If such pensions are made compulsory, what will happen? Will people be forced to take the product? Will they, because the Government are opposed to concurrency, be denied the opportunity to take up an occupational pension? Of course not. I can foresee many difficulties unless the Government make it clear that people will have the choice. What is wrong with choice? The Government are right to insist that people should be encouraged to make some provision for their old age, but they should not be denying people choice when it comes to making that provision.
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) made a very important point. Later this year, the Government will embark on their generic advertising of the concept of stakeholder pensions. Providers will be doing their bit for the individual product. We will have to ensure that our advertising does not

  731
  undermine occupational pensions—we are conscious of that. Mistakes could be made by a slip of a word, for example. I can give the hon. Gentleman that commitment. He raised the matter as an aside but he has made an important point.
  We are now getting to technical considerations, and as someone from my humble origins I make no apology for sticking to my speaking notes. We discussed these matters in Committee. In responding to some hon. Members' questions, I must make it clear that the Government have not announced their final conclusions about concurrency. We have stated that clearly. Discussions are still taking place. If it were an easy matter to resolve or if we were ideologically opposed to concurrency and were having none of it, we would have said so by now. However, that is not our position. I hope that hon. Members will accept that sincere response, which I cannot go beyond.
  The two new clauses are an attempt to introduce concurrency—to permit individuals to contribute simultaneously to a personal pension and an occupational pension scheme. A stakeholder pension is a personal pension. Secondly, they provide for members of occupational schemes on low and moderate earnings to get all the extra help that the state second pension brings entirely by way of enhanced national insurance rebates.
  I shall deal first with the concurrency issue. We have already announced that we will permit concurrent membership of money purchase arrangements. An individual will be able to contribute, within existing limits, to both an employer-sponsored money purchase scheme and a stakeholder pension arrangement, if he or she so wishes.
  I am in favour of everyone getting funded to the maximum. People should get as much money as they can from the Treasury to put towards their pension. I make no apology for saying that. It must be the best advice that any Member of Parliament or Minister can give our fellow citizens. There is a system designed to benefit them by enabling them to put money aside—not for a rainy day, but for their pension. Some people take full advantage of the system. Why do not others do so? They should get the maximum benefit in tax relief. If they can make the arrangements, and if they have the wherewithal, people should get funded up to the hilt.
  However, there is always the problem of people going over the limit, by accident or as an avoidance measure. The Revenue is concerned about that. As has been said by hon. Members more versed in finance than I am, the Revenue is aware of the difficulties and will take a hard look at changes that may have an unintended effect.
  The key issue now centres on concurrent membership of a defined contribution arrangement and defined benefit scheme. We have made it clear that we need to address the issue of high earners. Is it right to allow those who are already contributing up to the maximum limits in their occupational scheme to obtain further valuable tax relief on contributions of up to £3,600 a year to a concurrently held stakeholder scheme?
  We do not believe that allowing such a concession would represent a wise or fair use of taxpayers' money. That is what it amounts to: the tax relief is the taxpayers'—the Treasury's—contribution to a person's pension. I say that
  732
  people should take advantage of all they can get up to the limit and within the rules, but I see no justification for spending taxpayers' money to go above that.
  I am advised that the more substantive part of the new clause bears a resemblance to an option put forward by the pensions industry in the very early stages of the consultation exercise on the future contracting-out regime. I can do no better than to quote the response of the Association of British Insurers to the consultation paper:
  We accept that the issues of practicality raised by this proposal would be a significant barrier to successful implementation, both for the Government and for the majority of pension providers. We have therefore concluded that this approach should not be pursued at this time.
  It may be helpful to hon. Members if I work through the issues of practicality to which the ABI refers. The new clause as drafted provides for low and moderate earners in contracted-out schemes to have the extra help that would be provided by the state second pension delivered entirely in rebate form and paid directly into a stakeholder pension arrangement. The rebate for low earners would be based on £9,500 and an accrual rate of 40 per cent., and moderate earners would have their rebate based on actual earnings and an accrual rate of 10 per cent. As all the help comes via the rebate, no state scheme top-up would be payable.
  Before I turn directly to the practical limitations, I shall say a word about the additional up-front costs arising from that approach. As hon. Members know, we are already putting in an additional £400 million in extra rebates from the outset of the reforms. This figure will rise to some £4.5 billion in 2010. The proposal in the new clause would add to that almost £500 million more in the first year, and well over £1 billion in the second. We must consider whether that is a proper use of taxpayers' money. When we consider the practical application of the proposal, the answer must be no.
  Moving on to the operational implications of the proposal, the first point to make is that every employer running a contracted-out occupational scheme would have to ensure that a stakeholder pension arrangement would be available for each member of his work force on low or moderate earnings. At present there are approximately 11,000 contracted-out occupational schemes. All of them would have to submit a stakeholder pension scheme application form to the Inland Revenue if they were also to set up an employer-sponsored stakeholder scheme.
  10.15 pm
  Employers who run contracted-out occupational money purchase schemes would no doubt find the suggestion that they should open a separate stakeholder scheme a little odd. It could have the effect of forcing all the schemes to switch to stakeholder status or obliging the employer to run two money purchase arrangements. Both mean more administrative work for the employer. Alternatively, employers could simply facilitate access to a stakeholder scheme but they would be responsible for ensuring that their employee had such a scheme. That proposal is part of the access arrangements in the Bill.
  Next, all individuals who want a stakeholder account would also need to submit a form to the Revenue. That is necessary to ensure that they receive the rebate due. For a money purchase scheme, delivering the extra rebate would be fairly straightforward. It would simply be paid

  733
  at the end of the tax year in the same way as existing money purchase rebates. However, the volumes could be enormous and cause the Revenue all sorts of difficulties. The method is far more complicated for final salary schemes. Part of the rebate would be delivered through a reduction in national insurance contributions, as happens now, and part would be paid into a stakeholder account at the end of the year.
  We would need to devise a system that picked up both methods of delivery. That would require employers to provide end-of-year information differently from the way in which they currently provide it. The approach would require more and more administration. It is simply not a runner. However, I say that with the caveat that I mentioned at the beginning: we have not made our final decisions.
  We are looking for a positive rather than a negative method of tackling the matter. We do not start from the ideological position that we do not want anyone to have any concurrency, whatever their earnings. I cannot go beyond that. However, if hon. Members are still awake, I have given a big enough hint that we are looking for a positive way of dealing with a difficult problem, to enable people to take up their rights to be fully funded and to get as much money out of the Treasury as possible.
  Mrs. Lait: I am much encouraged to hear that the Government want everybody to take advantage of concurrency. We want to do everything possible to encourage them to do that. We acknowledge that the drafting of the new clause may not be perfect. However, the Minister is free to use Government facilities to redraft the amendments. To encourage him to do as much as possible for concurrency, I shall press the new clause to a vote.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 283.

  Division No. 138]

  [10.17 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Chidgey, David

  Allan, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Amess, David

  Clappison, James

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Collins, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Cotter, Brian

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cran, James

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bercow, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Duncan, Alan

  Brady, Graham

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brake, Tom

  Evans, Nigel

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Faber, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Fallon, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Flight, Howard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Burnett, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burstow, Paul

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Butterfill, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Gale, Roger

  734

  Garnier, Edward

  Ottaway, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Page, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Paice, James

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Pickles, Eric

  Gray, James

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Green, Damian

  Prior, David

  Greenway, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Rendel, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Robertson, Laurence

  Hammond, Philip

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Ruffley, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hayes, John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Heald, Oliver

  Sanders, Adrian

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

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

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Soames, Nicholas

  Horam, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Spring, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Steen, Anthony

  Keetch, Paul

  Streeter, Gary

  Key, Robert

  Stunell, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Leigh, Edward

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Letwin, Oliver

  Trend, Michael

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tyler, Paul

  Lidington, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Viggers, Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Wardle, Charles

  Loughton, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Webb, Steve

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mates, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Moore, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Norman, Archie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Mr. John Randall and

  Öpik, Lembit

  Mr. Peter Luff.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Betts, Clive

  Ainger, Nick

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Alexander, Douglas

  Blizzard, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ashton, Joe

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Browne, Desmond

  Austin, John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Banks, Tony

  Burden, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Caplin, Ivor

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Casale, Roger

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Caton, Martin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Benton, Joe

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clapham, Michael

  Berry, Roger

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  735

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hurst, Alan

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clelland, David

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Jamieson, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cohen, Harry

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Coleman, Iain

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Colman, Tony

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cousins, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Crausby, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kidney, David

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Darvill, Keith

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Davidson, Ian

  Laxton, Bob

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Lepper, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dismore, Andrew

  Levitt, Tom

  Dobbin, Jim

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Doran, Frank

  Linton, Martin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lock, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Love, Andrew

  Edwards, Huw

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ennis, Jeff

  McCabe, Steve

  Reid, Rt Hon Frank

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Fisher, Mark

  Macdonald, Calum

  fitzsimons, Lorna

  McDonnell, John

  Flint, Caroline

  McFall, John

  Follett, Barbara

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McNulty, Tony

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  MacShane, Denis

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Foulkes, George

  McWalter, Tony

  Gardiner, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Miller, Andrew

  Grogan, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Morley, Elliot

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Healey, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mullin, Chris

  Heppell, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hill, Keith

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hope, Phil

  Norris, Dan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Olner, Bill

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  736

  Pearson, Ian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Pendry, Tom

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stevenson, George

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pike, Peter L

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Plaskitt, James

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pond, Chris

  Stringer, Graham

  Pope, Greg

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pound, Stephen

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Purchase, Ken

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Tipping, Paddy

  Raynsford, Nick

  Touhig, Don

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Trickett, Jon

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Truswell, Paul

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Roy, Frank

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ruane, Chris

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Ruddock, Joan

  Watts, David

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  White, Brian

  Salter, Martin

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sawford, Phil

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Wills, Michael

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Winnick, David

  Singh, Marsha

  Wood, Mike

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Snape, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Spellar, John

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    New Clause 36

      Annual increase in basic retirement pension
      '.—The Secretary of State shall each year increase the basic retirement pension by not less than an amount equivalent to—

      (a) the percentage increase in the general level of earnings during the preceding year; or

      (b) the percentage increase in the retail prices index during the preceding year,

      whichever is the greater.'.—[Mr. McDonnell.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 240.

      Division No. 139]

      [10.31 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Barnes, Harry

      Allan, Richard

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      737

      Brake, Tom

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Breed, Colin

      Livsey, Richard

      Burnett, John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Burstow, Paul

      McDonnell, John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Caton, Martin

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Chidgey, David

      Moore, Michael

      Clapham, Michael

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Clwyd, Ann

      Pollard, Kerry

      Connarty, Michael

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Rendel, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Sawford, Phil

      Cotter, Brian

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Cousins, Jim

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Cryer, John (Hornchunch)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Davidson, Ian

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

      Dobbin, Jim

      Stevenson, George

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Fisher, Mark

      Stunell, Andrew

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Tyler, Paul

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Harvey, Nick

      Webb, Steve

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Wood, Mike

      Hurst, Alan

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Mr. Bob Russell and

      Keetch, Paul

      Mr. Kelvin Hopkins.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clelland, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Coaker, Vernon

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cohen, Harry

      Banks, Tony

      Coleman, Iain

      Barron, Kevin

      Colman, Tony

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cooper, Yvette

      Beard, Nigel

      Corbett, Robin

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Crausby, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Benton, Joe

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Berry, Roger

      Dalyell, Tam

      Betts, Clive

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Darvill, Keith

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Doran, Frank

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Browne, Desmond

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Edwards, Huw

      Burden, Richard

      Ennis, Jeff

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Flint, Caroline

      Caplin, Ivor

      Follett, Barbara

      Casale, Roger

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Cawsey, Ian

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Foulkes, George

      738

      Gardiner, Barry

      Moffatt, Laura

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Goggins, Paul

      Morley, Elliot

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mountford, Kali

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mullin, Chris

      Grocott, Bruce

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Grogan, John

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Norris, Dan

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Healey, John

      Olner, Bill

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Heppell, John

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hill, Keith

      Pearson, Ian

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hope, Phil

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Pike, Peter L

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Plaskitt, James

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Pond, Chris

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Pope, Greg

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pound, Stephen

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hutton, John

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Illsley, Eric

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Jamieson, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jenkins, Brian

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Roy, Frank

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ruane, Chris

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ruddock, Joan

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Kemp, Fraser

      Salter, Martin

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Khabra, Piara S

      Sheerman, Barry

      Kidney, David

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Singh, Marsha

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Laxton, Bob

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Lepper, David

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Levitt, Tom

      Snape, Peter

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Soley, Clive

      Linton, Martin

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Lock, David

      Spellar, John

      Love, Andrew

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McCabe, Steve

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Macdonald, Calum

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      McFall, John

      Stringer, Graham

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      McNulty, Tony

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      MacShane, Denis

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      McWilliam, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Maxton, John

      Touhig, Don

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Trickett, Jon

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Miller, Andrew

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      739

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Winnick, David

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Woolas, Phil

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Worthington, Tony

      Watts, David

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      White, Brian

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wyatt, Derek

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

      Wills, Michael

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 30

      EARNINGS FROM WHICH PENSION DERIVED
      Mr. Burstow: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 26, line 33, at end insert—
      `and, for the purposes of calculating the pensioner's earnings factor under this subsection, in addition to any earnings, the pensioner will be credited with earnings equal to the lower earnings limit then in force in respect of each week in which invalid care allowance was payable or would have been payable but for the fact that under regulations the amount payable to him was reduced to nil because of his receipt of other benefits.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 65, in page 26, line 46, leave out "six" and insert "twelve".
      No. 68, in page 26, line 46, leave out "six" and insert "eleven".
      No. 11, in clause 37, page 31, line 41, leave out from "he" to end of line 43 and insert—
      'provides information regarding caring activity within a specified time which will be no less than six years following the year in which the qualifying caring activity took place.'.
      Mr. Burstow: To get the state second pension, carers must receive or have an underlying entitlement to invalid care allowance for the full 52 weeks of the year. ICA rules mean that many carers lose entitlement for some weeks of the year. In the past, that meant that a week's benefit was lost. Under the state second pension, it means that a whole year's contribution will also be lost.
      Carers can, in theory, get eight weeks of respite care under the current rules. Many place great value on that, but, as we all know from talking to carers in our constituencies, it can be very difficult for them to schedule their lives to avoid the linking rules that disqualify them from entitlement to invalid care allowance. They also have to bear in mind that if the person whom they are caring for is admitted to hospital unexpectedly, their eligibility and entitlement to invalid care allowance will also be jeopardised, thus risking the loss of a whole year's contribution to the state second pension.
      Respite care is not the only area in which the rules could affect contributions to the state second pension. Many carers may value part-time work and see it as a further way of getting some respite and some connection to the wider community. However, particularly since the introduction of the minimum wage, it is difficult for people to earn below the £50 earnings rule limit. Even those who earn below that level can find that a Christmas
      740
      bonus or other bonuses push them above the earnings limit. That can result in them losing not just a week's invalid care allowance, but their entitlement to a whole year's contribution to the state second pension.
      The Government say that the state second pension will be a valuable boost to carers' retirement incomes, but we believe that it is being built on a shaky foundation if invalid care allowance is used as the point of entry to entitlement. The amendments are designed to push the Government a little further to consider how to improve the situation for the approximately 400,000 carers in this country, many of whom have been caring for a very long time. When those people see the detail of how the state second pension will operate, they are less than enamoured of the scheme.
      10.45 pm
      Amendment No. 12 would enable carers to combine weeks of ICA with weeks of earnings over the lower earnings limit. It would help those who do not get ICA throughout the year and have periods when they are able to work but do not reach the lower earnings limit. For example, people receiving ICA for 40 weeks and earning £100 in each of the other 12 weeks would not get a year's credit for the state second pension, as their earnings would have been below the lower earnings limit and they did not get ICA for the whole year.
      The Minister rightly said that the Government wanted to help the lowest earners in our country, but the way in which the scheme is constructed will make that impossible. We cannot help the real lowest earners unless we can fix the problem.
      Amendment No. 11 concerns home responsibilities protection. The Government propose to change the qualification period, so that within three years of the entitlement to a benefit lapsing, if people have not made their declarations to the relevant authorities, they will lose the protection. At present, with the basic state pension, people can still claim after 15 or 20 years or more.
      The Government are changing the requirement to allow only three years for both the basic state pension and the state second pension. We feel that that is not long enough to be fair, and that it would be better to align the change with other practice. For example, voluntary class 3 payments have to be paid before the sixth tax year after the one in which they were due and the time limit for claiming back overpaid tax or tax allowances is also six years.
      The Government are concerned that people will not be able to remember the details of their periods of caring and eligibility for ICA. If that were the case, surely the same would apply with those two tax measures. We are arguing for consistency of approach in different legislation to the requirement for people to give notice of their entitlement.
      We do not deny that the Government are making improvements for carers through the state second pension, but using eligibility for the invalid care allowance, which is very badly constructed, as the basis for entitlement to credits for the state second pension means that many carers will not get the credits that they deserve as a recognition for their many hours and years of caring.
      Mrs. Lait: In the interests of brevity, I shall speak only to amendment No. 65. We discussed at length in

      741
      Committee credits for women at home with children, but the subject needs a further airing, as the Bill does not make as much provision for that as we had under SERPS. We think that it is prescriptive for the Government to say that credits will be available only to women with children under the age of six.
      It is not often that the Conservative party joins those who voted just now on the basic state pension, but on this occasion we have tabled similar amendments: indeed, in Committee, we tabled an amendment to allow women to continue to be able to receive credits in respect of children under the age of 11.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: I am pleased that the hon. Lady supports extending credits to carers of older children, but, last week, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) advocated that lone parents with children should be forced to work and should have their benefits cut if they did not go to work. Will she dissociate herself from those comments?
      Mrs. Lait: All I would do is point out that it is the hon. Lady's Government who are cutting credits at the age of six, whereas we had arranged that women be credited for SERPS in respect of children up to the age 16, so I do not think that there is much of a point to be made out of that.
      May we concentrate on the arguments for ensuring that women with children under the age 11 or 12 receive credits with regard to home responsibility payments? That may help us to move on speedily.
      The reason why we have worked on the basis of 11 or 12 is that that is the age at which children break from primary school and go to secondary school. That is when their school hours tend to get longer and their mothers feel freer to go to work. It is interesting that labour market trends show that the bulk of women start working full-time when their children are aged 11-plus.
      One of the purposes of our amendment is to ensure that women who have career breaks have the best possible chance of building their pension. We want to help them and to ensure they have the choice of staying at home to look after children until they are at school full-time and are more independent. That is why we have tabled the amendment to extend credits to the age of 12.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Amendment No. 68 credits carers of school-age children up to the age of 11 for the state second pension. As I have established, the real purpose of the state second pension is more to fill the gap left by the failure to uprate the basic state pension in line with earnings than to replace SERPS. In judging the Bill's adequacy in respect of giving credits for non-earners, the appropriate yardstick should be the groups who are credited for the basic state pension.
      A parent who receives child benefit is credited with home responsibilities protection, which reduces the years required to qualify for the basic state pension. The Bill requires that the child must be under six for the carer to qualify for state second pension carer credits, but, even after the children go to school, the demands placed on a carer, especially in a child's early years or where there are a number of young children in a family, often preclude a return to work. If work is possible, it is often part-time and on earnings that fall beneath the lower earnings threshold. Therefore, the carer would not automatically qualify for credits for the state second pension.
      742
      That is particularly the case for lone-parent families. It is relevant that some Conservative Members seem to be advocating that lone parents should return to work if they have children of school age.
      The Government have patted themselves on the back for the extra help that they have given to carers to be credited into the state second pension. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when she responds to the debate, will explain the logic of not including the carers of children of primary school age.
      Angela Eagle: In considering the amendments, we must bear in mind the huge gains that the introduction of the second state pension will bring for carers and the low-paid. About 18 million people will gain from the provisions: 9.5 million will be moderate earners; 4.5 million will be low earners; 2 million will be disabled people; and 2 million will be carers.
      For the first time ever, the Bill provides that carers without a work record will have access to an additional pension. If they have a lifetime of caring, the Bill will give them access, for the first time, to additional pension provision. With that in mind, I shall deal with the amendments in this group.
      Amendment No. 11 would extend from three years to six the time within which caring activity must be reported to the Department in order to qualify for credits for the second state pension. Home responsibilities protection at present protects the basic pension provision of someone caring for a child or for a sick or disabled person. It is not a credit or benefit in its own right.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) pointed out, the protection works by reducing the number of qualifying years needed for full basic pension. Therefore, a person still has to work for many years, and many carers do not qualify for the benefits of home responsibilities protection because of the structure of the old system. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) might have had the grace to recognise that the second state pension will be a hugely beneficial development for those people. The hon. Gentleman both nit-picked around the edge of the argument and raised some serious issues, but he might have pointed that out.
      Many child benefit recipients get home responsibilities protection automatically. Others need to complete a form to notify the Department of periods of caring activity that qualify. That can be done at any time after the period of caring. Given that home responsibility protection began in 1978, we could theoretically be asking people to provide information up to 49 years after the period of caring in question.
      As the new home responsibilities protection for the second state pension is worth so much more in benefit—it will be as if an extra £9,500 had been earned, so it will be a big earnings boost—it seems prudent to make the system more sensible. Accordingly, we are to ask people to report to us the years in which they were caring.
      We believe that three years is a reasonable interval in which a person may report caring activity, but the amendment suggests six. It is important that we can be confident that notifications are given using correct information. We do not believe it reasonable to expect carers to remember the number of hours of caring that

      743
      they undertook during a period of time more than 20 years previously. We therefore consider record-keeping to be important.
      In addition, our aim of ensuring that as many carers as possible benefit from the additional pension provision under the second state pension means that we are proposing to keep the limits tight. We have decided that three years is the optimum period. That means that people who care throughout 2003–04 will need to have notified the Department by 5 April 2007 that they were caring in that period. If carers want to provide the information at the end of a year of caring rather than three years later, they will be free to do so.
      The provision will not be retrospective, so people who have been caring in 1999–2000 will be able to notify the Department at the point of retirement under the old system, for the purposes of protecting their basic pension entitlement. In order to ensure that the change is implemented smoothly, we will provide advanced warning for those who may be affected, especially existing carers. We intend to mount a publicity campaign to reach carers in advance of the introduction of the second state pension, and we hope to make many more pensioners aware of home responsibilities protection than are aware of it at present.
      The Carers National Association has agreed to disseminate information to its members at the appropriate time. We will pursue that offer, to ensure that people know that they have to report.
      A balance must be struck between allowing records to be checked and the bureaucracy of requiring mandatory reports at frequent intervals. We believe that three years strikes the right balance. Verification of information six years after the event would be more difficult, and would leave the scheme open to abuse.
      11 pm
      Amendment No. 12 is a variation on a theme that we discussed in Committee. Entitlement to the state second pension will be calculated on an annual basis, as is the case for SERPS. It would not be operationally feasible to move to a system that calculated entitlement on a weekly basis. As I explained, the second state pension is intended to help low earners through the low earners' boost, and carers through credits towards the second state pension. We believe that, in the interests of consistency, fairness and operational manageability, that is the right approach.
      The amendment confuses the two. It would allow people who were entitled to invalid care allowance to top up an earnings factor that was otherwise below the lower earnings limit, so they could benefit from the low earners' boost, mixing and matching different gateways. That is a sure recipe for administrative complexity and anomaly. That approach would favour a particular group. It would not, for instance, benefit carers who do not claim invalid care allowance but who apply for home responsibilities protection instead, because it takes a year to accrue that. So we hope that the amendment will be withdrawn, or defeated if it is pressed to a Division.
      Amendments Nos. 65 and 68, which show the co-operation between the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak, are interesting. We had an
      744
      interesting debate about these matters in Committee. Five or six Conservative Members spoke, each expressing a completely different opinion. Some wanted women at work, some wanted them at home and some could not quite decide where they should be. They really need to sort themselves out on this issue.
      Almost 1.5 million women caring for young children will begin to build up entitlement to additional pension for the first time under the state second pension. It is designed to give most help to those who are least able to afford to make their own provision, which is why we are focusing on mothers of children below school age. We recognise that they have the fewest opportunities, as they are caring for younger children, to earn above the lower earnings limit. Many mothers of school-age children combine their caring duties with part-time work and could benefit from the state second pension's low earners' boost when they earn as little as £3,432 a year. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) may think it is boring, but it will enable women who work part-time on low pay to accrue additional pension, often for the first time, so that they can look forward to retiring on a reasonable income instead of on to means-tested benefits, as all too many do now. The old systems have not supported them, and an examination of income statistics and the number of women who manage to qualify through their own contributions for additional pension, and even the basic pension, will confirm that view.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend talks about part-time earners. As I mentioned, people who work for 16 hours a week on the minimum wage will still not achieve the level of income to which she refers. What about those carers?
      Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right. The lower earnings limit implies between 17 and 18 hours a week. We hope that through the new deal, the new opportunities in the workplace and the support that the Budget has given to single parents and low earners, making work pay, many people will have the chance to improve the number of hours they work, reach the lower earnings limit and qualify for the low earnings boost.
      Focusing help on those caring for children under school age matches the choices that most mothers make. Most mothers take career breaks or periods out of work when their children are very young; many go back to work as their children get older. In addition, 4.5 million low earners—70 per cent. of whom are women—will gain under the second state pension. My hon. Friend should celebrate that, and welcome it.
      In view of that explanation, I urge the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Burstow: We have heard that a category of people on low incomes and with patchy records of receipt of invalid care allowance will find all the gates shut when it comes to the state second pension. Consequently, those people will not receive the low-income boost that the Minister rightly trumpets.
      The Minister suggested that I should be doing her job by trumpeting the state second pension outside the House. I should be happy to support a benefit that truly boosted the pensions of retired carers, but I have set out why that will not happen. The numbers that the Minister gave us will prove illusory unless the workings and eligibility criteria of the invalid care allowance are substantially

      745
      improved. The Minister said that she would do something about that, but I hope that the Government will do more. Simply telling us that something is not operationally possible is not acceptable to thousands of carers who expect more of the Government.
      This issue clearly needs further consideration at future stages, and we shall return to it in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 4

      ADDITIONAL PENSION
      Amendments made: No. 34, in page 93, line 23, leave out ", 48B(2) or 48BB(5)" and insert "or 48B(2)".
      No. 35, in page 93, line 35, at end insert—

      '(4A) For the purpose of applying sub-paragraph (1) above in the determination of the rate of any additional pension by virtue of section 48BB(5) above, in a case where the deceased spouse died under pensionable age, the divisor used for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) above shall be whichever is the smaller of the alternative numbers referred to below (instead of the number of relevant years).

      (4B) The first alternative number is the number of tax years which begin after 5th April 1978 and end before the date when the deceased spouse dies.

      (4C) The second alternative number is the number of tax years in the period—

      (a) beginning with the tax year in which the deceased spouse attained the age of 16 or, if later, 1978–79; and

      (b) ending immediately before the tax year in which the deceased spouse would have attained pensionable age if he had not died earlier.'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

    Clause 33

      REBATES
      Amendments made: No. 28, in page 30, line 3, leave out—
      '.under section 48A of that Act,'.
      No. 29, in page 30, line 5, at end insert—
      `, in accordance with section 48A below and Schedule 4A to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992,"'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

    Clause 36

      MODIFICATION OF EARNINGS FACTORS
      Amendments made: No. 30, in page 31, line 25, leave out "Pension Schemes Act 1993" and insert "1993 Act".
      No. 31, in page 31, line 26, leave out—
      `Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992'
      and insert "1992 Act".
      No. 32, in page 31, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

      '(2) Subsection (1) shall have effect—

      (a) in relation to the application of section 44(5A) of the 1992 Act by virtue of sections 39C(1) and 48BB(5) of that Act;

      (b) in relation to the application of section 44(5A) of the 1992 Act in the circumstances described in section 128(4) to (6) of the 1995 Act.

      746

      (3) In relation to the period—

      (a) beginning with 6th April 2000, and

      (b) ending with the day before the first regulations under section 48A(5) of the 1993 Act (as amended by subsection (1) above) come into force,

      the Secretary of State shall be taken to have, and to have had, power to calculate and pay relevant pensions by reference to section 44(5) of the 1992 Act as modified by regulations under section 48A(5) of the 1993 Act.

      (4) For the purposes of applying subsection (3) above—

      (a) the substitution made by section 128(1) of the 1995 Act shall be ignored, and

      (b) references in enactments to section 44(5A) of the 1992 Act shall (so far as necessary) be treated as references to section 44(5).

      (5) The first regulations under section 48A(5) of the 1993 Act (as amended by subsection (1) above) may include provision in relation to—

      (a) revising the calculation of a relevant pension;

      (b) paying a relevant pension in accordance with a revised calculation.

      (6) Relevant pensions are pensions which fall to be calculated—

      (a) in the circumstances described in section 128(4) to (6) of the 1995 Act, and

      (b) in relation to persons where, by virtue of section 48A(1) of the 1993 Act, section 44(6) of the 1992 Act has effect in any tax year as mentioned in section 48A(1) of the 1993 Act in relation to some but not all of a person's earnings.

      (7) For the purposes of this section—

      (a) the 1992 Act is the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992;

      (b) the 1993 Act is the Pension Schemes Act 1993;

      (c) the 1995 Act is the Pensions Act I995.'.[Mr. Rooker.]

    New Clause 25

      RESTRICTION ON INDEX-LINKING WHERE ANNUITY TIED TO INVESTMENTS
      `.—(1) In section 51(2) of the Pensions Act 1995 (annual increases in rate of pension) for "Subject to section 52" there shall be substituted "Subject to sections 51A and 52".

      (2) After section 51 of that Act there shall be inserted—
      "Restriction on increase where annuity tied to investments

      51A.—(1) No increase under section 51 is required to be made, at any time on or after the relevant date, of so much of any pension under a money purchase scheme as—

      (a) is payable by way of an annuity the amount of which for any year after the first year of payment is determined (whether under the terms of the scheme or under the terms of the annuity contract in pursuance of which it is payable) by reference to fluctuations in the value of, or the return from, particular investments;

      (b) does not represent benefits payable in respect of the protected rights of any member of the scheme; and

      (c) satisfies such other conditions (if any) as may be prescribed.

      (2) For the purposes of this section it shall be immaterial whether the annuity in question is payable out of the funds of the scheme in question or under an annuity contract entered into for the purposes of the scheme.

      747

      (3) In this section 'the relevant date' means the date appointed for the coming into force of section (Restriction on index-linking where annuity tied to investments) of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000." '.—[Mr. Rooker.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 25 provides members of money purchase occupational pension schemes with a choice. They will be able to use the non-protected rights element of their accumulated pension fund, in respect of rights accrued from April 1997, to buy instead either an investment-based annuity or an index-linked annuity. Occupational pensions must be increased annually as follows: rights that accrue from 5 April 1988 in respect of guaranteed minimum pension and protected rights must be indexed by the retail prices index, capped at 3 per cent.; and all rights accrued in salary-related and money purchase schemes from 6 April 1997 must be indexed by the RPI, capped at 5 per cent. Protected rights in appropriate personal pensions are subject to the same level of indexation.
      We consulted the pensions industry, employers and the public on whether it would be right to relax the current rules for money purchase pension schemes in order to allow schemes to offer investment-linked annuities to any member who might wish to choose that option as an alternative to a traditional index-linked annuity. Of course, the advantage of an investment-linked annuity is that it enables the annuitant to benefit from growth in a range of underlying investments after retirement, although that goes hand in hand with a risk of possible falls in pension income if investment performance is poor.
      The principle of introducing greater flexibility for occupational scheme members was widely welcomed. Indeed, a number of annuity providers pointed out that investment-linked annuities have delivered better results in recent years than the traditional index-linked annuity. The new flexibility will apply equally to members of money purchase schemes, whether they buy an annuity or are provided with a pension by their scheme.
      Protected rights are not covered by the new clause. As I said when I announced the results of the consultation exercise on 22 March, we intend to give further detailed consideration to issues that arise for protected rights before we decide whether to make any changes to the indexation rules that apply to them. We shall also give careful consideration to the comments that many respondents made on the wider question of the application of indexation requirements to occupational money purchase schemes.
      I emphasise that the proposed change provides a genuine option for members of money purchase schemes. The alternative of buying a traditional index-linked annuity will remain available for those members who prefer the certainty of a specified annual rate of increase each year.
      The new clause is quite narrow. I hope that it has the support of the House.
      Mrs. Lait: We certainly welcome this relaxation of the annuity rules for people who have to retire with a compulsory annuity, but it is worth pointing out that it
      748
      has had to happen because annuities have been progressively less good value, and we are now dealing with a cohort of pensioners who are upset and angry about what a bad deal the current requirement of compulsory annuities is. I would like to encourage the Government to be slightly braver and to look at all the requirements about annuities for the sake of the aggrieved pensioners for whom they are tinkering around the edges, welcome though these changes are.
      I would like the Government seriously to consider, first, whether annuities should be obligatory and, secondly, whether there is an argument for abolishing the 75-year rule for income drawdown. I should like to hear the Government's views on the proposal by the retirement income working party, in its document "Choices", that people should be obliged to take out a compulsory annuity that provides sufficient income merely to keep them off state benefits, and should then be allowed to manage the rest of their pension pot as they see fit. That seems to be the most sensible, logical and grown-up way of dealing with pensions.
      On that note, I would welcome—
      Mr. Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend has just said that the Government made this proposal only as a sop against the enormous, quite justified outcry from those people who are being cheated—being forced to take annuities at a yield scarcely above the gilt rate, although their capital is being extinguished thereby. Does she agree that this is a thoroughly inadequate, characteristically new Labour, sop? It is a thoroughly fraudulent public relations response.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Now that the hon. Gentleman has made his speech, perhaps I can say to the hon. Lady that we are going wide of the amendment before us.
      Mrs. Lait: I completely agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is why I was trying to bring the debate back to the small improvement that the Government have offered. Although I might thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend, I was trying to encourage the Government to help, rather than to beat them round the head, because sometimes it helps if you stroke them. Therefore, I hope very much that they will be stroked, and are prepared to consider much wider provision of better retirement income for pensioners.
      Mr. John Butterfill: I want to support what my hon. Friend has said and to welcome the measure as far as it goes, but the sheer complexity of the measure that the Minister has just outlined shows how impossible it has become for those who are buying annuities and pensions even to understand what they are contracting for.
      We are now in a position where any independent financial adviser who advised a prospective pensioner to buy a personal pension would be guilty of mis-selling. That is partly because the Government, and successive Governments, have laid on alternative forms of tax-advantageous investment. Recently, individual savings accounts were introduced. Before that, there were personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts. There are still venture capital trusts and enterprise investment schemes, all of which, from an investor's viewpoint, are better investments than personal pensions.

      749
      The situation for personal pensions will get worse. Because of the operation of the minimum funding requirement, the funds are not allowed to invest in such advantageous forms of investment. They are forced into gilts, so the value of pension funds will be diminished, which means that the yield on the annuities will be diminished. That is why the Government tabled the new clause, but it is a wholly inadequate response. We must put pension provision and pension saving on the same footing as the other forms of saving that the Government seek to encourage. As they do that, however, they are undermining the basis on which pension provision has been made in the past.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Flight: I welcome the new clause, but I wish to point out that there are two problems with investment-linked annuities. First, it is normally impossible to change manager. If someone is locked into what he considers to be a poor fund, he can do nothing about the manager of the equity-linked annuity.
      Secondly, the tax rules are such that if the annuity performs extremely well, the investor cannot take the full gains. The smoothing rules require that the income taken from the equity-linked annuity makes provision for potentially bad years in the future. There have been many cases in which people have died and left behind undrawn income, which simply accrues to the benefit of the insurance company.
      As far as I am aware, neither problem has been addressed by the Government's proposals. Therefore, I exhort them to get a move on and to consider the retirement income working party's report. It has addressed all the key concerns that the Treasury and the Inland Revenue have had about abolishing the obligation to buy an annuity. The debate has been going on for three years, and the Minister might even agree that the argument has been conclusively won by those who support the abolition of the requirement to buy an annuity and who want to move to something like the Canadian scheme. The requirement is particularly unjust for those approaching 75 and who find themselves locked into an annuity.
      Mr. Field: I very much welcome the change that the Government are making, but I hope that they will listen to the comments that have been made from both sides of the House and that we can move to a position in which the taxpayer's interest is protected. Provided that people meet the requirement of not being on welfare when they already receive tax concessions to build up their pension entitlement, they should be free to manage their own funds over and above the level stipulated.
      Mr. Rooker: I could get quite angry. However, given the time of night, I shall not do so. I do not think that we have received a big enough thank you for what we have done.
      Mr. Field: I say a big thank you to my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Rooker: I expect that from Labour Members.
      When I moved the new clause, I tried to hint at a serious issue that has not been addressed by it. The new clause is quite narrow and the issues that have been raised
      750
      are important. In due course, the Government will respond to the "Choices" report and I am very keen to get a positive response. The report raises some important issues. I do not think that it provides all the answers, but I doubt whether we shall ever find all the answers. However, we must find a way through the impasse.
      The problem is partly a consequence of the very low rates of inflation that we currently enjoy. Some people are aggrieved, and we shall try to find a solution, perhaps based on the "Choices" report, which may provide a foundation for the answer. My Department is concerned to ensure that any proposed scheme guarantees that people do not fall back on the state and means-tested benefits, and the Revenue has its views. The Government can make a collective response and we will come forward with that as quickly as possible.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 32

      JURISDICTION OF THE PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN
      '.—(1) Section 146 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (functions of the Pensions Ombudsman) shall be amended as follows.

      (2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—

      "(ba) a complaint made to him by or on behalf of an independent trustee of a trust scheme who, in connection with any act or omission which is an act or omission either—

      (i) of trustees of the scheme who are not independent trustees, or

      (ii) of former trustees of the scheme who were not independent trustees,

      alleges maladministration of the scheme,".

      (3) In that subsection, for the words after sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (d) there shall be substituted—

      "and in a case falling within sub-paragraph (ii) references in this Part to the scheme to which the reference relates are references to each of the schemes,

      (e) any dispute not falling within paragraph (f) between different trustees of the same occupational pension scheme,

      (f) any dispute, in relation to a time while section 22 of the Pensions Act 1995 (schemes subject to insolvency procedures) applies in relation to an occupational pension scheme, between an independent trustee of the scheme and either—

      (i) trustees of the scheme who are not independent trustees, or

      (ii) former trustees of the scheme who were not independent trustees, and

      (g) any question relating, in the case of an occupational pension scheme with a sole trustee, to the carrying out of the functions of that trustee."

      (4) After that subsection there shall be inserted—

      "(1A) The Pensions Ombudsman shall not investigate or determine any dispute or question falling within subsection (1)(c) to (g) unless it is referred to him—

      (a) in the case of a dispute falling within subsection (1)(c), by or on behalf of the actual or potential beneficiary who is a party to the dispute,

      (b) in the case of a dispute falling within subsection (1)(d), by or on behalf of any of the parties to the dispute,

      (c) in the case of a dispute falling within subsection (1)(e), by or on behalf of at least half the trustees of the scheme,

      751

      (d) in the case of a dispute falling within subsection (1)(1), by or on behalf of the independent trustee who is a party to the dispute,

      (e) in the case of a question falling within subsection (1)(g), by or on behalf of the sole trustee.

      (1B) For the purposes of this Part, any reference to or determination by the Pensions Ombudsman of a question falling within subsection (1)(g) shall be taken to be the reference or determination of a dispute."

      (5) In subsection (3) (persons responsible for the management of the scheme to be the trustees and managers and employer), after "occupational pension scheme" there shall be inserted "or a personal pension scheme".

      (6) For paragraph (a) of subsection (6) (exclusion of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction where court proceedings have been begun) there shall be substituted—

      "(a) if, before the making of the complaint or the reference of the dispute—

      (i) proceedings in respect of the matters which would be the subject of the investigation have been begun in any court or employment tribunal, and

      (ii) those proceedings are proceedings which have not been discontinued or which have been discontinued on the basis of a settlement or compromise binding all the persons by or on whose behalf the complaint or reference is made;".

      (7) In subsection (7) (persons who are actual or potential beneficiaries)—

      (a) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
      "(ba) a person who is entitled to a pension credit as against the trustees or managers of the scheme;" and

      (b) in sub—paragraph (i) of paragraph (c), for "paragraph (a) or (b)" there shall be substituted "paragraph (a), (b) or (ba)".

      (8) In subsection (8) (interpretation) after the definition of "employer" there shall be inserted—

      "'independent trustee', in relation to a scheme, means—

      (a) a trustee of the scheme appointed under section 23(1)(b) of the Pensions Act 1995 (appointment of independent trustee by insolvency practitioner or official receiver),

      (b) a person appointed under section 7(1) of that Act to replace a trustee falling within paragraph (a) or this paragraph;".

      (9) In subsection (1)—

      (a) for "complaints and disputes" there shall be substituted "matters";

      (b) in paragraph (b), for the words from "is to" to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted "are references to the other scheme referred to in that subparagraph"; and

      (c) in paragraphs (c) and (d), the words "which arises", in each place where they occur, shall be omitted.

      (10) Subsection (6) does not have effect in relation to proceedings begun before the day appointed under section 79 for the coming into force of this section.'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Rooker: 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 22—Transfer to Financial Services Ombudsman of functions of Pensions Ombudsman and OPRA—

      '.—(1) There shall be transferred to the Financial Services Ombudsman all the functions and powers of the Pensions Ombudsman established under Part X of the Pension Schemes
      752
      Act 1993 (as amended by the Pensions Act 1995); and the functions and powers of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority shall be similarly transferred.

      (2) The Treasury may by order—

      (a) provide for the transfer of any property, rights or liabilities held, enjoyed or incurred by any person in connection with functions transferred under this section;

      (b) provide for the carrying on and completion by or under the authority of the Financial Services Ombudsman of any proceedings, investigations or other matters concerned, before the order takes effect, by or under the authority of the Pensions Ombudsman or Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority;

      (c) make any transitional, incidental or consequential provision which is necessary, or expedient as a result of the transfer of functions under this section;

      (d) provide for the substitution of the Financial Services Ombudsman for the Pensions Ombudsman or Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority in any instrument, contract or legal proceedings made or begun before the order takes effect.

      (3) The Treasury may make regulations providing for—

      (a) the transfer to the scheme operator of any staff previously employed in the service of the Pensions Ombudsman or Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority;

      (b) the terms on which any such transfer shall take place; and

      (c) the terms on which the employment of any person previously employed in the service of the Pensions Ombudsman may be terminated.'.

      Government amendment No. 84.
      Mr. Rooker: New clause 32 will allow the pensions ombudsman to consider five new types of case, which I shall briefly describe. First, it allows independent trustees to take complaints or disputes with other trustees or former trustees of the same scheme to the pensions ombudsman. The independent trustees may discover that the actions of previous trustees were less than would have been expected. Currently, they would have to try to take the trustees to court, spending what may be limited scheme resources, or persuade a member to make a complaint to the pensions ombudsman on their behalf.
      Secondly, there may be occasions when scheme rules are unclear on an issue. Trustees may have to go to court to obtain a ruling on the meaning, particularly when a scheme is winding up and the rules cannot be changed. The new clause will allow the trustees to ask the pensions ombudsman for clarification if at least half of the members of the trustee board agree to do so, with no cost to the scheme. Half or more of the trustees have to agree because we do not want to overturn the principle that the majority view of the trustees should prevail.
      Thirdly, the new clause enables the pensions ombudsman to accept complaints about the employer in connection with personal pensions. Employers can have an increasing role to play in personal pensions, particularly in group personal pensions. Currently, a personal pension holder can complain about the actions of the trustees or administrators, but not those of the employer.
      Fourthly, the new clause allows those who are concerned, for example, about the level of charges or the implementation of the pension share, to raise that with the pensions ombudsman. When a person has a pensions credit awarded in a pension-sharing case, they should be able to complain if it is not handled properly by the scheme.

      753
      Finally, a scheme member may raise an issue concerning their pension scheme with the wrong authority, such as an industrial tribunal, which in this instance can be considered a court. Currently, if they do so, even by mistake, the pensions ombudsman cannot later accept the case. The new clause ensures that he can accept the case if it has been referred to court and has been discontinued.
      Amendment No. 84 makes consequential changes resulting from new clause 32.
      The new clause fills gaps in the pensions ombudsman's jurisdiction. There is a range of issues that the pensions ombudsman can investigate, but there are some issues that he currently cannot investigate. There is no good reason why he should be prevented from doing so and it would be helpful to members and schemes if he could investigate those issues. We consulted on those measures in "Strengthening the Pensions Framework", the consultation document issued at the same time as the Green Paper. There was overwhelming support for them, and I commend the new clause to the House.
      I turn now to new clause 22, to which I presume the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) will speak. The matter was raised in Committee, and I agreed that it was a legitimate question that should be debated. We all want to ensure that pension schemes and other financial products are properly regulated and that there are routes to deal with consumers' concerns.
      As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary acknowledged when a similar clause was debated during the Report stage of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, there is a certain logic to the proposal. However, there are reasons why both the pensions ombudsman and the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority should remain separate from the Financial Services Authority and the financial ombudsman service.
      I shall first clarify the current position. OPRA is a regulatory body that was set up to help to ensure that occupational pension schemes comply with the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995. That role is different from that performed by either the pensions ombudsman or the financial ombudsman service in that those organisations deal with complaints from individual scheme members, employers or trustees; they do not regulate. It would be inappropriate to combine the functions of a regulator with those of a complaint-handling body. That principle has been applied to the Financial Services Authority and the financial ombudsman service; they are separate and independent, although linked, organisations.
      The financial ombudsman service's compulsory jurisdiction is linked to regulation by the FSA. If an individual or organisation is authorised by the FSA, they come within the compulsory jurisdiction of the financial ombudsman service.
      On the other hand, the pensions ombudsman has jurisdiction over employers and trustees in relation to both occupational pension schemes and personal pensions. The jurisdiction is also compulsory in that there is no opt-out. Sponsoring employers and trustees of pension schemes are not authorised by the FSA and it would not be appropriate for them to be so.
      Bringing the pensions ombudsman's functions into the financial ombudsman service would mean that employers and trustees would have to be authorised by the FSA, which would not be sensible; or that the clear link between authorisation and compulsory jurisdiction would
      754
      be broken. It would not be practical to extend the financial ombudsman service's compulsory jurisdiction to include all those, such as trustees and sponsoring employers, who come within the remit of the pensions ombudsman.
      It is important that consumers are clear about whom they should go to for advice and to complain. The common theme is the office of the pensions advisory service. OPAS handles information and guidance concerning personal pensions and occupational schemes, and will cover stakeholder schemes. It is ideally placed to steer consumers toward the most appropriate place for their concerns to be dealt with. Indeed, the Financial Services and Markets Act enables the financial ombudsman service, with the consent of the complainant, to refer a case to another body, such as the pensions ombudsman, for resolution by that body. Those provisions were included with the pensions ombudsman in mind, to ensure that the consumer can benefit from a seamless service in respect of pensions issues.
      Furthermore, we shall work with both the financial ombudsman service and the pensions ombudsman to ensure that the lines between the two are clear and that consumers have access to the right organisation to deal with the concern raised. We want to ensure that consumers are clear about where their complaint will be dealt with.
      I had to stick to my text, because it is important that we make clear the reason why we do not want to accept new clause 22. I hope that I have demonstrated that the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, the pensions ombudsman and the financial ombudsman service operate in connected, but different, spheres and that there are therefore good reasons why those organisations should remain separate. However, I assure the House that we remain aware of the issue of clarity for the consumer. We shall develop ways in which to ensure that it is clear who consumers should approach. If, at any time, the Government fall down in that respect, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will bring it to our attention.
      Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to the Minister of State for his detailed explanation of the role of the pensions ombudsman, OPRA and OPAS. If it took so long to explain that to people who are interested in the subject, I dread to think how long it would take to explain to someone who was trying to navigate their way around the issue. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to set out the Government's reasoning clearly, we should like to go away and think about his comments, perhaps with a view to returning to the issues in another place.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 30

      CUSTODIANSHIP OF INVESTMENTS
      '.—(1) The trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme or a personal pension scheme must secure that investments held for the purposes of the scheme are held in accordance with an agreement made between the trustees or managers and an appropriate authorised person ("the custodian") which contains the provisions mentioned in subsection (2).

      (2) Those provisions are—

      (a) that the investments are held in the custodian's name and he maintains adequate records for identifying them as belonging to the scheme and not to himself or any other person,

      755

      (b) that the custodian is required to safeguard the investments,

      (c) that all documents of title relating to the investments are kept in the custodian's possession and may not be delivered to any other person except—

      (i) to another appropriate authorised person with whom the trustee or managers have made an agreement within this section or in accordance with instructions from the scheme's fund manager, and

      (ii) upon a request which is signified in the manner specified in the agreement,

      (d) that all arrangements and transactions relating to the investments are conducted and recorded in the manner and within the period so specified,

      (e) that adequate arrangements are made for the deposit or investment of money received by the custodian in pursuance of the agreement and for the payment by him of money required for the purposes of the scheme,

      (f) that the custodian is responsible for securing that the trustees and managers are fully informed of all matters relating to the investments within a period which is reasonable having regard to the importance of the information,

      (g) that, in any case where the custodian is also a person to whom any discretion to make any decision about investments has been delegated under section 38, the functions exercisable by him as custodian are adequately differentiated from those exercisable by him by virtue of that delegation,

      (h) that the custodian is liable for any reduction in value in the assets of the scheme arising from any breach of his obligations under the agreement, and

      (i) such other provisions as the trustees or managers consider appropriate for securing the safeguarding of the investments of the scheme.

      (3) Where an agreement in relation to the investment held for the purposes of a scheme has been made with a custodian in accordance with this section—

      (a) except in prescribed circumstances, the custodian shall not be regarded as a trustee or manager of the scheme by virtue only of complying with such provisions of the agreement as are mentioned in subsection (2), and

      (b) the trustees or managers of the scheme are not responsible for any act or default of the custodian in the course of exercising his functions as such if they have taken all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves—

      (i) that he is an appropriate person to appoint as custodian, and

      (ii) that he performs his functions under the agreement competently.

      (4) Subject to any restriction imposed by the scheme, an agreement under this section may include provision enabling the custodian to make arrangements with another person for him to exercise any of the custodian's functions under the agreement; and where the custodian makes such arrangements this section shall, except in prescribed circumstances, apply in relation to the other person as it applies to the custodian.

      (5) Regulations may—

      (a) provide that this section does not apply, or

      (b) modify it in its application,

      to schemes or investments falling within a prescribed class or description.'.—[Mr. Butterfill.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Butterfill: 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 31—Supplementary provisions concerning custodianship—

      '.—(1) In section (Custodianship of investments) references to an appropriate authorised person are to a person who—

      (a) is regulated in the carrying on of business consisting of the holding of pension scheme investments in accordance with such agreements as are mentioned in that section by a body which is a recognised self-regulating organisation for the purpose of the Financial Services Act 1986, and

      (b) subject to subsection (2), is not connected with the person who is the employer in relation to the scheme in question.

      (2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply—

      (a) where the employer is an institution authorised under the Banking Act 1987 or a prescribed person and the arrangements made under this section comply with such further requirements as may be prescribed, or

      (b) in prescribed circumstances.

      (3) Section 2(1) of the Financial Services Act 1986 (power to extend or restrict the meaning of "investment" and "investment business" for the purposes of all or any provisions of that Act) shall apply in relation to the provisions of section (Custodianship of investments) and this section as it applies in relation to the provisions of that Act.'.

      New clause 34—Company takeovers: trustees rights—
      '.—In circumstances where the employer changes the trustees will be consulted by the existing employer on any issue that would have any impact upon the pension fund or monies due to it, prior to the transfer.'.
      Amendment No. 83, in schedule 5, page 105, line 9, at end insert—Minimum funding requirement—
      . In section 56 of the 1995 Act (minimum funding requirement) subsection (4) shall be omitted.'.
      Mr. Butterfill: I rise to speak briefly to new clauses 30 and 31. They are not new clauses, in that they are not new to the House: they were first debated during consideration of the Pensions Act 1995. Their author was the National Association of Pensions Funds, and they were first proposed by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), now First Minister in the Scottish Parliament. He was absolutely right to propose the provisions, because the issue of custodianship of assets is a vital one.
      The 1995 Bill was, in many ways, a reaction to the Maxwell pensions scandal. The only reason why Mr. Maxwell could get away with his nefarious deeds was that he could get his hands on the securities that were held by the pension fund, and falsely pledge them to the bank as being assets of his company. If he had not been able to do that, none of the Maxwell scandal could have occurred. It would have been much more difficult for him to do that if he and his co-trustees had been required to have an independent custodian holding those securities—a custodian who would have asked why Mr. Maxwell personally needed his hands on those documents.
      11.30 pm
      If we proceed with the two related new clauses in my name, it will make it very much more difficult—not impossible, but very much more difficult—for a future Maxwell to behave in that way. Of course, even an independent custodian must hand over securities if required but, given the responsibilities that custodians

      757
      now have under legislation, and given the responsibilities that would be placed on them by the new clauses, they would be required to ask pertinent questions before they gave in to any unusual requests of that nature. Under the new clauses, they would also have responsibility if they did not behave with due discretion in these matters. Such clauses are the only way of preventing a future Maxwell.
      The previous Government argued, and the present Government are arguing, that the new clauses are unnecessary for a number of reasons. One is that custodians are now adequately regulated. They are indeed regulated under the Pensions Act and under the Occupational Pension Schemes (Minimum Funding Requirement and Actuarial Valuations) Regulations 1996.
      The second reason given is cost. That was dealt with last time. The National Association of Pension Funds estimates that, for the average scheme, the cost of independent custodianship would be one twentieth of 1 per cent. of the total of the assets. That is not an exorbitant amount. It is an amount that any reasonable scheme could bear for the security that would be given to its members.
      The third reason given by the Government when the matter was last considered was that there was no legislation in place to regulate the operation of the custodians themselves. The Government said that we would have to wait until the relevant legislation determined how they would be regulated. If the custodians could be regulated, perhaps such a proposal would work.
      Well, the custodians are now regulated. The legislation has done its job. The Occupational Pensions Schemes (Scheme Administration) Regulations 1996 have done their job in regulating the activities of custodians, as the Minister confirmed to me. This is the only way in which we can prevent someone from acting as Maxwell acted. There is now no reason why that should not be done. All the pieces of the jigsaw are in place.
      It is no use the Minister or others saying that most schemes already have independent custodians—of course they have—and that only small schemes do not have them. In my constituency, small firms have gone bust. The entrepreneur who was running them had appointed his cronies as trustees of the pension fund, and ran off with the money. That can still happen even today, regrettably. Only a measure such as the new clauses can prevent it.
      I apologise for detaining the House, but these are important subjects. Amendment No. 83 would amend section 56 of the 1995 Act in a way that would change the operation of the minimum funding requirement.
      The amendment's intention is to permit fund trustees to take into account the total return on their assets rather than simply to consider the income that derives from them to match the fund's future liabilities. I admit that the amendment that I tabled is incompetent and does not achieve the effect that I intended. People who are more expert than me have pointed that out. Nevertheless, it is important to debate the subject.
      I declare an interest on behalf of all hon. Members: I am a trustee of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. I also acknowledge the assistance that I received from the National Association of Pension Funds, the Institute of Actuaries and especially from Mr. Graham Bishop of Salomon Smith Barney. His research paper "Understanding Bond Markets" has been an invaluable source of statistical information.
      758
      I have already emphasised the importance of the 1995 Act in response to the Maxwell scandal. It ensured that funds were maintained at a sufficient level to meet future requirements. The Act authorised the Secretary of State to issue regulations to govern such activities, especially the Occupational Pension Schemes (Minimum Funding Requirement and Actuarial Valuations) Regulations 1996.
      Paragraph 7 of the regulations causes particular anxiety. It is headed "Determination and Valuation of Liabilities". Sub-paragraph 3 provides that there is an assumption that all liabilities will be met through investment in gilt-edged securities. That is the crux of the problem. If liabilities have to be met through such investment, and gilt-edged securities are continually decreasing, the yield to the fund will steadily diminish.
      I first raised the matter when the original legislation was made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) wrote me a letter—now known in the industry as the Butterfill letter—which relaxed the regulations to permit large funds to invest a specific proportion of their matching in equities rather than gilts.
      However, the requirement to match a significant proportion of a scheme's future liabilities by investment in long-term gilts remains. It has created the problems that I now want to tackle. Of course, I know that the Government recognise that a problem exists and that they are conducting a review of the operation of the minimum funding requirement. However, I am worried by rumours that the outcome of the review may consist of little more than proposing an extension of the requirement to invest in gilts to allowing additional investment in high-quality corporate bonds. Unfortunately, that would be a palliative. It would do little more than apply sticking plaster to a gaping wound in the whole system of pension provision; a wound that is getting wider and deeper with every month that passes.
      The problem arises not from one factor but from a series, which interact cumulatively to produce a most alarming problem. I shall outline those factors. The first is increasing life expectancy. We all live much longer. Secondly, there is an increase in the demand for gilt-edged securities not merely by pension funds but by insurance companies, which are required by regulation to match their liabilities in their reserving regime. Thirdly, there is a reduction in the supply of long-dated gilts due to an improved inflow of funds to the Treasury as a result of increasing economic activity and significant increases in taxation by the Government as a percentage of gross domestic product.
      The last factor may be alleviated. The Red Book shows that the Government may move from a surplus to a growing deficit over the next few years. That factor may therefore be less serious than we anticipate. However, the first two factors are likely to become much more serious for the foreseeable future.
      The improved health in our nation is likely further to extend life expectancy and thus the long-term liabilities of funds for such funds will require them to hold a rising proportion of gilts as their members age. That has been exacerbated by the Government's decision in 1997 to remove the ability of pension funds to reclaim advance corporation tax on dividends.

      759
      Gilt yields have halved in the past few years and that trend accelerated following the rush for valuations ahead of the 1997 deadline, with the resultant sharp rise in long gilt purchases as the funds decided to strengthen their position. As a result, the 15-year gilt yield fell by more than 30 per cent.—from 7.6 to 4.9 per cent.—in the two years between 1997 and October 1999. The inexorable movement in that direction is exacerbated by the fact that the actuaries to the funds are allowed no discretion in their valuations.
      The problem that we face is that the current system forces funds to switch from equities to gilts. That in turn drives down the yield on gilts, which in turn creates a need to purchase still more gilts to match the future liabilities. Thus we are creating an inexorable downward spiral of gilt yields, fed by itself. That is an investment black hole into which an increasing proportion of funds is sucked with calamitous potential results for purchasers, equity investment and our national well-being.
      The Government have stated that they are keen to encourage savings for retirement and that an increasing proportion of those savings should be invested in the productive economy, particularly the newly emerging high-tech sector. However, if a fund chooses an investment policy with a higher equity content, which the Government say that they want, rather than matching the equity-gilt balance used in calculating the liability and if gilt yields then decline relative to equity yields, the current value of the "pensions in payment" and the "approaching requirement" segments of that liability, subject to the equity easement to which I referred earlier, will rise relative to the equity-based assets. Thus, the minimum funding requirement ratio of assets to liabilities will deteriorate.
      Unless the Government take immediate action to remedy that situation, the results will be disastrous. First, they will not be able to achieve their ambition to persuade UK funds to invest in the productive sector of the economy. That is already apparent as the overwhelming bulk of funds flowing into British venture capital companies arises from investments in those companies by United States pension funds. The Government of that country have created more enlightened rules for investment by pension fund trustees.
      Secondly, the yield on long-dated gilts will continue to fall. That creates huge distortions in our funding system where the yield on long gilts is massively lower than that for short-term interest rates. Indeed, although UK short-term interest rates are double those prevailing in the rest of the European Community, yields for 10-year bonds are three percentage points less than those of their German counterparts. Incredibly, we are approaching a position where the Government could find it to their advantage to repay the notorious 3.5 per cent. war loan.
      The impact of falling gilt rates on annuities has been disastrous for those who have reached retirement age and who had prudently saved for their retirement through personal pension schemes. As The Sunday Times pointed out on 26 March, after the Budget, in 1990 a man of 65 could have bought a pension of about £1,500 a year for every £10,000 that he had saved in his pension fund. Today, he would get about £900 a year—almost half—and the figure continues to fall. Our system betrays all
      760
      those who have saved through personal pensions, particularly as most would have achieved a far better and more flexible result had they saved through one of the alternative investment vehicles, which I pointed out in the previous debate.
      Thirdly, the rules do not operate for the benefit of future pensions. Funds invested in pension schemes, whether personal or occupational, have been so successful because of the rising rate of equities and the benign overall economic climate created by increasing investment. Perversely, the minimum funding requirement as presently constituted will transfer the amount invested in the productive sector of the economy to the far less productive fixed interest investment sector. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the value of pension funds will grow as it has in the past and there could be serious implications for the future well-being of those making pension savings today.
      11.45 pm
      The answer to the problem will not be to allow limited and highly regulated investment in high-quality commercial bonds. The yield on those bonds will fall, and the contribution that they can make to investment requirements is of necessity limited. Such a move would have only a temporary palliative effect. The answer is to move away from mechanistic actuarial calculations based solely on income flow and towards a system that realistically and conservatively assesses total investment returns. That policy is now being adopted by the trustees of many institutions other than pension funds.
      I serve on the council of management of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals. As that charity has substantial on-going liabilities for the monthly payment of the salaries of veterinary and other staff, the investment policies that we dictated to our fund managers were, until recently, income constrained. We realised that it did not matter whether the money coming into the charity was income or from capital gains, so long as we got in enough money. We decided that, provided that our calculations were prudent and likely to produce sufficient funds, we could change the whole basis of our investments. So it should be with pension funds.
      If the present trend continues, we could arrive at a situation in which funds have capital values that massively exceed any reasonable calculation of future liability, but their income is so poor as a result of declining gilt yields that they are constantly forced to add to their capital funds. We have surely created a regulatory madhouse, which the Government must reform without delay.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: I never thought that the day would come when I would find myself agreeing with a significant part of what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) has said, especially in his earlier contribution. I profess a certain ignorance on the latter points that he made, but I am pleased that he is looking after our pension fund in the House.
      The hon. Gentleman raises some important points. I shall refer to new clause 34 and the question of takeovers. It was interesting to hear the exchange last week and again today between the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and the Secretary of State for Trade

      761
      and Industry on the position of Rover. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West raised a particularly important point about smaller companies.
      I sought to introduce a private Member's Bill on this point in the previous Parliament, but I was persuaded by the then Government that the issues that I was raising would be covered by the Pensions Act 1995. To be fair, a significant number of improvements were made at that time. Sadly, the collapse of H. H. Robertson's in my constituency early in 1997 shows that the 1995 Act may need strengthening further.
      In commenting on that case, I should like to pay tribute to a number of colleagues. 1 mentioned the hon. Member for Solihull, who in his position in the previous Government referred this case to the Serious Fraud Office. His successors have also been extremely helpful. The noble Lord Harrison of Chester and the noble Lord Hunt of Wirral have made positive contributions in this area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is still working with me on this case, as are other local colleagues. Many of them, including the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), have constituents who are affected by this terrible tragedy. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Deputy Prime Minister have consistently taken an interest in this case.
      This collapse came about after an asset-stripping operation by Mr. Ric Wharton, who bought the company for £1. He made a pretence of reviving the company, but in reality he made a lot of money at the expense of the company's creditors. Sadly, and perhaps wrongly, pension funds are unsecured creditors, so when the company was refinanced by a conventional bank loan, the fund fell further down the pecking order of creditors. The net effect was that, when the company collapsed, the pension fund had a shortfall of about £5 million. Now, pensioners are surviving on about 25 per cent. of their pension entitlement, while Mr. Wharton lives in the lap of luxury.
      Many of the people who lost their jobs would have been far better off had they chosen to retire, rather than taking a pay cut—at Mr. Wharton's behest, and having had no real choice, and no knowledge of how to handle the situation. Had they done so, the state would, ironically, have saved money, because the amount now being paid in benefits is astronomical. At that point, the company's assets would have largely covered its debts, including those of the pension fund. The trouble is that those concerned were not entitled to the key information, and had to rely on the word of someone who has since proved to be less than straightforward. The new clause would put a little power back into the hands of pension funds in similar circumstances.
      I realise that, in its present form, my proposal would have serious implications for company legislation, but I hope that the plight of my constituents will persuade the House to ensure that what I have described never happens again. I accept that the whistleblowing and other provisions of the 1995 Act help, but they do not entirely deal with the problem.
      I know that the new clause does nothing to help my constituents, but all to whom I have spoken agree that no one else should suffer what they have suffered. I urge my right hon. Friend to do all that he can to protect funds at the point of takeover, by agreeing to look at the practical effects of this dreadful case on real people and legislating accordingly.
      Mr. Field: Like the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), I will speak briefly.
      I support the campaign spearheaded by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on behalf of his constituents, and people in surrounding constituencies. Many worked hard for what was, they thought, a full working life, expecting to retire on a decent pension; they now find that their pensions are so reduced that they will not even be able to claim the minimum income guarantee, because they will be just above the qualifying level for income support. This is a very important issue, and I hope that those in the other place will be able to examine it again.
      The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, citing the Maxwell effect on pension funds, asked whether all the checks that we could put in place were there to protect pension funds. In the other place is the person who recovered most of the funds for the Maxwell pensioners. Perhaps when the Bill moves there, he will be the appropriate person to look at not only new clause 30, but new clauses 31 and 34.
      Mr. Rooker: I almost feel tempted to say, "Let's call it a day and send the Bill to the other place." I am sure that those in the other place will find a more civilised and conducive time for discussion. However, we plod on.
      That is not a complaint, by the way. It is not a complaint about the new clauses and amendments that have been tabled, or about the debate—far from it. A vital part of life in this country is the protection of the interests of pensioners. However, I do not think we are in a position to do the subject justice here at five minutes to midnight. I have no problem with the idea that we may look at the matter again in the summer.
      The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) was good enough to warn me that he intended to table the new clauses. We have engaged in correspondence, but I may not have convinced him fully in that, and I think it useful to present the Government's views again.
      As the hon. Gentleman knows, new clauses 30 and 31 are identical to those tabled in Committee in June 1995, during consideration of the Pensions Act 1995, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), who then represented Glasgow, Garscadden and who is now Scotland's First Minister.
      The Government of the day rejected those new clauses—I hate to have to read this out, but it is true—for reasons that I find as persuasive today as they were in 1995. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am being as honest and open as I possibly can. However, the fact is that when one is in opposition, one does not always have access to all the necessary information on the arguments. When one crosses over to the other side of the Chamber, one sometimes discovers that the arguments are not quite as one thought that they were.
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: That works both ways.
      Mr. Rooker: Yes, but I prefer crossing the Chamber in this direction.
      The use of custodians in occupational pension schemes is as widespread today as it was in 1995—it is more or less universal. A very small minority of schemes do not

      763
      make use of custodians, but most schemes regard the use of custodians both as good practice and as a prerequisite for carrying on investment in certain overseas markets.
      There are, therefore, two issues to be considered in relation to new clauses 30 and 31. The first is whether the use of custodians significantly increases the security of scheme assets and should be made mandatory for all occupational pension schemes. The second is whether—and, if so, in what manner—the conduct of custody business should be regulated. New clause 30 deals with the first issue, and new clause 31 with the second.
      In 1995, the predecessor to new clause 30 was rejected because both the Government of the day and the then hon. Member for Garscadden recognised that the Pensions Law Reform Committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Goode, had taken the view that the appointment of a custodian could give only the illusion of security. The appointment of a custodian does not in itself increase the security of scheme assets, as the custodian is required under the terms of the custody contract to release the assets in question provided that the instructions to do so are issued in the manner stated in the contract.
      Mr. Butterfill: I had anticipated that the Minister would make that argument, which has been made before. However, the situation has now changed. When that argument was first made, we did not have the regulation of custodians that we now have under the pensions regulations and the Financial Services Act 1986. The onus on custodians is, therefore, now much greater. However, even if that were not the case, the onus imposed on custodians by the new clauses would deal with that point.
      Mr. Rooker: I am grateful for that intervention, as it gave me time to find the note that I was looking for. I have already partly dealt with the point, but I also accept the hon. Gentleman's comments on the changes, which I shall deal with in a moment. However, he made the point that the use of custodians would have stopped Maxwell and prevented other people from raiding pension fund assets. That is not strictly true. Some of the assets misappropriated by Maxwell were placed with independent custodians, but that did not stop him. Independent custodians also would not necessarily deter another Maxwell. The custodians are bound to release the assets that they hold in accordance with their contracts.
      The man was a crook, and a determined one. It is very difficult to guarantee that we can prevent all future problems caused by determined fraudsters, although we can erect the best barriers possible—and considerable barriers have been erected since 1995. However, appointment of a custodian offers no significant protection against a determined fraud. That holds true today.
      The Government therefore consider that the voluntary use of custodians by occupational pension schemes recognises both the advantages of custodianship and its inherent limitations. Making use of custodians mandatory might well convey the impression to scheme members that the assets of their schemes are secure, when in fact they are no more secure than they would be if no custodian were used.
      Additionally, for the small number of schemes which for reasons of their own do not make use of custodians, making their use mandatory might place additional and
      764
      unnecessary financial and administrative burdens on schemes whose arrangements for security of scheme assets serve them perfectly well and have done so for many years.
      The only point that I need to make on new clause 31 is that, since June 1997, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West said, the investment activity of custodians has been regulated under the Financial Services Act 1986. There is no need to set up a new regulatory body to oversee custody business.
      On amendment No. 83, as hon. Members are aware, the Pensions Act 1995 introduced various measures aimed at—
      12 midnight
      Mr. Butterfill: Will the Minister address the fact that even the latest legislation does not require arm's-length appointment of trustees, as the new clause would?
      Mr. Rooker: I am not seeking to give the impression in my response, inadequate though it may be, that the position is perfect and everything is locked down. No doubt we shall return to the issue in due course.
      A number of measures were introduced in the 1995 Act with the aim of promoting security for members of pension schemes, including the minimum funding requirement. It is important to protect members and the benefits that they are promised. There can be no objection to that.
      Amendment No. 83 would undermine the minimum funding requirement for some schemes, which would be considered as meeting the requirement even if there were insufficient funds to meet the rights of members on the basis on which they were accrued. If a scheme was not funded to the minimum requirement, the liabilities—the members' pension rights—could be reduced to the level of the assets available in the scheme rather than increasing contributions.
      The minimum funding requirement is not a guarantee of solvency. I freely admit that as a lay person I had thought it was. In the past eight months, since I have been at the Department of Social Security, I have looked at the issue in more detail. The lay person can get a false impression from the minimum funding requirement. It is not intended to force employers to contribute at a higher rate than is needed in the long term to meet the benefits promised.
      A wide-ranging review of the minimum funding requirement is being carried out by the Institute of Actuaries and the Faculty of Actuaries in Scotland, in partnership with the Department of Social Security. It has been a significant and detailed review, with different groups looking at seven different papers and sub-groups set up. The report is due this spring. There will be full consultation on any changes that we propose. We have to strike the right balance. This can be a sensitive issue, because of the differences in pension funds. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion, on the promise that the issue will be raised in the other House.
      I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who raised the issue behind new clause 34 with me a few weeks ago in respect of the former members of the H. H. Robertson pension scheme. He has been a tireless campaigner and

      765
      has a good record for raising the issue with Ministers in my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry. The sale of a business by one employer to another is a common occurrence. There are provisions in pensions legislation to protect the funding of pension schemes. I freely accept that those provisions were not in place when the relevant events at H. H. Robertson occurred, but I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that they are in place now and are worthwhile additions to the protection afforded to scheme members.
      My hon. Friend alluded to the situation at Rover. In that case, one company has been sold to two other companies, with a bit of it being retained by the current owner, as I understand it. Occupational pensions are voluntary. There is no requirement to run a scheme and I have no information on Alchemy's proposals. Ford is a responsible employer of many thousands of people in this country with occupational pension schemes. We can assure Rover employees who are members of the existing occupational pension scheme that the pension rights that they have already earned are protected. It is crucial that that is understood. The trust arrangements are irrevocable.
      I do not know the details of the Rover scheme, but it is true that surpluses sometimes accrue. It is a moot point who owns the surplus. The legal authority is such that the surplus is not in the members' ownership: as long as the money is there and the pensions are being paid, it seems to be in the ownership of the employer. That is a not unimportant point: especially when large companies break up other companies and sell them as though they were a row of cans on a supermarket shelf, it is crucial to ensure that the protections put in place after 1995 are thoroughly explored and the schemes are secure for current pensioners as well as those who are paying in for the future.
      Trustees have a role in seeking to ensure that debts due from an employer are paid promptly, including any debts created by ceasing to participate in the scheme, if the scheme is underfunded or if no contributions, or the incorrect contributions, are paid. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston spoke about the Serious Fraud Office being called in. I have no information on that aspect of the specific case, and it would be improper for me to speculate on it.
      The minimum funding requirement should lessen the risk that a scheme is underfunded through, for instance, an over-extended contributions holiday. There are many home-grown blue-chip companies in this country that have not paid a penny into their pension funds for years. Many of my constituents who are members of the Lucas pension fund have often had cause to speak to me about that situation.
      The MFR is an on-going requirement on schemes to monitor their funding position and to have in place a contributions plan to ensure that the appropriate funding level is maintained. The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority must be told if employers fail to stick to the contributions plan and to pay contributions on time.
      We are aware of the importance of protecting members' rights. That is the bottom line. If we cannot do that, they have no one else to look to. Where there are gaps in the legislation, we must block them. There is no evidence of major difficulties. Reviews are going on and we will report the results to the House as early as we possibly can.
      766
      There will be full consultation on any changes that we propose, and one can assume from that that there will be further debate on the issue.
      Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but I do not accept his arguments on custody. Of course, some of the Maxwell funds were held by custodians, but custodians were not regulated at that time, so that argument does not hold water. They are now properly regulated, although I think that the regulations could have been improved, and the need for custodianship remains.
      Of course, nothing that we can do will prevent a determined fraudster from getting his way—we cannot stop crime—but we can make it a darn sight more difficult for such a fraudster, and that is what we ought to do. I do not understand the argument advanced by both the previous and the present Government, that investors would be lulled into a false sense of security. How would that change their behaviour? Would they not then belong to their company's pension scheme? The argument is a non sequitur. We need to give investors as much security as we can.
      The argument on cost does not stand up either. Anybody would be prepared to pay one twentieth of 1 per cent. for the benefit of that security. Does the Minister really think that custodians, who are now properly regulated, would hand over the assets, just like that, to a company boss who happened to ask for them, because he was a trustee of the scheme? Does he think that the trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension scheme would hand over to me or to other trustees all the securities that we hold on behalf of Members of Parliament? Of course they would not. The matter should properly be considered in another place, so I will not seek to press the matter to a Division. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances on the minimum funding requirement. I hope that the review is thorough and that what I have said contributes in some small way towards it, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 40

      MEMBER-NOMINATED TRUSTEES
      Mr. Miller: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in page 35, line 25, at end insert—

      '(za) The word "and" shall be omitted and after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—

      "( ) that in the case of schemes which fall in a prescribed class, that such arrangements for the selection of persons nominated by pensioner members and deferred members of the scheme to be trustees of the scheme as are required by this section are made, and".'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 72, in page 35, line 30, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

      '(3) In subsection (3) (selected persons to be trustees)—

      (a) in paragraph (a) for "in accordance with the appropriate rules" there shall be substituted "as a member-nominated trustee"; and

      767

      (b) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—

      "(c) for member-nominated trustees to be selected only by the members of the scheme or their representatives;

      (d) regulations may prescribe who is a representative for the purpose of paragraph (c).".'.

      No. 71, in page 35, line 39, at end insert—
      '(5A) In paragraph (b) of subsection (6), after the words "total number of trustees" there shall be inserted the words "and in the case of schemes to which paragraph (b) of subsection ( 1 ) above applies, at least one additional trustee nominated by the pensioner members and deferred members of the scheme.".'.
      No. 95, in page 35, line 41, after "(6A)", insert—
      'The arrangements must provide that pensioner members of a scheme have the same rights of nomination and selection for member-nominated trustees as all other members of a scheme.
      (6B)'.
      No. 73, in page 36, line 19, leave out "and".
      No. 74, in page 36, line 22, at end insert—
      ', and
      (c) unless a proposal is made to which section 1 8A below applies, and regulations made under section I8A(4) apply as a consequence. the manner in which the trustees are to inform and consult with the members and former members of the scheme about the effect of the arrangements to be made in accordance with this section.'.
      No. 66, in page 36, line 22, at end insert—

      '(9A) The Secretary of State shall make regulations providing that all trustees shall be required to have attended an approved training course explaining the role and responsibilities of trustees within six months of being either elected as a member-nominated trustee or appointed as a trustee by the scheme's sponsoring employer.

      (9B) Regulations under subsection (9A) shall also prescribe the content of such an approved training course.

      (9C) The failure of a trustee to attend such a course as is mentioned in subsection (9A) within six months of being either elected or appointed as a trustee shall nullify the trustee's election or appointment.'.

      No. 75, in clause 41, page 37, line 7, at end insert—
      '(5A) In paragraph (b) of subsection (6) for the words "at least one third" there shall be substituted "at least one half.".'.
      Mr. Miller: In view of the time, I will deliver the abbreviated version of the long tome that I have in front of me.
      These amendments to the Pensions Act 1995 would ensure that all schemes have member-nominated trustees by not allowing employers to propose opt-outs with no member-nominated trustees, or with less than one third; would provide a new statutory route for the selection of MNTs, whereby trustees can implement proposals within a framework of legislation and regulations without scheme members' approval having to be gained through the statutory consultation procedure, under which proposals are published and allowed to proceed if fewer than 10 per cent. of members object; and would allow employers to make proposals for MNTs outside the bases permitted by the statutory route, but to subject that scheme-specific route to a more rigorous statutory consultation procedure than now applies.
      I turn to amendment No. 70. The National Association of Pension Funds survey indicates that only 30 per cent. of members of private sector occupational schemes are active members—38 per cent. are pensioners and 32 per cent. are deferred members. Ten years ago, the
      768
      corresponding percentages were 46 per cent. active, 34 per cent. pensioners and 20 per cent. deferred members. That trend will continue.
      There is no doubt that pensioners as a rule do not feel that their interests are adequately considered by trustee boards. There is a widespread misconception that, if pensioners are given an inflation-linked increase, that is all they should and could have. Pensioners tend to feel, with some justification in many cases, that benefit improvements are concentrated on active members.
      I move to amendment No. 72. Under current legislation, the provision is for one third MNTs. By default, that means two thirds company-appointed trustees. The amendment says that "member nominated" is not sufficient and we should have "member selected" trustees.
      The confidence of members in schemes demands that member trustees be perceived as representing members. We need to make it as clear as possible that member trustees should be independent of the employer. That purpose will be served by requiring that member trustees be in all cases selected by members of the scheme, or member representative bodies, which may be pension committees, trade unions or pensioner associations.
      The amendment proposes that, for a scheme above a size to be prescribed, and where pensioners comprise a specified proportion of members to be prescribed, an additional pensioner trustee should be required. Such a basis would be a modest advance on the one-third minimum, but could still allow employer-appointed trustees to remain in a majority.
      I come next to amendment No. 71—the debate about a half, rather than a third. The general conclusion drawn on member trustees is that they improve the working of trustee boards both by their input and by ensuring that trustee boards conduct their meetings properly and in accordance with the Pensions Act. They add to member confidence in schemes, which has been so badly damaged, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) noted, by the actions of Robert Maxwell and of others.
      The Government, and bodies such as the National Association of Pension Funds, endorse the view that having 50 per cent. member trustees represents good practice, but are not keen to make that a statutory requirement. However, many large schemes have operated on that basis without alienating the sponsoring employers. The alphabetical list starts with Allied Domecq, British Airways, British Aerospace and BT, and goes right through to the Prudential, Rolls-Royce, Rover, Shell and Unilever. In my previous work, I had some direct dealings with those funds.
      12.15 am
      Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 would require the trustees to consult on the proposals under the statutory route. Under the new statutory route, where the employer makes a proposal but does not get approval for it under the scheme-specific route, it falls to the trustees to devise and implement proposals for member trustees. They would not be obliged to consult anyone, or to seek member approval for the basis that they devise.
      Once implemented, the system would last indefinitely, or until there was a major change in the scheme. Amendment No. 74 proposes a requirement for consultation by the

      769
      trustees before they implement a proposal. A possible model may be the existing requirement for the employer to inform and consult members three months before implementing a change in contracting-out arrangements. However, there would need to be a change to include pensioners in that.
      In making arrangements for member trustees, a key objective is that members should have confidence in the arrangements. If trustees were able to implement a system without notice or consultation they would run a grave risk of alienating members. The amendment therefore asks for regulations to prescribe a basis for information and consultation before trustees implement proposals.
      Mr. Burstow: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 95, which covers some of the issues outlined by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller).
      We want the Minister to clarify how the rules will work for the constituency structure proposed for the composition of the member-nominated members of trustee boards in the future. The Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners has expressed concern that the rules will mean that the method of selection and nomination of constituency elements of the member-nominated trustees will work against the interests of pensioners. The federation fears that pensioners' role and representation on trustee boards will be marginalised.
      I understand that that concern arose at least in part out of a meeting that the federation had with the Minister and departmental officials. I hope that the Minister will confirm the value that the Government rightly attach in the Bill to the important role that pensioner trustees can play. I hope also that he will make some sort of commitment to the importance of ensuring that the constituency nomination and selection procedures will not limit pensioner members' ability to be represented fairly in the schemes.
      The key matter is fair representation for pensioner members, who can bring an independence to the boards of trustees that other members often cannot bring. It would be very helpful to hear some reassurance in that regard.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: I will be very brief. I should simply like to remind my right hon. Friend the Minister of State of a meeting that he and I and other Members of Parliament representing Birmingham constituencies attended some years ago with representatives of Lucas pensioners. They left us in no doubt that the pensioner members of the Lucas pension fund had interests very different from those of the other members of the pension funds, and made us aware of the need to ensure that their interests in pensioner funds were represented.
      I urge my hon. Friend to listen to the arguments in favour of amendments Nos. 70 and 71, to ensure that funds include pensioner representatives and that they do not take a place that is currently allocated to other members.
      Angela Eagle: The amendments cover two related issues—member-nominated trustees and training for pension scheme trustees. On member-nominated trustees, clauses 40 to 43 will ensure that every occupational pension scheme has at least one third member-nominated trustees. The provisions in sections 16 to 21 of the
      770
      Pensions Act 1995 have, by and large, worked, but they do not go far enough. There are still too many schemes that do not have member-nominated trustees. The current provisions give the employer the opportunity to propose arrangements that do not include provision for any member trustees.
      The Bill legislates for the principle of member-nominated trustees, and puts it into the law for the first time. We want every scheme to have member-nominated trustees, and as a result of the Bill, they will. We believe that they add value, and increase member confidence.
      Regular complaints about the current system are that it is too easy to exclude pensioner members from the process, and that the present legislation is too complex and difficult to operate. We have listened and responded to those concerns. Under the new provisions, there will be member-nominated trustees or directors in every scheme. There will be two routes to satisfy the new requirements—we have labelled them the trustee route and the employer route.
      Under the trustee route, trustees will implement nomination and selection procedures using a framework set out in regulations. The regulations will provide trustees with flexibility over certain aspects of the nomination and selection procedures. For example, they will be given discretion to divide the membership into constituencies. However, the framework will ensure that all members are treated fairly, so there will be no need for consultation or for member approval. As a result, the process will be simpler and cheaper, which will be widely welcomed.
      Under the employer route, employers will have the right to propose bespoke nomination and selection arrangements for their scheme, but the proposal must provide for a minimum of one third member-nominated trustees to be approved by the members. There will be no opportunity to opt out, so every scheme will have member trustees, whichever system is used.
      We thought long and hard about whether to provide for a reserved place for a pensioner trustee in large, mature schemes. We decided, on balance, that it would be unwise to do anything to suggest that any trustee has a directly representative role for a particular group of individuals, and that our priority should be to ensure that every scheme has members on the board. That we have done. However, we are aware of concerns that in some schemes pensioner members have been unfairly excluded from participating in the selection of member trustees. That is why we have gone much further to ensure that pensioner members cannot be unfairly treated. The new provisions ensure that pensioner members are included at every stage in the trustee route, and that they will have a say in the approval process under the employer route.
      We have worked closely with the pensions industry and other groups, including the TUC, to produce changes that will give members greater participation and confidence in their pension schemes, and at the same time to make arrangements for the nomination and selection of member-nominated trustees easier to operate.
      This package of changes represents a real strengthening of the legislative framework for occupational pension schemes, without imposing undue costs or disturbing existing arrangements unnecessarily.

      771
      Amendment No. 66 would make it compulsory for all trustees—employer-appointed trustees as well as member-nominated trustees—to attend an approved training course—
      Mrs. Lait: We have not spoken to that amendment.
      Angela Eagle: In that case, I will just check that I have not missed anyone else's amendment, and sit down. I hope, however, that my explanation has reassured hon. Members about the principles behind the changes that we have put into effect, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Miller: I believe strongly that the Bill is a significant step in the right direction. Some issues that I raised could be dealt with under the regulatory regime referred to by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I understand her point about pensioners being treated as a separate class in terms of the responsibilities of the board of trustees of any scheme. However, that issue requires further exploration. As schemes develop, it may be possible to revisit the issue in future.
      I acknowledge the positive changes brought about by the Bill, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 21

      WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS—ENTITLEMENT
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall review the operation of this section when—

      (i) a report on the armed forces pension scheme has been laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State for Defence; and

      (ii) the results of any public consultation upon a report as cited in subsection (i) above have been published;

      and a report of any review carried out under this section shall be laid before Parliament.

      (2) Subject to subsection (3), a widow in receipt of a widow's pension under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (4) ("the DSS pension") and in receipt of a pension paid under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme shall on remarriage or when living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex only retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).

      (3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a widow in receipt of a basic pension under section 44 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992; and a widow in receipt of such a pension who has remarried or is living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex may not retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).

      (4) The enactments referred to in subsection (2) are—

      (a) the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, and any order re-enacting the provisions of that order,

      (b) the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, and any subsequent scheme made under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939,

      (c) any scheme made under the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939, or the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 applying the provisions of any such order as is referred to in paragraph (a),

      772

      (d) the order made under section 1(5) of the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 concerning pensions and other grants in respect of disablement or death due to service in the Ulster Defence Regiment.'.—[Mr. Willetts.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Willetts: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      War widows have a long-standing grievance. When they remarry, they lose their armed forces family pension. We propose, as we have before, that approximately 2,500 post-1973 widows of men killed in the line of duty should retain their right to that pension even if they remarry.
      This cause was particularly close to the heart of Michael Colvin, the late hon. Member for Romsey. He contributed an enormous amount to this subject, drawing on his own expertise in the armed forces. It has also been pursued vigorously by Baroness Strange in the other place. Indeed, the Minister of State has previously made encouraging sounds about it, and has made it clear that his heart was with us on this reform. In Standing Committee, he may been over-excited when he said:
      I may be putting myself in the hot seat by saying this, but if I were a Back Bencher, I would go for it. As a Minister, I shall, of course, explain why we should not proceed down that road.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, Tuesday 7 March 2000; c. 751.1
      As there are many Back Benchers in the Chamber, on both sides, I hope that the Minister will encourage them to vote for the new clause, which would rectify an injustice at modest cost. We understand concerns about the need to ring-fence the provision; we accept that, but the provision should be made to protect a narrow group of war widows. In the light of the review currently being undertaken, I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept our proposal.
      Mr. David Heath: This is the third time that we have debated an amendment of this sort during the past six months. As the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, there are clear reasons for doing something about the group of war widows involved. It would provide justice for them and their families, enabling them to rebuild their lives and get on with normal life without losing out. The cost to the Exchequer is minimal. Indeed, given the limited number of people involved, the change might even be beneficial because of the effect that it would have on morale in the services. We all know of the current recruitment and retention problems. The attitudes displayed by the current arrangements are frankly out of date in treating widows as chattels of their late husbands. We should not tolerate that any longer.
      12.30 am
      As the hon. Member for Havant said, in earlier discussions the Minister of State virtually told us that we were right but that he was not allowed to say so. I hope that he will reiterate that intimation this evening. I hope that we shall not hear figures bandied about from the brief as we have on previous occasions. At one point, we were told that this rather modest measure would cost £3 billion. I do not believe that to be the case, or that anyone believes that to be the case. It may have been an inappropriate suggestion.

      773
      I am very glad that the Secretary of State for Defence is in the Chamber. I know that he will be listening carefully to what is said and will wish the new clause to be pressed to a Division to assist his deliberations in the review.
      We have been entirely consistent on this matter. If I have one small criticism of Conservative Front-Bench Members, it is the fact that I do not recall two consecutive debates in this and another place in which they have taken a consistent position. [Interruption.] Sadly, that is the case. Before 3 November, the Conservative Front-Bench team in another place voted against; when the measure came to this place, the Front-Bench team voted for; when it went back to the Lords, the Front-Bench team abstained; when it came back to this place, the Front-Bench team voted for again.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Havant will communicate to his colleagues in another place the importance of the amendment; that the House will support it tonight; and that, even if it is not passed tonight, it will return to us from the House of Lords and we shall be able to put it into law.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I think that it will be in accordance with the mood of the House if I am extremely brief. This, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, is a cause that has been with us for some time, and which the late Mr. Michael Colvin made his own. He did a magnificent job.
      I want to speak to this issue both from the point of view of justice and from the point of view of practicality. From the point of view of justice, there is no doubt that the present situation is illogical, anomalous and, frankly, hypocritical. It has never been suggested that widows should wear their widows' weeds permanently. A widow who formed, for example, a permanent lesbian relationship or a widow who had a kaleidoscopic series of heterosexual relationships would be allowed to retain her pension, but a widow who forms a permanent relationship or gets remarried loses the totality of her pension. As a constituent who is a war widow put it to me, "We really have a choice between celibacy, dishonesty"—that is to say, concealment of the actual position—"and promiscuity." That is an absurd situation in which to place war widows. From the point of view of justice, there is absolutely nothing to be said for the present situation, and it is shameful that it has not already been righted.
      From the point of view of practicality, the issue of cost always arises—quite rightly—but in recent wars such as the Falklands war, Operation Desert Storm and so on, the number of our casualties has been very limited, so, fortunately, the group of war widows with which we have to deal post-second world war is relatively small and, we trust, will remain that way. It therefore seems to me that the cost of justice is not very great; and when the cost of justice is not overwhelming, there is absolutely no excuse for the House not to choose the road of justice.
      Mr. Rooker: About eight hours ago, when I was discussing national insurance contributions, I alluded to the fact that at that time I was speaking on behalf of my right hon. Friends in the Treasury, and that later in the day, I would be doing the same for another Department. I have been asked to be really brief. This is the time when,
      774
      on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I have to tell the House that this matter is under consideration and that the situation has not changed since we last spoke. I am not going to bandy about figures. The cost of the new clause is £3 million for the 2,500 war widows.
      My right hon. Friend will report to the House. I have raised the matter personally with him, as I said I would in November 1999, when I drew the short straw during consideration of Lords amendments to the Bill that became the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. Defence Ministers take the issue extremely seriously. The review will come to the House this summer. There will be adequate consultation on it, and I hope that we can reach a satisfactory conclusion on behalf of this very important group of people. I do not want to enter into the debate about how we feel about them, but there is a serious issue to be dealt with, and I hope that it can be dealt with as soon as possible.
      Mr. Willetts: We appreciate that the Minister believes that there is an injustice that needs to be corrected. To help him on his way and in his negotiations with the Ministry of Defence, we propose to press the issue to a vote to show how strongly we feel that war widows are entitled to a better deal.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided:Ayes 141, Noes 265.

      Division No. 140]

      [12.35 am

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Amess, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Flight, Howard

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Bercow, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fraser, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

      Gale, Roger

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Garnier, Edward

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Brady, Graham

      Gibb, Nick

      Brake, Tom

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Gray, James

      Brazier, Julian

      Green, Damian

      Breed, Colin

      Greenway, John

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Grieve, Dominic

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Burnett, John

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Burstow, Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Butterfill, John

      Hayes, John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Heald, Oliver

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Chope, Christopher

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Clappison, James

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hunter, Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cotter, Brian

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Cran, James

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Key, Robert

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Day, Stephen

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Duncan, Alan

      Lansley, Andrew

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Leigh, Edward

      Evans, Nigel

      Letwin, Oliver

      Faber, David

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      775

      Lidington, David

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

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Soames, Nicholas

      Livsey, Richard

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Spring, Richard

      Loughton, Tim

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Steen, Anthony

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Streeter, Gary

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stunell, Andrew

      Malins, Humfrey

      Swayne, Desmond

      Mates, Michael

      Syms, Robert

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Norman, Archie

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Oaten, Mark

      Tredinnick, David

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Trend, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Tyler, Paul

      Paice, James

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Pickles, Eric

      Viggers, Peter

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Wardle, Charles

      Prior, David

      Waterson, Nigel

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Webb, Steve

      Rendel, David

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Robathan, Andrew

      Whittingdale, John

      Robertson, Laurence

      Willetts, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Ruffley, David

      Yeo, Tim

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Mr. Peter Luff and

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Mr. John Randall.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clelland, David

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clwyd, Ann

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Coaker, Vernon

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Austin, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Banks, Tony

      Coleman, Iain

      Barnes, Harry

      Colman, Tony

      Barron, Kevin

      Connarty, Michael

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Beard, Nigel

      Corbett, Robin

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Benton, Joe

      Cousins, Jim

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Crausby, David

      Berry, Roger

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Darvill, Keith

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Browne, Desmond

      Davidson, Ian

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Burden, Richard

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Dismore, Andrew

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Doran, Frank

      Caplin, Ivor

      Dowd, Jim

      Casale, Roger

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Caton, Martin

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Edwards, Huw

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Clapham, Michael

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Fisher, Mark

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Flint, Caroline

      776

      Follett, Barbara

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McNulty, Tony

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      MacShane, Denis

      Foulkes, George

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gardiner, Barry

      McWalter, Tony

      Gerrard, Neil

      McWilliam, John

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Maxton, John

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Miller, Andrew

      Grocott, Bruce

      Moffatt, Laura

      Grogan, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Morley, Elliot

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Healey, John

      Mountford, Kali

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Heppell, John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hill, Keith

      Norris, Dan

      Hinchliffe, David

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Olner, Bill

      Hope, Phil

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Pearson, Ian

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hurst, Alan

      Pike, Peter L

      Hutton, John

      Plaskitt, James

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Pollard, Kerry

      Illsley, Eric

      Pond, Chris

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Pope, Greg

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jamieson, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Purchase, Ken

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Rooney, Terry

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Khabra, Piara S

      Roy, Frank

      Kidney, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ruddock, Joan

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Laxton, Bob

      Sawford, Phil

      Lepper, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Leslie, Christopher

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Levitt, Tom

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Singh, Marsha

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Skinner, Dennis

      Linton, Martin

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lock, David

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Love, Andrew

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McCabe, Steve

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Soley, Clive

      Macdonald, Calum

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      McDonnell, John

      Spellar, John

      McFall, John

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Steinberg, Gerry

      777

      Stevenson, George

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Watts, David

      Stringer, Graham

      White, Brian

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Winnick, David

      Wood, Mike

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Woodward, Shaun

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Woolas, Phil

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Touhig, Don

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wright Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Truswell, Paul

      Wyatt, Derek

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mr. Graham Allen.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 9

      REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS
      Amendment made: No. 58, in page 130, line 7, at beginning insert—

      '10 & 11 Geo. 6c.24.

      The Naval Forces (Enforcement of Maintenance Liabilities) Act 1947.

      In section 1(1), paragraph (aaa).

      3 & 4 Eliz. 2 c.18.

      The Army Act 1955.

      In section 150A, in subsection (2), paragraph (b) and the word "or" preceding it, and in subsection (3), the words "or cancels" and "or (as the case may be) that it has been cancelled".

      3 & 4 Eliz. 2 c.19.

      The Air Force Act 1955.

      In section 150A, in subsection (2), paragraph (b) and the word "or" preceding it, and in subsection (3), the words "or cancels" and "or (as the case may be) that it has been cancelled".

      1973 c.18.

      The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

      In section 29, in subsection (7), the words "or is cancelled", "or was cancelled" and "or, as the case may be, the date with effect from which it was cancelled"; and in subsection (8), paragraph (b) and the word "and" preceding it.

      1978 c.22.

      The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978.

      In section 5, in subsection (7), the words "or is cancelled", "or was cancelled" and "or, as the case may be, the date with effect from which it was

      cancelled; and in subsection (8), paragraph (b) and the word "and" preceding it.

      1989 c.41.

      The Children Act 1989.

      In Schedule 1, in paragraph 3(7), the words "or is cancelled", "or was cancelled" and "or, as the case may be, the date with effect from which it was cancelled"; and in paragraph 3(8), paragraph (b) and the word "and" preceding it.'.

      —[Mr. Rooker.]
      Angela Eagle: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 130, line 48, column 3, at end insert—

      'Section 24.

      Section 26(4)(c).'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 97.
      Angela Eagle: Amendment No. 97 is extremely minor and amendment No. 90 is consequential. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      12.46 am
      Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I think that I have spoken enough for today.
      12.47 am
      Mr. Willetts: The Minister has indeed spoken a lot this evening—it is because he has had so much trouble from Labour Members who disagree with his policies. The reason why we have only reached Third Reading at 12.45 am is that the Government have found that a significant number of their Back Benchers are unable to accept their policies.
      I should like to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who led for the Opposition in Committee. I also congratulate the other Conservative members of the Standing Committee: my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). To our regret, the Government did not listen to the pertinent criticisms that they levelled at the Bill.
      We have criticised the proposals for the Child Support Agency, especially their inflexibility. The absence of any upper limit means that, however well-off the absent parent becomes, a fixed percentage of his or her income will always be taken by the CSA—the Government will come to regret that. They will also regret their inflexibility regarding the possibility of very affluent parents with care continuing to receive maintenance from absent parents

      779
      with far lower incomes. Problems will also arise from the inflexibility in respect of variations: we understand the need for a simpler formula, but if no flexibility is shown about variations, the result will be a system so rigid and inflexible that it cracks under its own weight.
      We believe that the provisions relating to the Child Support Agency, as amended by the Bill, will sadly not be the final word on this difficult subject. We agree with the Government, and not with the Liberal Democrats, that child support is best delivered by administrative formula, rather than by returning the matter to the courts. That is where we and those on the Government Front Bench have made common cause. Nevertheless, we do not believe that the application of the formula will be sustainable.
      The state second pension is in direct breach of a manifesto pledge to retain SERPS. Ministers claim that no one will be worse off than would have been the case under SERPS, but that is not true. Whole swathes of the population will be worse off than they would have been under SERPS.
      People who have earnings from self-employment and employment in the same year will be worse off. The working families tax credit will not earn credits under the state second pension in the way that family credit earned credit under SERPS. Certain groups will be worse off as a result of the shift. Labour Members were elected on a manifesto pledge that they would keep SERPS. They have just voted to get rid of SERPS and to put in its place provision which, for many people, will not be as good.
      Labour Members have also voted, for the first time, for home responsibilities protection to end when a child reaches the age of five. That is a significant change in approach, and I have been amazed at the lack of interest shown by some Labour Members. For the first time there has been a signal that if a parent—usually, but not only, a mother—chooses to stay at home when her child is above the age of five, no credits will be earned in the state second pension. When they realise the implications, Labour Members will come to regret the cavalier way in which they voted for that change.
      Labour Members have voted for pensions apartheid. It will be extremely difficult for people with earnings below £9,000 to move into funded pensions. The regime under the state second pension will create a divide in pension provision in which we do not believe. We want everyone, as far as possible, to have open and free access to funded pension provision. Sadly, the state second pension will not encourage that. It will have the opposite effect.
      Ministers quote apparently enormous figures as the amount that people will accrue as their rights under the state second pension. They will accrue that amount in 40 or 50 years' time. Meanwhile, there will be considerable pensioner poverty, which the state second pension does very little to address.
      In an amazing speech, the Minister explained that it would not be possible to increase the basic state pension in line with earnings rather than prices because of the increasing diversity of pensioner incomes. That is an argument which we understand, and which Conservative Ministers used year after year. But when the Minister was sitting on the Opposition Benches, he did not accept it.
      At the same time, the Government cavalierly announce that there is to be a universal heating addition and a universal free television licence for people aged over 75.
      780
      Those can be universal. Suddenly, there is no problem with those being badly targeted. The Minister is happy to announce those policies, regardless of the income of the pensioner.
      On the same day, in the same debate, we have witnessed a totally inconsistent approach to probably the most important and most difficult issue on pensions policy—whether the way forward is universal provision or through targeting and means testing. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot tell their own rebels that it is impossible to have universal provision in the basic pension rising more than prices, and then proudly announce that they are putting more money into other universal provision.
      There are flaws in the state second pension, just as there are in the child support provisions. We regret the imposition of employers national insurance contributions on private medical insurance. Earlier, we saw the extraordinary sight of Labour Members being whipped through the Lobby in order to vote against a measure announced in the Budget. That must be some sort of first. We heard in the Budget announcement only a fortnight ago that child care provision was not to bear NICs by the employer, and we helpfully tabled a new clause to give effect to that measure. The Government had to whip through their troops to vote against it. The provision cannot be in the Finance Bill because changes to national insurance contributions cannot be made in that measure. The Government will have to introduce a measure after whipping through Labour Members to vote against a provision that the Chancellor announced only a fortnight ago. If this place is not to become the theatre of the absurd, Ministers must stop forcing their troops to participate in such shenanigans. The Government will regret many of the provisions.
      12.55 am
      Mr. Webb: I shall not match the Minister for brevity, but I will do my best.
      I want to comment on the final stages of our proceedings. If the Conservative party had voted with us and the Labour rebels tonight, the Government would have been defeated. Opposition Members can be proud of their achievement in making the Government reconsider the adequacy of the basic state pension.
      Like the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who thanked his hon. Friends, I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. George) and for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for their hard work in Committee.
      The Bill has three main parts and we are worried about all of them. The child support provisions will be regretted. The House once reached an agreement on child support that led to a serious mistake. The provisions will prove to be rough justice and they will not fit our constituents' circumstances. Our constituents will call for change, and change will come. The Bill is insufficiently flexible.
      The state second pension is not unworthy in its intentions, but it will take almost for ever to achieve little. It is not an adequate response to the problem of pensioner poverty.
      We were unsuccessful in bringing up one subject on Report, but we are sure that our hon. Friends in another place will try to draw attention to the draconian response to those who breach community service orders. That issue may well return to the House.

      781
      The Bill does not take social policy forward. We regret that it has come before the House.
      12.57 am
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Like other hon. Members, I want to go home, so I shall try to be as brief as possible. On Second Reading, I expressed reservations about whether the Bill would achieve the Government's intentions in regard to pension reform. I hoped that improvements would be made through scrutiny in the House. I remain worried about the Government's pensions policy and whether it will stand the test of time.
      We wanted to reduce means testing, but there will be more means testing of pensioners. At best, the Bill will reduce the amount of means testing that would have occurred without the provisions. I suppose that that is at least an improvement.
      Although they have not yet taken the opportunity to do so, there is still a chance for the Government to relent and improve the level of the basic state pension, and prove that we want it to be the foundation of the pensions system in this country.
      The Government also want to improve take-up and encourage more people to make private provision. On Second Reading, I said that the growth in private provision had been underpinned by the basic state pension and SERPS. Unfortunately, when I re-read my speech today, I realised that Hansard had reported "undermined" rather than "underpinned". I now have an opportunity to put that right.
      Many pensions commentators doubt whether there will be more private pension provision as a result of the measures. The state second pension is horrendously complicated. It has three different rates of accrual. I hope that the Government achieve their aim of informing all pensioners and people who contribute to the schemes about the exact pension that they are likely to receive when they retire. I wish them luck with that. It will be difficult, but if people do not understand the sort of schemes to which they contribute, it is doubtful whether the provisions will stand the test of time.
      There is still an opportunity to improve the Bill. It would be greatly improved if the Government decided to do more to uprate the basic state pension. That would help the other provisions in the Bill.
      1 am
      Mr. Leigh: In summary, I oppose the Bill because its Child Support Agency provisions are too inflexible and its pension provisions undermine the contributory principle.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  AID SYSTEM FOR FLAX AND HEMP
  Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees,
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12992/99, a draft Council Regulation on the reform of the flax and hemp support regime; and supports the Government's aim of promoting reform of this sector, whilst ensuring that the changes to the regime do not prejudice the future viability of the UK industry.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  Question agreed to.

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That—

  (1) the matter of the state of Northern Ireland agriculture, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

  (2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 13th April at 2.30 p.m.: and

  (3) at that meeting—

  (a) the Committee shall take questions for oral answer; and shall then consider the matter of the state of Northern Ireland agriculture, referred to it under paragraph (1) above;

  (b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 5 p.m.; and

  (c) at the conclusion of those proceedings a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be moved by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Mr. McNulty.]

  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.
  COMMITTEES

    AGRICULTURE
    Ordered,
    That Ms Fiona Jones be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Dr. George Turner be added to the Committee.

    NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS
    That Mr. Tony Mc Walter be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr. Colin Burgon be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Clive Betts, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Residential Homes
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
1.1 am
Mr. Tony McWalter: The debate, which is about the treatment of the elderly in residential homes, concerns how we should safeguard the human rights of the elderly. Those of us born in England might well be tempted to think of old age as Shakespeare thought of it. In "As You Like It", Jaques, famously, makes the seven ages speech, which starts with the infant "mewling and puking"—like many Members of the House, perhaps—and ends with the seventh age:

Last scene of all,

That ends this strange eventful history,

Is second childishness, and mere oblivion,

Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

Despite its powerful hold on our cultural consciousness, Shakespeare's seventh age is not true to old age for most elderly people: it is not simply that, in modern times, dentistry has made it possible to keep one's teeth, but that modern medicine extends the prospect of full and joyful old age, with those of advanced years keeping active, sociable and intellectually lively until severe illness or accident takes them to the destination that we all share.
Although in the past old persons were thought to lose their marbles, we now know that certain illnesses make us lose mental capacity, and the majority of the population do not have the disposition to get those illnesses. Shakespeare may have been right about the seventh age in his day, though even then the speech was directed inappropriately, but in our planning for the care of the elderly we think much more in terms of how to facilitate an active and sociable life, which is what we ought to do.
Today's newspapers feature 93-year-old Jim Dowd, who works for Sainsbury's, helping to collect trolleys and keep them available for customers. While his life style might not be typical, he provides a clear example of how important it is that ageist attitudes do not deny our fellow human beings who have aspirations the possibility of realising them. It might have been less poetic for Shakespeare to say that, for most people, old age brings a capacity actively to continue to enjoy life, albeit at a slower pace, but it would have been more truthful.
I chose the treatment of the elderly in residential homes as my topic because of my disquiet at how elderly persons are being treated at such a home in my constituency. There are in my area manifestations of what I can call the Shakespearean attitude to the elderly and I want to enlist the Government's help to combat them. Gadebury residential home is owned by Hertfordshire county council. Following privatisation by the Conservative council in 1993, the contract for care for 31 such homes was awarded to an organisation called Quantum Care.
Quantum proceeded to refurbish 29 homes, but two, including Gadebury, were left to go downhill for five years. Then, Quantum announced that it would "cost a fortune" to do up the two homes. At the end of January, Hertfordshire county council announced that Gadebury would be closed in July 2000. Since then, there has been an exodus of staff and residents, and the decision is now irreversible.
784
I am aware of the Government's determination to ensure that our elderly population are treated with more respect than they have been hitherto. The case of Gadebury echoes the treatment of council house tenants in what many of us who grew up in such houses regard as the bad old days. Council house tenants used to be strongly reminded that they were merely tenants, and that their hold on their homes was provisional. When their families had grown up, they could be relocated to a smaller dwelling, even though that meant selling the furniture, not being allowed to have a pet, having insufficient space for grandchildren to visit, and losing the garden and facilities that many of them had worked hard all their lives to build up.
We rightly decided that such a system was unjust. Under-occupancy of a council house may make housing managers lose sleep, but the first imperative of housing management is to recognise the right of good citizens who pay their bills to continued enjoyment of their home.
That change in managerial style was welcome, but it has not been extended to the elderly. I did not encounter one person in Gadebury who wanted to be relocated. Furthermore, there was a strong ethos at Gadebury, which conformed to many of the Government's ideas on care for the elderly. The home was primarily residential, but if residents needed nursing care it could be provided without an enforced move. One floor of the home tended to be for those who were frailer than the others, and whose need for nursing care was more pronounced. At Gadebury, those employed by the health service, the care agency and the county's social services team worked closely together. The Berlin wall that was described so ably by the previous Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), had been broken down sufficiently for quarrels about funding and resources to be minimised.
I am happy to commend Hertfordshire county council and the West Hertfordshire health authority for the way in which they have jointly delivered on co-operative programmes of care—in some cases well in advance of governmental initiatives. It is clear that such arrangements are fragile if the threat of closure hangs over a place where such good practice is achieved.
Why was Gadebury served with a notice of closure? The crucial point is that, in the deal that Hertfordshire county council made when it privatised care, there was never any commitment to keep it open, even though it was only built in the late 1960s. Such privatisations often have unacceptable secret clauses and undisclosed understandings. The announcement of closure at Gadebury came as a complete shock to staff and residents at the home, but county council officers had known for more than five years that the plan was to close it. Such secrecy cannot be right. It undermines confidence in any other assurances that council officers may make. The elderly and their relatives and carers were still accepting places at the home in late 1999, even though those responsible for the home knew that it was destined for the chop.
After Gadebury had been neglected for five years, some running repairs that could have been phased over time had built up, and some said that the building needed rewiring and a new heating system. Work on such replacement systems is usually phased, but when there is an

785
undisclosed determination to close a building dating back years, the phased improvement in such systems is not undertaken.
Why did Hertfordshire county council and Quantum Care decide not to invest in Gadebury, especially as it offered a high standard of care that was, in some ways, a model? I am forced to the sad view that it was because the site, which is close to the town centre, is worth a fortune and the county council wanted to asset strip once the initial furore about privatisation of care had quietened down.
The high price of land in Hemel Hempstead brings about many difficulties. As an example, I cite the 65 persons who have used a temporary homelessness provision supplied by local churches over three months around Christmas. That period is now over, and there is now no provision for the homeless in Hemel Hempstead.
With the closure of Gadebury, residents of the home on public land close to the town centre will be cleared and the land asset disposed of. If Hertfordshire county council's first obligation is to ensure that public assets address public needs, its first duty should be to inform itself of the needs that the land asset may be used to address.
I have given what I believe to be the main reason why Hertfordshire county council has connived at a policy that has caused real distress to my constituents. There is, however, a particularly disturbing dimension to the argument. Certain county councillors say that the Gadebury home is to be closed because the Government have produced guidelines, in a paper entitled "Fit for the Future?", that necessitate closure. Gadebury does not afford its residents rooms that measure 10 sq m, and that is what the paper enjoins.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that "Fit for the Future?" is not law, and, indeed, that those who inspect existing homes in future will consider the overall standard of care that such homes provide. If Gadebury did not have rooms measuring 10 sq m per resident, it did have the most precious attribute that any such home can have: it was regarded by those who lived there as a home, and it was organised in such a way that it could be a home for most residents for life, however frail they might become.
The home had a joyful atmosphere, and if the facilities were not the most modern, they were sufficient to produce a quality of life to which, in new legislation, we aspire. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that, whatever changes the Government make, when inspectors see good-quality provision of the sort that Gadebury had, their brief will be not to close such homes, but to commend them.
I have four concerns. First, the Government are rightly worried about the standards in care homes; indeed, they are the subject of a Bill being considered in another place. However, the biggest issue for residents in such homes, when they are enjoying their place of abode, is the feeling of security engendered by their belief that they will be able to continue to live there. When a home is well organised and staffed in a friendly way, and when it has the capacity to cope with those who become progressively more frail—that applied to Gadebury—residents believe, very reasonably, that they will probably be able to end their days there. The secretive actions of Hertfordshire county council and Quantum Care violated the reasonable expectations of the Gadebury residents.
786
Summary decisions of that sort, made with no reference to the views of residents, their families and their carers and with no reference to those working in such homes, constitute a violation of the rights of such persons. I ask the Government to ensure that, in future, residents in homes throughout the country will not be subjected to circumstances in which they feel vulnerable to decisions summarily to close such homes.
Secondly, Hertfordshire county council has decided to dispose of an asset that is of considerable value, but could also be used for a variety of socially beneficial purposes, whether for the establishment of new extended care provision for the elderly—in which Hertfordshire is a pioneer—or for other purposes. I am thinking of, for instance, people who are homeless, mentally frail, or both.
I should like the Minister to see such disposal as akin to selling off a school playing field. Such sites are being transmuted from being community resources to being simply private assets. Perhaps the Minister could consider whether he should have the power to call in such asset disposals above a certain value. That is particularly an issue when there is not a unitary local authority. Socially beneficial projects that the borough council might have in mind are not considered by the county council, which has a more focused brief.
Thirdly, Hertfordshire county council's decision was based on the grinding of a political axe. Members were given a figure for the refurbishment of Gadebury which included a large sum relating to compliance with new Government regulations, as articulated in "Fit for the Future?". In doing that, the county council has tried to transfer responsibility for closure to central Government. I ask the Minister to confirm that, as he has said in the past, the remit of the National Care Standards Commission will not be to close homes that work well, even if their rooms are not spacious, and that the commission will have regard to the general level of amenities in and about the environs of a home when it makes a judgment about whether care should continue to be given at such a place.
Fourthly, I ask that consideration be given to the grief caused by the break-up of friendships, the distress caused by unnecessary discontinuities in caring provision, and the bewilderment caused to elderly people when they have to go through an unnecessary uprooting.
As we have yet to act on the Sutherland report, many such elderly people have lost their savings, the family home and their access to friendly neighbours. When government or other agencies consider the closure of a home, they should recognise that they are dealing with persons who have already endured trauma. Although sometimes the closure of a home cannot be avoided—there is such a home not far from Gadebury, but it is not the subject of this debate, as it is falling down and its closure is necessary—I hope that the Government will exercise strongly their powers to prevent unnecessary home closures.
In a recent Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said that local authorities should act like the Official Receiver in the case of home closures, so that there is a back-stop to prevent unnecessary distress of the type that famously caused eight deaths within a fortnight because of a relocation to Barnet.

787
In the Gadebury case, the local authority, in the shape of Hertfordshire county council, is itself responsible for causing unnecessary distress to residents and erstwhile residents. However, the failures by a local authority to discharge a function are a different order of problem from the current situation, which is that no body is acting to underpin the security of tenancy of those in homes for the elderly.
What knits those concerns together is that the elderly have rights and interests that they, their families and their carers should have the freedom to express. They were denied that freedom in the case of Gadebury, which, prior to the decision to close, treated residents in Shakespearean style as passive recipients of services. Whatever form the seventh age takes, I hope that the Minister will assure the House that he is alive to the need for the human rights of those who are of that age to be taken fully into account.
1.17 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Mc Walter) on choosing the subject of residential care for this debate, and also for the way in which he has spoken up for some vulnerable people in his constituency. How we as a society provide for the care needs of older people is a hugely important subject. We live in an ageing society—which is something to be celebrated—and it is therefore right that we look critically at every aspect of our system of providing long-term care for older people, with a view to improving choice in, and the quality and flexibility of, those care services.
My hon. Friend has expressed a number of specific concerns about the provision of residential care services in his constituency and the proposed closure of Gadebury house, in Hemel Hempstead. I shall try to deal with those concerns later in my speech. I think that it would be helpful if I were, first, briefly to spell out the Government's wider policies on residential care, to explain to my hon. Friend the background and context within which residential care services should be planned and delivered.
My hon. Friend may be aware that there are about 30,000 residential and nursing homes in England, providing a range of services for almost 500,000 people. The vast majority of those homes are now being operated by the independent sector. Less than 20 per cent. of residential homes are operated by local authorities. It is the responsibility of local authorities to plan and to commission a suitable range of services to meet the needs of local communities.
The Government's responsibilities are, first, to set the right policy and legal framework to regulate and improve the quality and standards of care being provided in care homes; secondly, in partnership with employers, to develop the appropriate training necessary for the social care work force; and, thirdly, to provide adequate resources to local authorities to allow them properly to fulfil their social services responsibilities.
As my hon. Friend has acknowledged, the Government have started a major programme of reform and modernisation in all of those three key spheres. Many of the reforms were described in the White Paper,
788
"Modernising Social Services". Our main ambitions are to improve the quality of social services and the protection afforded to vulnerable people and better to promote the independence of those who need to use those vital public services.
The Care Standards Bill contains many of those proposals, including the establishment of the new independent regulation and inspection arrangements and the introduction for the first time of a proper framework of national standards for care homes. The new National Care Standards Commission, which my hon. Friend mentioned, will take over from health and local authorities the responsibility for registering and inspecting residential and nursing homes, closing the loopholes that exclude many homes from any effective monitoring. For the first time, all local authority-run homes will be subject to independent quality control and monitoring.
The commission will inspect and register homes against a new set of national minimum standards for the first time. National minimum standards should help to ensure that poor standards and shoddy treatment are rooted out for good and that all residents in care homes, irrespective of which part of the country they are in, will be afforded the same protection and access to decent services.
In September last year, the Department began a consultation exercise on a proposed set of standards developed by the Centre for Policy on Ageing. The consultation ended in January and we are considering our response. The Department received 1,400 responses to the consultation on "Fit for the Future?".
We have made it clear that we want the final set of standards to reflect best practice in ensuring a quality care environment for older people. The standards will be realistic and affordable and will give care providers a sensible time in which to make any necessary improvements in the care home. The national minimum standards will, at the least, depend on the new National Care Standards Commission being fully operational, which will not happen before April 2002. Some of the standards, particularly the more challenging ones relating to the physical environment of a care home, will not be introduced until some time after the commission has started its work.
It should be clear that there can be no substance to the claim that the "Fit for the Future?" proposals by themselves provide any justification for the closure of the care home in my hon. Friend's constituency. We have not yet fixed the final set of national standards, and in any case some of them are several years away from being implemented. The effective planning and commissioning role of local authorities is central to the exercise, because they have the main responsibility for ensuring that the social care needs of their communities are properly met. Many of my hon. Friend's comments addressed that issue.
The previous Government's devotion to the privatisation of care provision put dogma before the care needs of service users and threatened the fragmentation of vital care services. However, it is equally true that the near monopoly of local authority provision that used to be a prominent feature of social care frequently led to a "one size fits all" approach, with users being expected to accommodate themselves to the services provided, regardless of their needs and preferences.
We want to put those bogus distinctions and arguments behind us and move on. We want to move the focus away from who provides the care and place it firmly on the

789
quality of the services experienced by, and the outcomes achieved for, individuals and their carers and families. We do not take a rigid position on whether services should be provided directly by local authorities or by the independent sector. It is the quality of the care provided that counts.
Decisions about the provision of residential care services in Hertfordshire were taken several years ago, as my hon. Friend made clear. That included the decision to transfer the existing residential care homes operated by the county council to Quantum Care, which is a not-for-profit organisation with an excellent reputation for providing quality care to older people.
The role of my Department is to ensure that the local authority has in place proper mechanisms for the effective discharge of its statutory responsibilities and that the people of Hertfordshire receive high-quality social care services.
The social services inspectorate provides a powerful monitoring and inspection role to ensure that both those objectives are met in all parts of the country, including my hon. Friend's constituency, but it is not my Department's role to overrule local decisions made by social services departments or to intervene directly in decisions made by care home providers to continue to operate a particular home.
I understand that Gadebury is closing because it does not meet existing registration standards set by the county council. It is always distressing for residents when a care home closes, so it is enormously important that the upheaval be handled with sensitivity and respect. I understand that every effort is being made to ensure that the residents are found suitable alternative homes that fully meet their choices and care needs.
The new regulatory system will certainly provide stronger powers to monitor the financial viability of homes and will ensure that residents have contracts that clearly spell out their rights—a matter to which my hon. Friend rightly drew attention.
The present situation regarding training is completely unacceptable, as I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree. The social care work force is nearly 1 million strong, but currently 80 per cent. have no formal social care qualifications whatever. The Government have set up a
790
national training organisation for social care, the training organisation for personal social services—TOPSS—which is developing a national training strategy.
We have substantially increased the training support grant, which is now more than £120 million, to support social care training provision. The Care Standards Bill is also setting up a new general social care council. We are taking urgent action to improve training, which will in turn lead to improved care for those in residential care homes.
Hertfordshire's standard spending assessment for social services is increasing by 5.8 per cent. this year, which represents nearly £165 million and is more than twice the rate of inflation, compared with an average increase of 5.1 per cent. nationally. We are providing record resources to the council to allow it to provide effective social services.
In all the three areas to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks, the Government are taking action to improve the quality of social services, and we will continue to do so, because those vital services can be a powerful force for good, performing crucial functions that are fundamental to any decent and compassionate society; but social services are local services, and it is for local councils ultimately to take responsibility for how the resources are used in the front line.
My hon. Friend raised his genuine concern over the decision to close Gadebury house and transfer the residents elsewhere. I fully understand and respect his concerns, and I will be happy to meet him at any time in the future to discuss them in more detail. I will, in particular, draw his remarks about the sale of local authority assets to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions.
I hope that, at the very least, I have been able to persuade my hon. Friend that the Government are determined to strengthen the regulation and inspection of care homes, giving more effective rights to residents such as those at Gadebury to have a better standard of care than has sometimes been the case. I hope that he, in turn, will be able to support the measures to which I have referred and to work with us to provide greater security and peace of mind to all those who need long-term residential care.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past One o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the notional time commitment of each chair of the regional non-departmental public bodies. [116360]

  Dr. Howells
  The time commitment for chairs of the Post Office Users Councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is up to 50 days per annum. The average commitment for the chairs of the seven Regional Industrial Development Boards is of the order of one meeting a month lasting approximately two hours, plus the time required to read case papers beforehand.

  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many(a) male and (b) female board members each regional non-departmental public body for which he is responsible has; [116373]

  (2) how many board members he appoints to each non-departmental public body. [116372]

  Dr. Howells
  A list of non-departmental public bodies to which DTI Ministers make appointments, and information on the numbers of male and female board members each body has, can be found in the publication "Public Bodies 1999" (ISBN 0 11 430159 X), copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Synchrotron
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the French Government first publicly expressed a preference for the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory as the site for the diamond synchrotron. [116945]

  Mr. Byers
  The preference was first stated publicly in a letter from the French Minister of National Education, Research and Technology to my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Science on 14 March 2000. They had made clear to him in private discussions in October 1999 that this was their view.

  Super Jumbo Aircraft
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 2000,Official Report, column 781W, on the super jumbo aircraft, if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's independent assessment of the likely demand for the A3XX. [116950]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  No, because this assessment contains commercially confidential and market-sensitive information. It was prepared following discussions with manufacturers, suppliers and airlines of commercially sensitive issues, which were of considerable assistance 278W
  to my Department in drawing up the assessment. If such information were circulated more widely, the understanding on which it had been obtained would be breached, and in future my Department would be less able to serve the interests of taxpayers, since they would not be able to gain access to such a wide range of informed opinion when preparing market assessments.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the expenditure incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on(a) the setting up and (b) the operation of websites, indicating the cases in which the expenditure has been above that budgeted; and if he will list for each website (i) the topics which have been covered, (ii) the current average number of hits per month and (iii) the estimated expenditure on each website for each of the next three years. [115844]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: Management of the websites of my Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies, and Government Offices for the Regions is devolved to those with responsibility for particular areas. The costs associated with setting up and on-going operation of sites are not held or collected centrally and therefore the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The same is true both for future expenditure plans and for information on final costs versus initial budget estimates.

  In terms of topics covered, the DTI site and associated sites offer information on nearly every area of the Department's responsibilities. The central DTI site (those within the Web domain www.dti.gov.uk) received an average of just over 5,600,000 hits per month over the last six months. Again, hits for all the sites for which my Department is responsible could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  Workplace Parking
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workplace car parking spaces are available at the buildings used and controlled by his Department. [116768]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: 182 plus a further eight set aside for bicycles and motorcycles.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) number and (b) percentage of properties in his charge are empty; and what steps are being taken by his Department to reduce the number of such properties. [116913]

  Dr. Howells
  None. There are two empty floors, which are currently being marketed, in Atholl House, Aberdeen.

  As announced on 28 March 2000, Official Report, column 108W, responsibility for a partly empty site at Eastcote has been transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State Defence.

  US International Trade Commission
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations the Foreign and
  279W
  Commonwealth Office has made to visiting analysts from the United States International Trade Commission in respect of their inquiry on behalf of the United States Senate Finance Committee on the impact on the United States economy of including the United Kingdom in NAFTA. [116315]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him today, Official Report, column 285W.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister what aircraft he has at his disposal for travelling on official business; what the cost is in the current financial year; what proposals he is evaluating for acquiring further aircraft for the purpose; and at what [115266]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 March 2000]: The rules on air travel by Ministers are set out in "Travel by Ministers", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Decisions on which aircraft to use will be determined on cost, the number of people travelling with me, security and business considerations and the availability of aircraft. A list of Cabinet Ministers' visits overseas, and information on spend by all Ministers on travel overseas for the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 are currently being assembled, and will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. This will include information on when I have used RAF and other charter flights and the cost.

  US International Trade Commission
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Prime Minister if he, or his officials, during the last two weeks, advised visiting analysts from the United States International Trade Commission, or asked United States Government members or officials to ask the visiting analysts, not to meet hon. Members. [116318]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz),Official Report, column 285W.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is Government policy that none of the security and intelligence agencies is permitted to intercept communications initiated by hon. Members nor to conduct electronic surveillance thereon. [116904]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, column 861W and to the hon. Member on 17 November 1997, Official Report, columns 17-18.
  280W
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the tests which apply before authorisation is given for an interception of a communication initiated by a newspaper or other media concern [116903]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: The tests which apply for the inception of all communications are as set out in the Interception of Communications Act 1985. These tests are that a warrant cannot be issued unless it is considered necessary:

  (a) in the interests of national security;

  (b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime; or

  (c) for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.

  Subject to the approval of Parliament, the Interception of Communications Act will be replaced by provisions in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. The tests for interception will however remain the same.

  President Clinton
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times he has met President Clinton outside(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the United States since 1 July 1998; and what was the (i) date, (ii) location and (iii) purpose of each meeting. [117067]

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is as follows:

  8 February 1999, Amman. at the funeral of King Hussein;

  18 June, bilateral in the margins of the Cologne G8 Summit;

  30 July 1999, Sarajevo Summit; and

  20 November 1999, meeting in Florence for "Third Way" conference.

  Voting Systems
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Prime Minister if Mr. Geoff Mulgan of his Policy Unit is involved in policy relating to voting systems. [117153]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Human Rights Training (RUC)
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the training of RUC officers in human rights issues. [108061]

  Mr. Ingram
  As with all police forces in the UK, the Royal Ulster Constabulary is examining all aspects of human rights including training in preparation for the Human Rights Act coming into force in October 2000.

  It is in contact with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and with national police training colleges and plans are at an advanced stage for all RUC officers and civilian staff to receive training.

  Union Flag
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if a Union flag was provided for, if arrangements were made to fly the Union flag on the designated dates at, and if the Union flag was flown on 17 March at(a) Department of Agriculture, The Mall,

  281W
  Armagh, (b) Department of Agriculture, Newry Road, Armagh, (c) Southern Education and Library Board, The Mall, Armagh, (d) Southern Education and Library Board, Market House, Armagh, (e) Crown Buildings, Alexander Road, Armagh, (f) RUC Station, Newry Road, Armagh, (g) Department of Environment, Ballinakone, Armagh and (h) Vehicle Testing Station, Hamiltonstown Road, Armagh; and if he will make a statement. [116089]

  Mr. Ingram
  All central Government buildings are provided with a Union flag and a list of those dates on which the Union flag should be flown.

  The Union flag was provided and flown on 17 March at the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's offices on the Mall, Armagh and Crown Buildings, Alexander Road, Armagh and the Department of the Environment's Vehicle Testing Station, Hamiltonstown Road, Armagh. Arrangements have been made to fly the Union flag at these buildings on all designated dates.

  It is assumed that the building referred to in (g) is the Department of Regional Development's Roads Service Depot at 17 Ballinahonemore Road, Armagh. Although the Union flag was provided and arrangements are in place to fly the flag on all designated dates at this building, and at the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's office at Newry Road, Armagh, it was not flown on these buildings on 17 March due to an oversight.

  The Union flag is not flown at RUC Stations on Public and/or Bank holidays.

  The decision whether or not to fly the Union flag on Southern Education and Library Board property is a matter for that Board.

  Employment Equality
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in developing a memorandum of understanding between the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission. [117357]

  Mr. George Howarth
  This is a matter for the Commissions themselves.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State of 24 March 2000,Official Report, columns 1292–93 on Iraq, what assessment he has made of the letter of 9 March from Riad El-Taher of Friendship Across Frontiers. [116875]

  Mr. Hain
  FCO officials replied to Mr. El-Taher's letter of 9 March on 29 March addressing his comments on the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State of 24 March 2000,Official Report, columns 1292–93 on Iraq, what evidence he has received that Iraq is manufacturing chlorine-based mustard gas. [116871]
  282W
  Mr. Hain
  To reiterate the point in my statement of 24 March 2000,Official Report, columns 1292–93, chlorine is a constituent of mustard gas which was used by Iraq in the attack on Halabja in 1988. It is therefore clearly important that we are sure that chlorine imported into Iraq under the "oil for food" programme is used for the purposes for which it was approved.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, concerning his willingness to debate Government policy on Iraq, if he will do so at Kensington Town Hall on 6 May with Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck. [117247]

  Mr. Hain
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his letter, he is happy to debate Government policy on Iraq, as am I. Indeed I debated our policy with my hon. Friend in the House most recently on 24 March.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the scope of the projects of the British military advisers working in Zimbabwe; and how many such advisers there are. [116895]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: There are five military advisers providing peacekeeping training to the Southern African Development Community region, including modules on human rights, rights of the child, the role of the ICRC, democratic control of the armed forces, structure of the UN and non-governmental organisations and three other advisers involved in peacekeeping training in support of UN priorities.

  Iran
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visiting rights available to(a) members of the family and (b) legal advisers, in respect of the 13 Jews detained in Iran. [117251]

  Mr. Hain
  We have regularly raised with the Iranian authorities our concerns at the detention on espionage charges of a number of Iranian nationals including 10 members of the Jewish community, following the release on bail in February of three of the Jewish detainees. I discussed this matter with the Deputy Foreign Minister Sarmadi on 7 March. It is our understanding that visits by some family members have been allowed and that some of the defendants have appointed legal representatives. We are seeking clarification from the Iranian authorities on the latter point. The Iranian authorities are fully aware of the importance that we and our EU partners attach to this issue.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the availability of legal representation for the 13 Jews detained in Iran. [117252]

  Mr. Hain
  Our understanding is that some of those detained have appointed legal representation. However, we are aware of recent reports that legal representation has been denied to some of the detainees. We are seeking clarification from the Iranian authorities on this point. The Iranian authorities are fully aware of the importance that we and our EU partners attach to this issue.

  Mr. Roger Crooks
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which occasions Roger Crooks was present at meetings referred to in(a) Sir Thomas Legg's report, Session 1997–98, HC 1016, (b) the First Special report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee sessions 1997–98, HC 760, (c) the Second Special report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee session 1997–98, HC 852 and (d) the Second report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee sessions 1998–99, HC 116-I; and if he will make a statement. [116932]

  Mr. Hain
  This information is not held centrally and to provide such details would incur disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Mr. Roger Crooks was present at the official meeting held on 3 December 1997 between his Department's officials, and representatives of the (i) Cabinet Office, (ii) Department for International Development and (iii) Ministry of Defence; and if he will make a statement. [116925]

  Mr. Hain
  No.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions on which Mr. Peter Penfold had meetings with Roger Crooks(a) in Sierra Leone, (b) in Conakry, (c) in the United Kingdom and (d) on board a Royal Naval vessel. [116928]

  Mr. Hain
  Mr. Penfold confirms that he spoke to Mr. Crooks occasionally in Sierra Leone and Conakry, but that he had no meetings with Mr. Crooks in the UK or elsewhere.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 287W, for what purposes his Department has had discussions on the general situation in Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [116968]

  Mr. Hain
  As stated in my answer of 16 March, Mr. Crooks is refurbishing one of the main hotels in Freetown to be used as the Headquarters of UNAMSIL. FCO and MOD personnel have had occasional contacts with him over the last few years. Discussions have focused on the general situation in Sierra Leone, not arms or military matters.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which occasions John Flynn, the Foreign Secretary's Special Representative for Sierra Leone, met Mr. Roger Crooks. [116931]

  Mr. Hain
  Never.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 287W, if his Department knew of Roger Crooks' dual US/Sierra Leone citizenship at the time of their discussions; and if these discussions have continued since Roger Crooks' expulsion from Sierra Leone. [116962]
  284W
  Mr. Hain
  The information is as follows:

  (a) No.

  (b) The Government of Sierra Leone expulsion order on Mr. Crooks was lifted in May 1999. The High Commissioner reports that he had one discussion with Mr. Crooks since his return to Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which occasions(a) Miss Ann Grant, (b) Mr. Richard Dales, (c) Craig Murray, (d) Mr. Tim Andrews, (d) Mr. John Everad and (f) Lynda St. Cooke met Roger Crooks. [116927]

  Mr. Hain
  We believe that none of the six has met Roger Crooks. We have not yet been able to confirm this with one of them. When we have confirmation I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Oxford Forum
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who selects hon. Members to attend the Oxford Forum. [116929]

  Mr. Vaz
  There is no organisation called the Oxford Forum in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is involved.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who were(a) the three officials from other Foreign and Commonwealth Office departments, (b) the official from the Cabinet office and (c) the official from the Department for International Development who attended the meeting referred to in the Second report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1998–99 (HC 116) at footnote 163, page xxi. [116926]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already given a full account to Parliament of the events covered in the FAC report. There is nothing to add to his previous statements.

  Kazakhstan
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Kazakhstan about freedom of the press. [117113]

  Mr. Vaz
  This is an issue of concern to us and our EU partners. We have ensured that it has been raised in EU statements, including at the OSCE Review Conference in Vienna and Istanbul in September 1999, and more recently in the EU response to the statement by President Nazarbaev at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting in Vienna in February.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with European Foreign Ministers on human rights in Kazakhstan. [117114]

  Mr. Vaz
  We and our EU and OSCE partners continue to monitor developments in Kazakhstan, including those relating to progress on democratic reform there, and will raise issues of concern as necessary. We shall also seek to ensure that, in the context of the Partnership &
  285W
  Co-operation Agreement, these issues are adequately addressed at the next EU-Kazakhstan Co-operation Council due in June.

  China
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decision was taken by the General Affairs Council on 20 March on sponsoring a resolution on China at the 56th Conference on Human Rights. [116279]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 29 March 2000,Official Report, columns 167–68W.

  The position the EU will take on the US resolution on China will reflect developments up until the time the resolution is considered by UNCHR.

  US International Trade Commission
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason, when his officials met analysts from the United States International Trade Commission during the last two weeks, they advised the analysts not to meet hon. Members. [116312]

  Mr. Vaz
  UK Ministers and officials did not advise the visiting International Trade Commission analysts not to meet with hon. Members, nor was any such advice given to US Government members or officials. Meetings between officials and the analysts were wide-ranging covering the Government's policy towards the EU, the assumptions underlying the ITC inquiry and the economic consequences of the scenarios the ITC are considering.

  EU Treaties
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which proposals made by EU institutions and member states for incorporation into a new treaty, other than those relating to composition of the Commission, cannot be adopted via the fast track option contained in the Treaty amendments agreed at Amsterdam in 1997. [116308]

  Mr. Vaz
  There is no fast-track option for Treaty change. The Treaties can only be changed through an IGC. All amendments need to be agreed unanimously by member states' Governments and ratified by the member states before they can come into force.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) number and (b) percentage of properties in his charge are empty; and what steps are being taken by his Department to reduce the number of such properties. [116923]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department has no empty properties.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the expenditure incurred by her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on(a) the setting up and (b) the operation of websites, indicating the cases in which the expenditure has been above that budgeted; and if she will list for each website (i) the topics which have been covered, (ii) the current average number of hits per month and (iii) the estimated expenditure on each website for each of the next three years. [115391]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development's website was set up at an initial cost of £10,000. Operating costs have been £16,000 per annum and expenditure has been within the allocated budget. The topics covered are: "Who We Are"—an introduction to DFID; "What We Do"—an introduction to DFID's work around the world; "Working with Us"—information for users seeking to work with DFID; "News Centre" —information on press releases, speeches etc.

  The average number of hits per month is 55,000. Maintenance costs for the next three years are likely to be around £12,000 per annum. The website will be re-designed over the coming year at a cost of up to £50,000.

  Sudan
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the Canadian Government regarding exports to Sudan; and if she will make a statement. [115719]

  Clare Short
  I have held no discussions with the Canadian Government regarding exports to Sudan.

  Forest Fires (Ethiopia)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received concerning the forest fires in Oromiya state, Ethiopia; and if she will make a statement. [116550]

  Clare Short
  It is reported that tens of thousands of hectares of natural forest have been razed by fires in the forest areas of Bale and Borana Administrative Zones. It is believed that the fires were started by local farmers burning land for local cultivation that escalated out of control. The Ethiopian Government sought donor help to combat the fires in February 2000. A number of donor countries who were well placed to address the problem helped form and deploy an International Fire Emergency Advisory Group. Donors, including DFID, maintain daily contact in Addis Ababa.

  International experts travelled down to Bale and Borana to assess the damage and map out a strategy to contain the fires. Their findings were presented to the Ethiopians on 6 March. A US expert was brought in to head up the fire-fighting operation with support and equipment from South Africa and Germany. On 9 March, South Africa announced that it would provide a further 22 fire-fighters and other experts. We concluded that as the UK has

  287W
  limited experience in fighting large-scale forest fires it was best for those with expertise and technical equipment to take the lead.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) number and (b) percentage of properties in her charge are empty; and what steps are being taken by her Department to reduce the number of such properties. [116910]

  Clare Short
  No properties in my charge as Secretary of State for International Development are empty.

  Home domiciled applicants for entry to full-time and sandwich1 undergraduate courses in the United Kingdom through the universities and colleges admission system (UCAS) 1997–99

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Age

  Number

  Percentage of population1

  Number

  Percentage of population1

  Number

  Percentage of population1

  Under 21

  300,926

  43.1

  303,729

  241.0

  306,809

  40.9

  21 to 24

  41,000

  5.3

  37,287

  5.1

  36,361

  5.1

  25 and over

  56,401

  6.0

  48,572

  5.2

  45,521

  5.0

  Total

  398,327

  389,588

  388,691

  1 Based on the averaged 17 and 18 year old population for under 21s, the averaged 21-24 year old population for 21-24s, and the averaged 25-34 year old population for 25s and over.

  2 The drop in the participation rate between 1997 and 1998 reflects the unusually large increase in the number of 18 year olds in the population between these years, resulting from a rise in the birth rate.

  UCAS covers only applicants to full-time and sandwich courses; although similar data for part-time courses are not available, entrant numbers are. The following table shows the numbers of entrants to part-time courses as a proportion of the age group, for the two most recent years; data on part-time entrants for 1999 will not be available until April 2000. The figures show that, in contrast to applicants to full-time courses, participation rates for mature part-time students have risen. The majority of mature students opt to enter higher education via part-time courses.

  Home domiciled entrants to part-time undergraduate courses 1 in the United Kingdom

  1997

  1998

  Age

  Number

  Percentage of population2

  Number

  Percentage of population2

  Under 21

  15,227

  2.2

  16,236

  2.2

  21 to 24

  26,116

  3.5

  26,645

  3.8

  25 and over

  176,139

  18.9

  181,572

  19.8

  Total

  217,482

  224,453

  1 Includes courses in HE institutions, including the Open University, and FE institutions. The figures for the Open University will include some double counting of students who enrol on more than one course.

  2 Based on the averaged 18 and 19 year old population for under 21s, the averaged 21-24 year old population for 21-24s, and the averaged 25-34 year old population for 25s and over.

  New Deal(Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the New Deal on ethnic minorities. [110592]

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Higher Education
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people aged(a) 18 to 21, (b) 21 to 24 and (c) 25 years and over have applied for higher education in each of the last three years; and what percentage of the population in each age group these figures represent. [109978]

  Mr. Wicks
  The latest data on applicants via UCAS are shown in the following table. Although applicants fell between 1998 and 1999, the final number of accepted applicants increased by 1.6 per cent. over the same period.

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: We have set a target that all New Deal partnerships achieve parity of job outcomes between ethnic minority and white clients by the end of this Parliament. We recognise the additional disadvantages which can be faced by ethnic minority jobseekers and that is why the Employment Service is working so closely with key organisations such as the Commission for Racial Equality, Local Race Equality Councils and community groups in this important area of work.

  At the end of November 1999, we know that nearly 20,000 young people from ethnic minorities had gone into work from the New Deal for young people. 13,700 had benefited from training and work experience under the New Deal options. At present, the New Deal appears to be doing less well in helping young people from ethnic minorities in obtaining jobs than young white people, although much of the discrepancy may be in part due to less complete destination data for ethnic minority leavers and from variation in performance between delivery areas. They are, however, leaving the Gateway more quickly and are slightly less likely to return to JSA after finding employment. We also assess the performance of different ethnic minority groups and are aware of the variations in outcomes between the groups. For example, we know that those of Indian, Bangladeshi and Chinese origin are closer to achieving equality of job outcomes with white participants than are Black-African participants.

  The table shows jobs as a percentage of New Deal starts for each ethnic grouping.
  289W

  Percentage

  White

  48

  Black Caribbean

  36

  Black African

  30

  Black Other

  38

  Indian

  43

  Pakistani

  37

  Bangladeshi

  40

  Chinese

  36

  Other

  35

  There is a feature article on New Deal and ethnic minority participants in the February edition of Labour Market Trends that sets out in more detail the findings of experience so far.

  Socrates Programme
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on(a) participation in, (b) the costs to United Kingdom and European funds and (c) the educational benefits of the first Socrates programme; and what his plans are for the second Socrates programme. [116017]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 23 March 2000]: The first phase of the EU Education action programme Socrates ran from 1995 to 1999. During that period some 920 million euros were available for activities across the European Union, many of which will continue until the end of this academic year.

  Participation

  In the UK, during academic year 1997–98, the latest year for which figures are available, the following were funded:
  1,108 school partnership projects; 323 school preparatory visits; 161 teacher training projects; 655 teachers took part in language training abroad; 80 UK teacher trainees took up language assistant posts in other European countries; 166 Higher education institutions took part; 10,592 students studied in another country; 10 Adult Education projects and nine Open and Distance Learning projects were funded; and 159 policy study visits were made to another country.

  In the EU, throughout the period of the first phase, the European Commission estimates that nearly half a million students received grants for an integrated period of study in another European country under the Erasmus action; over 50,000 teachers in higher education undertook teaching assignments at higher education institutions in another European country; over 10,000 schools were involved in joint projects (a great many of them involving UK schools); and around 150,000 young people were involved in joint activities.

  Numbers of full and part-time pupils aged three1 in maintained schools2 in Hampshire local education authority area and in England: 1979, 1990 and 1992–99 (position as at January each year)

  England

  Hampshire3

  Portsmouth3

  Southampton3

  Hampshire4

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  1999

  267,928

  34,288

  999

  4

  706

  1

  546

  0

  5—

  5—

  1998

  270,286

  33,003

  969

  13

  726

  0

  501

  2

  5—

  5—

  1997

  262,110

  29,815

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  2,218

  10

  1996

  261,654

  28,818

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  2,082

  10

  1995

  253,537

  27,818

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  1,922

  20

  1994

  242,187

  27,263

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  1,916

  28

  290W
  Costs

  The average annual cost to the UK is 28 million euros. Incoming grants total 25 million euros.

  Educational benefits

  All participants have built and strengthened links with colleagues in other participating countries. Many institutions have gained access to, and developed, innovative training materials and methods. Individual participants have gained an appreciation of each others' cultures and working practices, have developed communication, new technology and other core skills and have improved their employability and confidence levels.

  Plans for the new programme

  The total budget for the second phase of the programme is 1.85 million euros for the seven years from 2000 to 2006. Priorities and budget allocations for the new programme for the year 2000 are currently under discussion in the Socrates programme management committee. During the course of these discussions the UK will use its best endeavours to ensure that the priorities set for the programme are compatible with the UK's domestic policy agenda for each of the education sectors the programme serves.

  Early Years Education
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for(a) England and (b) each local education authority in Hampshire the number of three-year-olds with free early years education places providing five or more sessions of education per week in (i) 1979, (ii) 1990 and (iii) each year from 1992 to 1999. [115964]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 23 March 2000]: The latest available January census information on three-year-olds educated in maintained schools is shown in the following table.

  Places for 46,000 children have been created in 64 local authorities with the greatest social need, from the £40 million Nursery Education Grant made available during 1999–2000. Expenditure of £390 million is being made available over the three financial years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 to increase by 190,000 the number of new, free, good quality, early education places for three-year-olds. The priority is to reach those three-year-olds in social need who could most benefit from a free nursery place.

  Information on three-year-olds educated in maintained schools for January 2000 is currently being collected as are the actual figures for three-year-old places created in the private and voluntary sector from September 1999 onwards. Provisional estimates of both sets of figures are expected to be published in a Statistical First Release in May.
  291W

  Numbers of full and part-time pupils aged three1 in maintained schools2 in Hampshire local education authority area and in England: 1979, 1990 and 1992–99 (position as at January each year)

  England

  Hampshire3

  Portsmouth3

  Southampton3

  Hampshire4

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  1993

  231,907

  26,014

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  1,533

  35

  1992

  225,521

  25,579

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  1,542

  18

  1990

  200,397

  25,294

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  1,485

  40

  1979

  88,372

  26,330

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  769

  43

  1 Ages as at start of academic year (31 August)

  2 Includes maintained nursery, primary and special schools

  3 Local education authority areas created after the Local Government Re-organisation in April 1997

  4 Before the Local Government Re-organisation in April 1997

  5 Not applicable for that year

  Schools (Capital Allocations)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will break down the capital allocations since May 1997 to schools in

  Capital Allocations for the Amber Valley Constituency since May 1997

  £

  School name

  New Deal for Schools

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  Grant Maintained Schools Funding

  Special Educational Needs

  Outside Toilets Initiative

  Class Size Initiative

  Annual Capital Guidelines

  Voluntary Aided Grants

  School Formula Capital (Minimum)

  Grand Total

  Aldercar Infant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,555

  5,555

  Aldercar

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10,765

  10,765

  Ambergate Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,905

  4,905

  Breadsall C of E Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55,170

  Christ The King RC Primary

  —

  —

  —

  10,500

  —

  2,938

  —

  107,776

  5,245

  126,459

  Codnor C of E VC Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,190

  7,190

  Coppice Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,255

  6,255

  Copthorne Infant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,940

  4,940

  Corfield C of E Infant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,860

  4,860

  Crich C of E Infant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,430

  4,430

  Crich Junior

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,670

  4,670

  Croft Infant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,660

  5,660

  Denby Free C of E Primary

  —

  6,675

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  85,934

  4,161

  96,770

  Fritchley C of E (VA) Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35,145

  4,078

  39,223

  Heage Primary

  240,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,990

  245,990

  Heanor Gate School

  —

  —

  326,822

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23,875

  350,697

  Heanor Langley Infant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  96,400

  —

  —

  5,240

  101,640

  Holbrook Centre for Autism

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,540

  4,540

  Holbrook C of E Primary

  110,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,485

  115,485

  Horsley C of E Primary

  70,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,770

  74,770

  Horsley Woodhouse Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,855

  4,855

  Ironville and Codnor Park Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,915

  5.915

  John Flamsteed Community

  669,163

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12,715

  681,878

  Kilburn Infant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,820

  5,820

  Kilburn Junior

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,110

  6,110

  Langley Mill C of E Infant

  —

  —

  —

  10,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,985

  14,985

  Langley Mill Junior

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,700

  6,700

  Leys Junior

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,540

  5,540

  Little Eaton Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  86,400

  —

  —

  6,445

  92,845

  Lons Infant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,690

  4,690

  Loscoe C of E Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23,575

  —

  —

  —

  5,225

  28,800

  Mapperley C of E Cont Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  44,000

  —

  —

  —

  4,490

  48,490

  Marlpool Infant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,440

  4,440

  Marlpool Junior

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,900

  5,900

  Mary Howitt Infant Community

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,320

  6,320

  Mill Hill

  —

  —

  116,231

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24,280

  140,511

  Morley Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35,190

  —

  —

  —

  4,685

  39,875

  Mortimer Wilson

  —

  525,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18,460

  543,460

  Mundy C of E Junior

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65,000

  —

  —

  —

  5,920

  70,920

  Parkwood

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,485

  5,485

  Pottery Primary

  225,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,325

  233,325

  Richardson Endowed Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,195

  5,195

  Riddings Infant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,780

  5,780

  Riddings Junior

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40,250

  —

  —

  —

  6,360

  46,610

  Ripley Infant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,955

  5,955

  Ripley Junior

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,030

  8,030

  Somercotes Infant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,180

  6,180

  Somerlea Park Junior

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,470

  6,470

  South Wingfield Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,050

  5,050

  St. Andrew's C of E Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,850

  4,850

  St. John's C of E Primary

  —

  —

  —

  1,000

  —

  86,400

  —

  —

  8,480

  95,880

  Stanley Common C of E Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50,000

  —

  —

  —

  4,770

  54,770

  Street Lane Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,500

  4,500

  Stanwick Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20,395

  20,395

  Stanwick Primary

  205,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,960

  212,960

  The Delves

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,910

  6,910

  292W
  (a) the Amber Valley constituency and (b) Amber Valley District. [116376]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: The information requested is shown in the following tables.
  293W

  Capital Allocations for the Amber Valley Constituency since May 1997

  £

  School name

  New Deal for Schools

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  Grant Maintained Schools Funding

  Special Educational Needs

  Outside Toilets Initiative

  Class Size Initiative

  Annual Capital Guidelines

  Voluntary Aided Grants

  School Formula Capital (Minimum)

  Grand Total

  Waingroves Primary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,265

  6,265

  William Howitt Junior Community

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,820

  6,820

  Woodbridge Junior

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,500

  6,500

  Annual Capital Guidelines

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  315,706

  —

  0

  315,706

  Total

  1,519,163

  531,675

  443,053

  21,500

  308,015

  272,138

  315,706

  228,855

  411,855

  4,051,664

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total capital allocation since May 1997 to schools in(a) the Amber Valley constituency and (b) Amber Valley District. [116377]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: The resources allocated since May 1997 for capital purposes to schools in the (a) Amber Valley constituency amount to £4,051,664 and for (b) Amber Valley District amount to £4,415,068.

  Careers Guidance Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the performance by careers guidance services of the terms of their contracts over the last three years. [116462]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 28 March 2000]: For the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99, Careers Service performance was based upon a range of activities including individual interviews, group sessions and personal action plans. During this period, most Careers Services achieved their agreed targets and many exceeded them.

  More recently Careers Services have focused on those who need help most in support of social inclusion and achieving National learning targets. In the financial year 1999–2000, Careers Services made significant shifts in their activities, increasing their resources on work engaging 16 to 17-year-olds in learning by 37 per cent. compared with the previous year.

  Despite the change in focus of Careers Services young people have, however, suffered from a lack of co-ordinated advice and guidance and gaps in provision. That is why we have launched the Connexions Service. It will take forward the provision of careers information, advice and guidance as part of a radical new approach to raising standards and ensuring coherent and co-ordinated support for all young people.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the cost of raising the level of education SSA per child to at least(a) the level of that of the median authority and (b) the level of the median authority minus five per cent. [116754]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We estimate that it would cost £511 million to raise the per pupil funding of all Local Education Authorities to the level of that of the median authority and £96 million to raise it to the level less 5 per cent. of that of the median authority.
  294W
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment he has made of the equity of the standard spending assessment for education as a method of allocation; [117128]

  (2) what recent representations he has received regarding measures being taken to reform received standard spending assessment for education, with particular reference to the (a) areas cost adjustment and (b) additional educational needs allowance. [117134]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on the area cost adjustment and additional education needs elements of the standard spending assessment. We have already acknowledged that there are valid objections to the current SSA formula. The Government, in partnership with local government, have set up a review to see whether there is a better way of determining the distribution of funds which is simpler, more stable, more robust and fairer than the present arrangements.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the cost of raising the standard spending assessment per pupil for each local education authority in England to at least that of Hertfordshire for 2000–01. [117225]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We estimate that it would cost £760 million to raise the standard spending assessment per pupil for each local education authority in England to the level of that of Hertfordshire for 2000–01.

  Access to Work (Disabled People)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve Access to Work for disabled people. [116988]

  Ms Hodge
  The Access to Work programme has been successful in helping an increasing number of disabled people to remain or move into employment year on year. Over the next financial year we expect to help more than 23,000 people through Access to Work at a cost of nearly £26 million. This represents an increase of over 3,000 compared with the current year.

  The Employment Service is also planning to improve the quality of service offered through Access to Work. Over the next year, it is strengthening the Disability Service training, conducting a customer satisfaction survey, and undertaking a review to streamline Access to Work processes.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve the special tuition available to dyslexic children. [116974]
  295W
  Jacqui Smith
  It is the responsibility of schools and local education authorities (LEAs) to ensure that children with dyslexia receive appropriate tuition. Schools and LEAs must have regard to guidance in the Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs (SEN). This guidance recognises a continuum of special educational needs and advocates a staged approach to meeting such needs. The Code provides advice on the needs of children with specific learning difficulties, including dyslexia. A revised version of the Code is expected to be issued next year, which will place a stronger emphasis on the importance of early identification of SEN, so the appropriate help can be given as soon as possible. Under the National Literacy Strategy all children are being taught phonics, spelling and grammar. This has been shown to be particularly helpful for children with mild dyslexia. Children who demonstrate particular difficulties at word level, which are due to their SEN, can be identified much earlier and more focused support added. Such children have also been helped by the requirement, since September 1998, for newly qualified teachers to show that they can identify pupils who have special educational needs, including dyslexia, and know where to get help in order to give positive and targeted support to children.

  My Department is also part funding a two year study programme by the Dyslexia Institute in partnership with the Centre for Reading and Language Studies at the University of York. The research has at its heart a controlled intervention study designed to evaluate the effects of structured programmes of intervention for seven-year-old pupils who are experiencing specific difficulties to read, write and spell.

  Workplace Parking
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many workplace car parking spaces are available at the buildings used and controlled by his Department. [116762]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: In total, there are 900 workplace car parking spaces available at the Department's head office buildings in Darlington, London, Runcorn and Sheffield. We have prepared travel plans for all our key buildings in line with the commitment set out in the Transport White Paper and are reviewing the scope for reducing our car parking requirements in that context.

  Learning Accounts
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are currently waiting for individual learning accounts; and what is the average period between application and allocation. [117244]

  Mr. Wicks
  The first trance of individual learning accounts are being administered and funded solely through Training and Enterprise Councils. In England alone, over 101,000 accounts had been opened by the end of February 2000, against a UK target of 100,000 accounts opened by April 2000, and we are on track to achieve the target of one million accounts opened in the lifetime of this Parliament. Information on how many people are currently waiting for individual learning accounts; and the average period between application and allocation is not held centrally.

  School Meals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local education authorities in which no schools provide hot school meals. [117145]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. Under current education legislation, it is up to local education authorities, and schools with delegated budgets for school meals, to decide on their presentation and content, including whether a meal should be hot. The Government's minimum nutritional standards for school lunches will apply to both hot and cold lunches.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of families eligible to claim free school meals which do not do so. [117144]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information reported by maintained schools in England to the Department for Education and Employment in January 1999 showed that there were 1,417,300 pupils on the schools' register (on the census day) who were known by schools to be eligible for free school meals. Of these, 1,088,800 pupils were reported to have taken a free school meal on the census day.

  Further information provided by the Department of Social Security, for November 1999, showed overall that there were an estimated 1,490,000 school age children (5-16 years) in England from 849,000 families in receipt of Income Support or Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance. No information is available from the Department of Social Security on the number of these children who took their free meals.

  Standards and Effectiveness Unit
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the number of staff and the budget for the Standards and Effectiveness Unit at the end of(a) September 1999 and (b) December 1999. [117507]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  At the end of September and December 1999, the number of staff in the Unit was 204. The running cost budget for the Unit in the current year is £6.421 million.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that schools have sufficient accommodation to meet the pressures on class sizes when the cohorts of children currently benefiting from the class size reduction initiative turn eight years old. [116736]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department's guidance to LEAs on drawing up infant class size implementation plans made clear that the criteria for plan approval included the need to ensure no adverse impact upon the size of junior classes.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the class size reduction initiative on smaller schools where site constraints limit expansion and published admission numbers are reduced as a result. [116737]
  297W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department issues regular monitoring questionnaires, to all LEAs, which seek information on the implementation of the infant class size initiative. We have no evidence to suggest that the initiative has had an adverse impact on smaller schools which have reduced their admission numbers in order to comply with the infant class size limit.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future of local education authorities. [117511]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Local education authorities have four key functions related to schools: school improvement, special education needs, access and strategic management.

  We believe that LEAs should be held accountable by regular inspections, which is why Ofsted has a programme of inspections in place—and why we introduced legislation allowing intervention and outsourcing where necessary.

  We believe that as far as possible schools should manage themselves and their budgets. That is why we are delegating far greater resources to schools than the previous Administration.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) number and (b) percentage of properties in his charge are empty; and what steps are being taken by her Department to reduce the number of such properties. [116911]

  Mr. Wills
  There are currently eight Departmental headquarters properties and 53 Employment Service (ES) properties that are either fully or partly vacant. Using the standard measure of square metreage, these figures represents 3.19 per cent. of vacant space against the total headquarters property for DfEE and 4.9 per cent. against the total for ES. Both ES and DfEE use the services of external estates surveyors, under contract, who advise on the best method of achieving a speedy and cost effective disposal. This will include assignment, sub-letting or surrender. The option pursued will depend upon, for example, the terms of the lease, the wishes of the landlord and market conditions. In line with usual practice, retained estates surveyors employ local estate agents who market vacant premises.

  Teachers (Performance-related Pay)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many external assessors for the performance-related pay scheme for teachers have been recruited and how many remain to be recruited; and by what date they will be recruited. [117510]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The actual numbers of external assessors to be deployed will depend on the number and distribution of teachers who apply to cross the threshold. Numbers are likely to peak in the first two years of the new arrangements when very large numbers of teachers will be eligible for assessment. The maximum requirement in year one will be in the region of 520 full-time equivalents. The recruitment process for external assessors is nearly complete.

  Schools Funding
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is(a) the breakdown for the financial year 1999–2000 and (b) the forecast breakdown for 2000–01, of funding for schools between the Standards Fund, local education authority expenditure, and other Government grants. [117506]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table sets out: (a) Education Standard Spending, which is the amount the Government assume local authorities will spend for the purpose of setting Standard Spending Assessments; (b) Standards Fund Grant; and (c) Other Government Grants, which include Nursery Grant for three and four-year-olds, Class Size Grant, and Special Grants to be paid under the Local Government Act 1988.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Education Standard Spending

  20,414

  21,479

  Standards Fund Grant

  563

  1,077

  Other Government Grants

  247

  877

  Total

  21,224

  23,433

DEFENCE

  Weapons Failures
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the figures are for the mean time between failure for the British Army Light Support Weapon(a) modified and (b) unmodified, and for other Light Support Weapon equivalents used by other armed forces tested by the British army. [114214]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The mean time between failure expressed as mean rounds between failure for modified Light Support Weapon as tested on recent trials, firing a Battlefield mission of 960 rounds in 37 minutes, is greater than 2,500 rounds in all climates and with all NATO qualified ammunition types. Of the other Light Support Weapon systems tested, the mean rounds between failure range from 398 to 2,008 rounds.

  I am withholding details of the performance of the unmodified LSW under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the most recent field trial report on(a) SA80 and (b) LSW. [114215]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The report to which the hon. Member refers is classified and is withheld under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice for the release of Government Information.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the figures for the mean time between failures for(a) the SA80 as modified, (b) the G36, (c) 51G (Swiss Army), (d) DEMAR. Co, (e) M16 and (f) other personal weapons recently tested by the Army; [114217]
  299W
  (2) what reliability tests the armed forces have carried out on personal weapons used by other armed forces, with particular reference to (a) G.36, (b) S/G (Swiss Army), (c) DEMAR. Co (upgraded M16) and (d) M16. [114216]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The mean time between failure expressed as mean rounds between failure for the modified SA 80 Individual Weapon (IW) as tested on recent trials, firing a Battlefield mission of 150 rounds in eight minutes 40 seconds, is greater than 2,500 rounds in all climates and with all NATO qualified ammunition types.

  The mean round between failure for G36, Diemaco and SIG is commercially sensitive. However only one Weapon system was considered comparable to the modified SA80 1W.

  The reliability tests for all the Weapons systems have been based on the firing of 21 Battlefield missions.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the expenditure incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on(a) the setting up and (b) the operation of websites, indicating the cases in which the expenditure has been above that budgeted; and if he will list for each website (i) the topics covered, (ii) the average number of hits per month and (iii) the estimated expenditure on each website for each of the next three years. [115090]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested by the right hon. Member is not held centrally or in the form requested. I will write to the right hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Heavy-lift Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what aircraft was used to take Puma helicopters to Mozambique; how long the journey took; and what estimate he has made of how long it would have taken for an equivalent number of helicopters to have arrived in a complete state had Boeing C-17 aircraft been used for the transportation. [116599]

  Mr. Spellar
  An An-124 aircraft was used to carry four Puma helicopters to Heudspruit, South Africa. The journey time from Brize Norton to Heudspruit took 16 hours 50 minutes; the flight time was 14 hours ten minutes. Two C-17 aircraft would have been required to transport the four Pumas and, as the cruise speeds are similar, the flight times would have been similar to the An-124. It was necessary to remove the rotors and rotor head for the Pumas to be transported in the An-124. It is assessed that the same degree of dismantlement would have been necessary had C-17 been used.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long it would take for an Antonov 124, if purchased by his Department, to be placed on the British Military List; and what impact this would have on protecting its operation from interference by foreign powers. [116598]
  300W
  Dr. Moonie
  Details of our assessment of these issues forms part of the current decision making process on options to meet our short-term strategic airlift requirement. I am withholding information under Exemption 2 (internal discussion and advice) of the Code of Practice on access to Government Information.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the unit cost for the purchase of(a) an Antonov 124 and (b) a Boeing C17. [116560]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is commercially sensitive. I am withholding it under Exemption 13 (third party's commercial confidences) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft would be available under(a) the Antonov 124 package and (b) the Boeing C17 package. [116497]

  Dr. Moonie
  A final decision on aircraft numbers has yet to be reached and will form part of our overall decision on airlift requirements.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long it would take for (i) an Antonov 124, and (ii) a Boeing C17 to carry 40 battle tanks to the Balkans. [116502]

  Dr. Moonie
  That information is not available and could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the C-17 was chartered by the Ministry of Defence from the USAF during the Kosovo conflict; and what the payload was which was offered. [116562]

  Dr. Moonie
  A request for airlift assistance to move the vehicles of a High Velocity Missile Battery was submitted to the USAF on 29 March 1999. The move involved seven C-17 flights using two aircraft flying from Hanover to Skopje. The lift commenced on 1 April and was completed on 4 April 1999.

  Under the UK/US Acquisition and Cross Service Agreement, the USAF determine the most appropriate means of transportation, based on their resources available at the time. Therefore, while no actual offer of payload was made, the USAF provided sufficient airlift to meet the stated requirement.

  MPs' Visits
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the visits by hon. Members to his Department's establishments in Wales since May 1997 and (b) invitations declined by local hon. Members to visit establishments in their constituencies. [116348]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: The visits by hon. Members of Parliament to Ministry of Defence (MOD) establishments in Wales since May 1997 are listed in the table. It is not however possible to list the invitations declined by local hon. Members to visit establishments in their constituencies, as such records are not comprehensively maintained.
  301W

  Date of visit

  Location/unit

  MP/Constituency

  6 February 1998

  DERA Pendine

  Mr. Nick Ainger MP (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

  5 March 1998

  HQ 160 (Wales) Brigade and Infantry Training Centre, Brecon

  The right hon. Sir George Young MP (North West Hampshire)

  8 March 1998

  C Flight 22 Squadron RAF Valley

  The right hon. Dr. John Reid MP (Hamilton North and Bellshill)

  18 May 1998

  3 Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Wrexham

  Mr. Martyn Jones MP (Clwyd South)

  The right hon. Barry Jones MP (Alyn and Deeside)

  Dr. John Marek MP (Wrexham)

  26 May 1998

  3 Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Wrexham

  Mr. Gareth Thomas MP (Harrow West)

  2 June 1998

  DERA Pendine

  Mr. Nick Ainger MP (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

  19 June 1998

  3 Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Caernarfon

  The right hon. Dafydd Wigley MP (Caernarfon)

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones MP (Ynys Mon)

  25 June 1998

  C Flight 22 Squadron, RAF Valley

  Mr. Brian Donohoe MP (Cunninghame South)

  Mrs. Ann Keen MP (Brentford and Isleworth)

  1 July 1998

  Royal Marine Commando Logistic Regiment, Castlemartin Range

  Mr. Michael Fabricant MP (Lichfield)

  Mr. Stephen Hepburn MP (Jarrow)

  Hon. Lindsay Hoyle MP (Chorley)

  Mr. Sydney Rapson MP (Portsmouth North)

  2 July 1998

  Senneybridge Training Camp

  Mr. John Spellar MP (Warley)

  10 July 1998

  3 Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Wrexham

  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd MP (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

  19 July 1998

  14 Signal Regiment, Brawdy

  Mrs. Jackie Lawrence MP (Preseli Pembrokeshire)

  3 August 1998

  Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers, Monmouth

  Mr. Huw Edwards MP (Monmouth)

  16 September 1998

  3 Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Queensferry

  The right hon. Barry Jones MP (Alyn and Deeside)

  22 September 1998

  Pennally Training Camp

  Mr. Peter Hain MP (Neath)

  13 November 1998

  1223 (Machen) Detached Flight Air Training Corps

  The right hon. Ron Davies MP (Caerphilly)

  14 November 1998

  3 Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Wrexham

  Mr. Martyn Jones MP (Clwyd South)

  25 November 1998

  1358 (Pontardwe) Squadron Air Training Corps (ATC)

  Mr. Peter Hain MP (Neath)

  4 December 1998

  Army Careers Information Office, Rhyll

  Mr. Chris Ruane MP (Vale of Clwyd)

  18 January 1999

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency, St. Athan

  Mr. Anthony Coleman MP (Putney)

  Mr. Dan Morris MP (Wansdyke)

  25 January 1999

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency, Sealand

  Mr. Anthony Coleman MP (Putney)

  Mr. Dan Morris MP (Wansdyke)

  11 March 1999

  RAF Valley—Search and Rescue

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones MP (Ynys Mon)

  7 April 1999

  Defence Aviation Repair Launch Day, St. Athan

  Mr. John Spellar MP (Warley)

  Mr. John Smith MP (Vale of Glamorgan)

  The right hon. Barry Jones MP (Alyn and Deeside)

  Mr. Peter Viggers MP (Gosport)

  26 May 1999

  C Flight 22 Squadron, RAF Valley

  Mr. lain Coleman MP (Hammersmith and Fulham)

  Mr. Stephen McCabe MP (Birmingham Hall Green)

  Mr. Dan Norris MP (Wansdyke)

  10 June 1999

  104 Regiment Royal Artillery (Volunteers), Cardiff

  Mr. Martin Bell MP (Tatton)

  17 June 1999

  101 Battalion REME (Volunteers), Wrexham

  Hon. Lindsay Hoyle MP (Chorley)

  4 August 1999

  6 Cadet Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Swynnerton

  The right hon. Dafyyd Wigley MP (Caernarfon)

  1 September 1999

  Defence Storage and Distribution Centre, Llangennech

  The right hon. Denzil Davies MP (Llanelli)

  11 September 1999

  104 Regiment Royal Artillery (Volunteers), Royal Artillery Range, Manorbier

  Mrs. Jenny Jones MP (Wolverhampton South West)

  29 September 1999

  RAF Valley

  Mr. Lembit Öpik MP (Montgomeryshire)

  20 January 2000

  RAF DARA Sealand

  The right hon. Barry Jones MP (Alyn and Deeside)

  25 January 2000

  DERA Aberporth

  Mr. Gareth Thomas MP (Clwyd West)

  28 January 2000

  DERA Pendine

  Mr. Nick Ainger MP (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

  Notes:

  1. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence approves the visits of MPs to establishments. However, it is possible that MPs may have visited local establishments or cadet units on public open days and such visits are not included in the list.

  2. There is no requirement for the Department to keep records of such visits and some establishments only have records available since March 1998. The list should therefore not be viewed as exhaustive.

  302W

  Tritium
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantities of tritium have been produced at the Chapelcross nuclear facility in each month since April 1995; and what percentage of the tritium produced by this facility has been exported to Governments and agencies outside the United Kingdom. [116592]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 28 March 2000]: To reveal such information would be contrary to national defence and security interests and I am therefore withholding details under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Defence Diversification Council
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the establishment of a defence diversification council. [116713]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 22 March 2000,Official Report, column 566W.

  Workplace Parking
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many workplace car parking spaces are available at the buildings used and controlled by his Department. [116773]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The provision of parking facilities is being addressed in the development of my Department's corporate Environmental Management System, which incorporates Travel Plans.

  Gulf War Illnesses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many meetings officials from the Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit held with the United States Department of Veterans' Affairs between 15 October and 31 December 1999, indicating the date and location

  (a) Number of people who left in the month of:

  August 1999

  September 1999

  October 1999

  November 1999

  December 1999

  January 2000

  Army

  1,219

  1,355

  1,462

  1,326

  1,063

  1,557

  Royal Navy

  288

  425

  476

  412

  370

  396

  Royal Air Force

  387

  437

  433

  352

  332

  392

  Royal Marines

  72

  144

  128

  98

  91

  86

  Territorial Army

  698

  919

  863

  957

  544

  1,214

  Royal Naval Reserve

  50

  4

  50

  63

  114

  36

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force

  24

  38

  49

  26

  23

  21

  (b) Number of people who joined in the month of:

  August 1999

  September 1999

  October 1999

  November 1999

  December 1999

  January 2000

  Army

  1,216

  1,908

  1,390

  1,583

  639

  2,280

  Royal Navy

  87

  548

  320

  450

  44

  413

  Royal Air Force

  228

  406

  453

  314

  289

  390

  Royal Marines

  62

  151

  106

  111

  59

  101

  Territorial Army

  471

  531

  1,779

  712

  474

  607

  Royal Naval Reserve

  23

  33

  63

  69

  94

  31

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force

  13

  40

  28

  37

  16

  25

  304W
  of each meeting and the section of the Department of Veterans' Affairs in which the officials who attended each meeting worked. [117092]

  Mr. Spellar
  During the period 15 October to 31 December 1999, an official from my Department's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit in London attended two meetings at which officials from the US Department of Veterans' Affairs, Veterans Health Administration Section, would have been present. One meeting was on 20 October and the other was on 21 October. Both meetings took place in Washington DC.

  In addition to the above, a member of the Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit based in Washington DC maintains a continuous dialogue with United States Department of Veterans' Affairs colleagues.

  Mr. Roger Crooks
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which occasions(a) Vice Admiral Alan West and (b) Major Peter Hicks have met Roger Crooks since 1995. [116930]

  Mr. Spellar
  Vice Admiral Sir Alan West, the current Chief of Defence Intelligence, has never met Mr. Crooks. Major Peter Hicks served as a Military Liaison Officer with the Defence Intelligence Staff from 1994–98. He deployed to Sierra Leone on three occasions to support contingency planning for the evacuation of UK and other foreign nationals. In 1997, he directly assisted in a civilian evacuation from Sierra Leone. He had no professional contact with Mr. Crooks and recalls only one occasion at which he may have briefly met him socially.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people(a) left and (b) joined the (i) Army, (ii) Royal Navy, (iii) Royal Air Force, (iv) Royal Marines, (v) Territorial Army, (vi) Royal Naval Reserve and (vii) Royal Auxiliary Air Force in each of the last six months. [117564]

  Mr. Spellar
  The latest available figures on a consistent basis across all Services are as follows. They include both trained and untrained personnel.
  305W
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in updating guidance to the Services on the values and standards expected of Service personnel; and if he will make a statement. [117640]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Army and RAF have revised and updated the guidance given to their personnel on the values and standards of each Service and the standards of behaviour and conduct to which they are expected to adhere. This underpins Service ethos and so helps to sustain the operational effectiveness of the armed forces.

  The revised guidance is set out in publications entitled "Values and Standards of the British Army" and "Core Values and Standards of the Royal Air Force" which are being widely distributed in the Services. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) names, (b) dates and (c) locations of joint US/UK nuclear weapon exercises which have been held since 1993. [117093]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following joint UK/US nuclear weapon accident response exercises have been held since 1993:

  Date

  Name

  Location

  April 1994

  Diver Mist

  Suffolk

  September 1998

  Diagonal Glance

  Somerset

  Food Products (Welfare Standards)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the prescribed welfare standards which govern imported food products supplied to HM forces. [112967]

  Dr. Moonie
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 March 2000, c. 498W]: I regret the answer given was incorrect in referring to an "EC Meat Commission". In the case of meat sourced in EC countries quality standards are based upon the EC Meat Classification Scheme as operated in the UK by the Meat and Livestock Commission and set down in The Meat Buyers Guide.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Fossil Fuel
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made in(a) preparation for negotiating limits to fossil fuel use internationally and (b) setting limits to fossil fuel use in the United Kingdom of (i) the availability of fossil fuel reserves (1) worldwide and (2) in the United Kingdom and (ii) the cumulative impact of emissions from fossil fuel burning on the rate and extent of climate degradation. [113862]

  Mr. Meacher
  I know of no negotiations on setting limits to fossil fuel use, either internationally or in the UK. There are negotiations about targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which will inevitably affect 306W
  countries' use of fossil fuels, which is a major source of carbon dioxide emissions, the main man-made greenhouse gas.

  Assessments published by the Department of Trade and Industry indicate that estimates of the UK's remaining proven, probable and possible oil reserves have been broadly unchanged since the 1980s, and estimated gas reserves have increased slightly over the same period, despite large increases in production.

  In numerical terms UK reserves of oil and gas are currently estimated to be around 1,750 million tonnes and 1,750 billion cubic metres (about 1,450 million tonnes of oil equivalent), respectively. Work undertaken in 1998 for DTI by International Mining Consultants Ltd. estimates the reserves, resources and mineral potential at UK mines to be about 620 million tonnes of coal (about 370 million tonnes of oil equivalent). This estimate is on a more restricted basis than the oil and gas estimates because it takes no account of coal reserves other than those at mines that were operating at the time of the report. An alternative estimate contained in the BP Amoco Statistical Review of World Energy puts UK coal reserves at 1,500 million tonnes of coal.

  According to the BP Amoco Statistical Review of World Energy, world reserves of oil, gas and coal are about 140 billion tonnes, 130 billion tonnes, 650 billion tonnes respectively, all converted to oil equivalent. These refer to quantities estimated with reasonable certainty to be present and recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions; the ultimately recoverable amounts could be much larger.

  The UK is likely to start importing gas at some point between 2003 and 2010. Through access to world energy markets, the Government's assessment is that fossil fuel resource availability by itself will not constrain consumption for the foreseeable future and is correspondingly unlikely to be a factor in the international negotiations.

  The most recent report from the Met Office's Hadley Centre estimated that, under the 'business as usual' scenario, the global temperature will be 2°C warmer than now by the 2050s. This temperature rise would be delayed by 50 years with stabilisation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 750 parts per million and by over 100 years with stabilisation at 550 parts per million. About 70 per cent. of the climate change impact will be due to fossil fuel burning between now and 2100.

  Waste Incinerators
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the locations by region of(a) existing waste incinerators and (b) pending planning applications for waste incinerators.[114150]

  Mr. Mullin
  The following list shows the location, by Environment Agency Region, of waste incineration processes regulated by the Environment Agency under the Integrated Pollution Control regime in England and Wales. The Environment Agency is responsible for regulating chemical waste, drum and other waste (at a rate
  307W
  of one tonne per hour or more) incineration processes under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The majority of small incineration processes under one

  Environment Agency Region

  Town

  Operator

  Anglian

  Grimsby

  The BOC Group

  Anglian

  Ipswich

  White Rose Environmental Ltd.

  Anglian

  Royston

  Vetspeed Ltd.

  Anglian

  Southend-on-Sea

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

  Midlands

  Birmingham

  Severn Trent Water Ltd.

  Midlands

  Birmingham

  Tyseley Waste Disposal Ltd.

  Midlands

  Buxton

  Durga Environmental Ltd.

  Midlands

  Cinderford

  Engelhard Sales Ltd.

  Midlands

  Coventry

  Coventry and Solihull Waste Disposal Co. Ltd.

  Midlands

  Dudley

  MES Environmental Ltd.

  Midlands

  Nottingham

  Wastenotts (Reclamation) Ltd.

  Midlands

  Nottingham

  WRE Services Ltd.

  Midlands

  Redditch

  Medical Energy (Worcs) Ltd.

  Midlands

  Sandwell

  BIP Limited

  Midlands

  Scunthorpe

  Fibrogen Ltd.

  Midlands

  Shrewsbury

  WRE Services Ltd.

  Midlands

  Stoke-on-Trent

  MES Environmental Ltd.

  Midlands

  Stourbridge

  Severn Trent Water Ltd.

  Midlands

  Wolverhampton

  Leigh Environmental Ltd.

  Midlands

  Wolverhampton

  MES Environmental Ltd.

  North East

  Billingham

  Northumbrian Environmental Management Ltd.

  North East

  Bradford

  Yorkshire Water Services Ltd.

  North East

  Doncaster

  Amlon Metal Ltd.

  North East

  Huddersfield

  Kirklees Waste Services Ltd.

  North East

  Knottingley

  Laporte Performance Chemicals UK Limited

  North East

  Leeds

  Yorkshire Environmental Solutions Ltd.

  North East

  Leeds

  Yorkshire Water Services Ltd.

  North East

  Middlesbrough

  Fine Organics

  North East

  Sheffield

  SARP (UK) Ltd.

  North East

  Sheffield

  Sheffield City Council

  North East

  Sheffield

  Yorkshire Water Services Ltd.

  North West

  Bolton

  GM Waste Ltd.

  North West

  Morecambe

  British Energy Generation Ltd.

  North West

  Preston

  Royal Ordnance (Weapons and Munitions) Ltd.

  North West

  Runcorn

  ICI Chemicals And Polymers Ltd.

  North West

  South Wirral

  Cleanaway Ltd.

  North West

  South Wirral

  Shell (UK) Ltd.

  North West

  Ulverston

  Glaxo Operations UK Ltd.

  North West

  Widnes

  North West Water Ltd.

  North West

  Wirral

  Lubrizol Ltd.

  South West

  Bristol

  Blagden Packaging NV

  South West

  Bristol

  Bristol City Council

  South West

  Castle Cary

  Bronzeoak Thermal Processing

  South West

  Weymouth

  Defence Research Agency

  South West

  West Woodlands

  Wessex Incineration Co. Ltd.

  Southern

  Ashford

  White Rose Environmental Ltd.

  Southern

  Dartford

  Wellcome Foundation Ltd.

  Southern

  Fareham

  Southern Water Services Ltd.

  Southern

  Portsmouth

  Onyx Hampshire Ltd.

  Southern

  Romney Marsh

  Magnox Electric Plc

  Southern

  Sittingbourne

  Powergen CHP Ltd.

  Southern

  Southampton

  Shanks Chemical Services Ltd.

  Thames

  Barking

  Blagden Packaging NV

  Thames

  Barking

  Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

  Thames

  Basingstoke

  Onyx Hampshire Ltd.

  Thames

  Belvedere

  Riverside Resource Recovery Ltd.

  Thames

  Harrow

  Northwick Park Hospital

  Thames

  London

  London Waste Ltd.

  Thames

  London

  South East London Combined Heat And Power Ltd.

  Thames

  London

  Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

  Thames

  Slough

  S. Grundon (Services) Limited

  Thames

  Slough

  S. Grundon (Waste) Ltd.

  Thames

  Thornton Heath

  Mayday Energy Centre Ltd.

  Thames

  Uxbridge

  Clinical Energy Limited

  Thames

  Stevenage

  Glaxo Research and Development Ltd.

  Wales

  Bridgend

  Davies Brothers Waste Ltd.

  Wales

  Cemaes Bay

  Magnox Electric Plc

  Wales

  Deeside

  J. Reid Trading Ltd.

  Wales

  Neath

  HLC Neath Port Talbot Ltd.

  Wales

  Pontypool

  Shanks Chemical Services Ltd.

  308W
  tonne per hour are regulated by local authorities. Detailed information on the location of these incinerators is not held centrally.
  309W
  Information on planning applications for waste incinerators is held by the respective planning authorities and not by the department. However, the Environment Agency has received IPC applications for a new incinerator, or a variation of the existing authorisation at the sites listed. This list also includes sites where the Agency intends to vary the conditions of the existing authorisation.

  Environment Agency Region

  Town

  Operator

  South West

  Bristol

  Medipower Services Ltd.

  Southern

  Maidstone

  Kent Enviropower Ltd.

  Southern

  Sittingbourne

  Sita Holding UK Ltd.

  Southern

  Southampton

  Onyx Hampshire Ltd.

  Southern

  Southampton

  Shanks Chemical Services Ltd.

  Thames

  Harlow

  Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd.

  Thames

  London

  Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

  London Transport
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list quality targets set for(a) London Underground and (b)London Buses, giving in each instance performance against them for each of the years they have been in existence; [115417]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the revision of the quality targets set for London Underground and London Buses. [115418]

  Mr. Hill
  The current performance targets set for London Underground and London Transport Buses are as follows. London Transport report on progress against these targets and those set in previous years in their Annual Reports, which are published in the early summer for the previous financial year.

  London Underground (all targets for two years 1999–2000 and 2000–01)

  Measure

  Target

  Capacity (train kms run)

  10 per cent. increase on 1998–99 performance

  Reliability (unweighted excess journey time—minutes)

  4 per cent. improvement on 1998–99 level

  Customer satisfaction measures 1,2:

  Train service

  77

  Information

  77

  Customer safety and security

  83

  Staff helpfulness and availability

  70

  Cleanliness

  69

  1 Measured through LT's Customer Satisfaction Survey

  2 Average score out of 100

  London Transport Buses

  Percentage

  Customer satisfaction measure

  1999–2000 Target1

  2000–01 Target1

  Service reliability

  54

  55

  Personal safety and security

  79

  80

  Smoothness and freedom from jolting during the journey

  58

  59

  Attitude and behaviour of staff

  78

  79

  Cleanliness and condition of buses

  69

  70

  Information on buses

  68

  69

  Information at bus stops

  64

  65

  1 These targets are measured as the proportion of passengers—asked in surveys—who marked the service 7.5 or better out of a total of 10

  310W
  From 3 July London Transport Buses will become part of the new body, Transport for London, under the Greater London Authority, and targets will be subject to review by the Mayor.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much London Transport has spent on external consultants in each of the last five years. [115419]

  Mr. Hill
  I understand from London Transport that they have spent the following amounts on external consultants in each of the last five years:

  £ million

  Year

  Spend

  1995–96

  50.81

  1996–97

  40.35

  1997–98

  42.35

  1998–99

  91.16

  1999–2000

  1108.10

  1 Provisional—final figure not yet available

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many escalators on the London Underground are out of order in each zone; for how long the escalator has been out of order in each case; and when they are expected to be fixed. [115416]

  Mr. Hill
  These are operational matters for London Underground who have provided the information in the following table.

  Escalators—the situation on 17 March 2000

  Station

  Out of service

  Back in service

  Zone 1

  Charing Cross

  9 February 2000

  22 September 2000

  Bank

  17 March 2000

  1—

  Bond Street

  16 March 2000

  1—

  Chancery Lane

  16 March 2000

  1—

  Holborn

  16 March 1999

  1—

  Holborn

  2 November 1999

  22 May 2000

  Holborn

  25 August 1997

  27 March 2000

  Notting Hill Gate

  1 February 2000

  20 June 2000

  Notting Hill Gate

  6 January 2000

  10 July 2000

  Oxford Circus

  10 February 2000

  11 July 2000

  Oxford Circus

  9 February 2000

  22 September 2000

  Oxford Circus

  9 February 2000

  11 July 2000

  Oxford Circus

  8 February 2000

  22 September 2000

  Oxford Circus

  8 February 2000

  11 July 2000

  Oxford Circus

  17 January 2000

  2 July 2000

  Oxford Circus

  12 August 1999

  25 April 2000

  St. Pauls

  16 March 2000

  1—

  London Bridge

  26 January 2000

  1—

  Westminster

  15 March 2000

  1—

  Baker Street

  11 February 2000

  15 August 2000

  Kings Cross

  16 March 2000

  1—

  Kings Cross

  16 March 2000

  18 August 2000

  Kings Cross

  15 September 1999

  11 July 2000

  Liverpool Street

  14 March 2000

  1—

  Paddington

  13 March 2000

  1—

  Euston

  10 February 2000

  1—

  Euston

  25 February 2000

  11 July 2000

  Old Street

  24 September 1999

  8 August 2000

  Old Street

  10 November 1999

  2 May 2000

  Tottenham Court Road

  19 July 1998

  8 August 2000

  Leicester Square

  11 March 2000

  1—

  Knightsbridge

  8 March 2000

  1—

  Vauxhall

  10 January 2000

  15 August 2000

  311W

  Escalators—the situation on 17 March 2000

  Station

  Out of service

  Back in service

  Victoria

  11 February 2000

  18 August 2000

  Victoria

  10 February 2000

  3 August 2000

  Warren Street

  12 January 2000

  23 August 2000

  Total 36

  Zone 2

  Bethnal Green

  5 November 1999

  2 July 2000

  Shepherds Bush

  24 September 1999

  26 June 2000

  St. Johns Wood

  28 July 1999

  18 May 2000

  Rotherhithe

  17 March 2000

  1—

  Archway

  17 March 2000

  1—

  Archway

  18 February 2000

  1—

  Clapham North

  3 October 1999

  1 June 2000

  Clapham South

  28 September 1999

  3 November 2000

  Oval

  16 March 2000

  1—

  Manor House

  16 February 2000

  1—

  Manor House

  29 March 1999

  7 May 2000

  Brixton

  9 February 2000

  18 August 2000

  Highbury

  7 February 2000

  18 August 2000

  Total 13

  Zone 3

  South Wimbledon

  2 October 1999

  5 April 2000

  Wood Green

  21 February 2000

  1—

  Seven Sisters

  11 February 2000

  18 August 2000

  Turnpike Lane

  17 March 2000

  1—

  Walthamstow Central

  11 February 2000

  8 May 2000

  Walthamstow Central

  11 February 2000

  11 July 2000

  Total 6

  1 To be announced

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 14 March 2000,Official Report,columns 118-19W, on London Underground, what is the nature of the plans that are in hand to bring the lifts at Westminster Underground Station into service. [117101]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for London Underground. However, I understand that LUL will shortly invite the HMRI to inspect the lifts to ensure that they can be entered into public service.

  Departmental Inquiries
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) reviews, (b) public inquiries and (c) commissions of inquiry announced by his Department since May 1997. [115123]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]:The information for reviews and inquiries is as follows. My Department has announced no commissions of inquiry since May 1997.

  Reviews

  Bus Review.

  Competition in the Water Industry in England and Wales.

  Comprehensive Spending Review of Housing.

  Financial Management and Policy Review of the Audit Commission.

  Financial Management and Policy Review on the Darwin Advisory Committee.

  Finance Management and Policy Review of the Housing Corporation.

  Financial Management and Policy Review of the Rent Assessment Panels.

  Financial Management and Policy Review for the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

  312W

  Financial Management and Policy Review of the UK Ecolabelling Board.

  Fundamental Review of the Laws and Procedures relating to Compulsory Purchase and Compensation.

  Housing Fitness Standard Review Steering Group.

  Inter-departmental Review of Fuel Poverty.

  Marine Nature Conservation Review Group.

  Next Steps Review of the Highways Agency.

  Opencast Coal: Review of Planning Policy.

  The Provision of New Drains and Sewers in England and Wales.

  Review of Bird Registration procedures under Section 7 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Review of Business Rates Revaluation.

  Review of Compulsory Competitive Tendering in Local Government.

  Review of Controls over Demolition in the light of the `Shimizu' judgment.

  Review of Criminal Prosecutions and Sanctions for Pollution of the Sea following Marine Accidents.

  Review of the Environmental Action Fund.

  Review of Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards.

  Review of Fees and Charges for Bird Registration and CITES Wildlife Trade Applications.

  Review of the 5-Year Strategy for HM Coastguard.

  Review of Global Wildlife Division's panel of part-time Wildlife Inspectors.

  Review of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997.

  Review of Heritage Notifications.

  Review of the House buying and selling process.

  Review of Implementation of 1995 guidance on signing for tourist attractions and facilities in England.

  Review of the implementation of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (contaminated land).

  Review of the Index of Local Deprivation.

  Review of Legislation relating to integration within the Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

  Review of Marine Nature Conservation.

  Review of the Missions to search for the fishing vessel 'Gaul' lost in 1974 and identification of bodies washed ashore along the coast of Russia.

  Review of the National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations.

  Review of the Pilotage Act.

  Review of Policy on Chemicals in the Environment.

  Review of policy within the OSPAR Commission for the protection of the marine environment of the NE Atlantic on hazardous substances, radioactive substances, nutrients and marine biodiversity. (Outcome announced in a PQ in September 1997).

  Review of the Noise Act.

  Review of Policy on International Access to Regional Airports.

  Review of Political Restrictions on Local Government Officers.

  Review of procedures for statutory and non-statutory consultation on planning applications.

  Review of Railtrack's Safety and Standards Directorate.

  Review of Rolling Stock Leasing Market.

  Review of Salvage and Intervention and their Command Control.

  Review of the Secretary of State's standards of modern zoo practice.

  Review of Single Vehicle Approval.

  Review of Speed Policy.

  Review of Trust Ports.

  Review of the Water Abstraction Licensing System in England and Wales.

  313W

  Review of the Water Charging System.

  Review of UK National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS).

  Revenue Grant Distribution Review Group.

  Local Government Capital Finance Review.

  Roads Review (published as 'A New Deal for Trunk Roads England')

  Transport Safety Review.

  Inquiries

  Inquiry into rolling stocks.

  Inquiry into Safety on the River Thames.

  Inquiry into South Hampshire Rapid Transit Project.

  Inquiry into Merseyside Rapid Transit Project

  Inquiry into Gaul tragedy.

  Inquiry into Paddington rail crash directed by Health and Safety Commission.

  Inquiry into Marchioness tragedy.

  Bournemouth—Swanage Ferry tolls public inquiry June 1997.

  Inquiry into Southall train crash directed by Health and Safety Commission.

  Nuclear Regulation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional resources have been(a) sought by and (b) provided to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to cover the additional work needed to assess the new regulatory regime requirements for (i) British Nuclear Fuels in preparation for PPP and (ii) British Energy as a private company. [115358]

  Mr. Meacher
  Resources for the regulation of British Nuclear Fuels and British Energy are provided for within the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate's current staffing plans for 2000–01. HSE plans to recruit up to 30 additional inspectors to increase its cadre of nuclear inspectors in 2000–01 to deliver its programme of inspection which will include the regulation of British Nuclear Fuels and British Energy.

  M4 Bus Lane
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) buses and (b) passengers have used the M4 bus lane on each day since the ending of Reading Buses' services to and from London; and if he will make a statement. [115267]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 20 March 2000]: The bus lane continues to help provide a first-class service for passengers using buses, coaches and taxis and benefits all road users. Use of the bus lane has increased by over 20 per cent. from 3,000 vehicles in the last week of operation to 3,700 vehicles using the bus lane each day. Of these 600 are buses (including coaches), and each bus carries 15 passengers, an average of 9,000 bus passengers each day. Under normal traffic conditions, time savings of up to nine minutes are being obtained by users of the bus lane, and the reliability of their journey increases.

  Reading Buses will withdraw their London service on Sunday 7 May 2000. Therefore data on changes to usage of the M4 bus lane will not be available until some time later Reading Buses use the lane 15 times per day. This accounts for only 2.5 per cent. of buses and coaches using the lane and is much less than the typical week by week variation in these vehicles.
  314W

  I am disappointed Reading Buses are withdrawing their London service. I understand that this was on economic grounds, and that they say that the services would have stopped earlier but for the M4 bus lane. I am however pleased that another operator has increased use of this section of the M4 by 30 buses per day since the bus lane opened.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 328W, concerning the Jubilee line, what other recently completed railways (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad have experienced delays at one point which resulted in delays and train cancellations throughout the line; and for what reason the doors designed to lead to trains on the westbound Jubilee line platform at Westminster station are not in use. [115751]

  Mr. Hill
  The information requested in answer to the first part of my right hon. Friend's question is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, London Underground is a member of an international group of Metro operators. I understand that within this group over half have constructed new lines in recent years; of these new lines more than half have experienced "teething problems".

  I understand from London Underground that the platforms at Westminster are designed to accommodate seven car trains (to allow for capacity increases in later years). Jubilee line trains presently consist of only six cars. The rear platform edge doors of the Westbound platform are therefore not currently in use and are kept closed for safety reasons. I am advised that information notices are posted on the relevant doors.

  Quangos
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many quangos operate(a) nationwide (b) with a regional remit and (c) within the north-west region. [116071]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department currently sponsors 31 executive NDPBs, 13 of which operate nationwide. The eight NDPBs that have a regional remit are the Regional Development Agencies. Two of the Department's NDPBs operate solely within the North-West region: the North West Development Agency and Liverpool Housing Action Trust.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment has been made of the ways in which it is possible to recover pollen dispersed from GM plants in field trials in the event of the experiment demonstrating environmental harm. [116267]

  Mr. Meacher
  It would not be possible to recover pollen released from field trials. This is one of the reasons why no genetically modified crops may be released for field trials in the United Kingdom without a detailed risk assessment of the possible harm to human health and the
  315W
  environment. This includes specific consideration of the possible effects of the dispersal of GM pollen. The risk assessments are reviewed critically by the scientific and technical experts on the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). If ACRE had any concern that GM pollen would cause environmental harm, then the release would not be allowed.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to place conditions in the contracts for biodiversity research relating to farm-scale trials of GM crops to ensure there are no conflicts of interest among contractors which might undermine the credibility of research. [116208]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have no plans to place conditions in the contracts. The research contractors involved in the evaluations are respected Government research institutions who have no corporate links to any vested interest. The research methodology and findings for the farm-scale evaluations are reviewed and agreed by an independent Scientific Steering Committee and the overall findings of the evaluations will be peer reviewed by other independent scientists, completely outside the research programme. This all guarantees that the findings of the farm-scale evaluations will be unbiased and science based.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the criteria used to assess the scientific independence of scientific contractors working on farm-scale evaluations of GM crops before contracts were awarded. [116207]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department invited 15 organisations to tender for the farm-scale evaluations. These were chosen to be Government funded bodies (such as research council institutes or universities) or independent research bodies. In the event, the contractors chosen were all Government funded institutes and had demonstrated that they had the capacity to carry out the work, as well as the required scientific expertise. As with all Government contracts of this nature, the researchers were asked to provide details of all personnel expected to carry out the work, along with their CVs.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of potential conflicts of interest relating to the contract given to the Institute of Arable Crop Research for farm-scale evaluation of GM crops following the recruitment of staff involved by CropGen. [116209]

  Mr. Meacher
  Three members of staff employed by the Institute of Arable Crop Research have been recruited to advise CropGen. Two were previously involved with the farm-scale evaluations in a specialist advisory role but neither will be involved in the next stage of the project.

  £ per pupil

  Under 5s Education SSA

  Primary Education SSA

  Secondary Education SSA

  Post-16 Education SSA

  Education SSA1

  Cheshire County Council

  1,962

  2,257

  2,898

  3,236

  2,602

  Shire County Council Average

  2,109

  2,348

  3,024

  3,426

  2,715

  Metropolitan District Average

  2,414

  2,456

  3,168

  3,813

  2,863

  London Borough Average

  3,394

  2,982

  3,802

  4,194

  3,510

  Met District and London Borough Average

  2,777

  2,645

  3,386

  3,978

  3,094

  1 This column is calculated by dividing the Education SSA (including the element for 'other' education, such as adult education) by the sum of Under 5, Primary, Secondary and Post-16 pupils

  Cycling
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he had with the Dutch Transport Minister during her recent visit concerning policies to(a) increase the distance cycled and (b) to reduce cycling fatalities; and if he will make a statement. [116081]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport met the Dutch Transport Minister on 7 March. Cycling issues were not on the agenda on this occasion.

  Education Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will calculate in percentage terms the difference between his Department's most recent standard spending assessment in education for the counties of(a) Cheshire and (b) Hertfordshire; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the difference. [116122]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The education standard spending assessments (SSA) for 2000–01 for Cheshire county council and Hertfordshire county council are £275,998,592 and £471,433,598 respectively, a difference of 71 per cent. This arises from applying the SSA formula to the numbers relevant to each county. The great majority of the difference is accounted for by the greater number of pupils in Hertfordshire.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will calculate the value of his Department's most recent(a) standard spending assessment for education for the county of Cheshire and (b) average standard spending assessment for the shire counties. [116117]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The education standard spending assessment for 2000–01 for Cheshire county council is £275,998,592. The average education standard spending assessment for 2000–01 for shire county councils is £272,584,489.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will calculate the value of his Department's most recent(a) standard spending assessment per pupil for the county of Cheshire, (b) average standard spending assessment per pupil for shire counties and (c) average standard spending assessment per pupil for the Metropolitan and London authorities; and if he will make a statement. [116118]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Planning Applications
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the town and country planning applications called in by him in each of the last 10 years(a) were recommended by his inspector for approval and (b) were accepted by him; in how many cases his inspector recommended refusal; and of these how many were accepted by him. [116282]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information is available on the following basis:

  Year

  Number approved

  Number in line with Inspector

  Number refused

  Number in line with Inspector

  1996–97

  56

  55

  51

  43

  1997–98

  124.5

  123.5

  163.5

  161.5

  1998–99

  46

  44

  73

  65

  1999–20002

  41

  39

  36

  35

  1 Includes a split decision on one case

  2 Provisional

  Note:

  Figures are not available for earlier years

  Company Cars
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of company cars in use in the UK in 1999. [116327]

  Mr. Hill
  At the end of June 1999, the latest date for which we have figures, there were 2.53 million cars licensed in Great Britain that were registered to companies. Equivalent information for Northern Ireland is not readily available.

  Audit Commission (Quality Control Review)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to which officials and members of the Audit Commission the Quality Control Review team submits its preliminary findings in respect of the work of an individual auditor. [116435]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The views of the Review Team are not submitted to officials or members of the Audit Commission prior to the submission of the final Quality Control Report, which is submitted to the Director of Audit Policy and Appointments.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the quality control reviews conducted in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996, when (i) the Controller or (ii) any other official or member of the Audit Commission altered, or asked or required to be altered, the team's findings in respect of an individual auditor. [116438]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Apart from members of the Review Team and the Director of Audit Policy and Appointments, neither the Controller nor any other official nor any Commissioner is involved in determining the results of Quality Control Reviews.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the auditors in London who were subjected to the Audit Commission's Quality Control Review process in 318W
  (a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996, together with the findings of (i) unsatisfactory, (ii) satisfactory and (iii) excellent in each case and on each occasion. [116439]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Audit Commission did not operate a grading system of unsatisfactory, satisfactory and excellent for the years in question. The work of no audit supplier was considered unsatisfactory in the period concerned.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which officials and members of the Audit Commission have the authority to alter, or ask or require to be altered, a preliminary finding by the Audit Commission's Quality Control Review team. [116437]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Apart from the Review Team and the Director of Audit Policy and Appointments, no officials or Commissioners have any involvement in determining the results of a Quality Control Review.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the basis on which the work of an individual auditor is selected for review by the Audit Commission's Quality Control Review team. [116434]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The basis of selection is to choose:

  an audit from each District Auditor and Partner every year;

  an audit from each Audit Manager at least every three years;

  the same audited body no more often than every three years;

  an approximate apportionment of Quality Control Review effort between NHS and local government audits each year.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the preliminary and (b) the final findings of (i) unsatisfactory, (ii) satisfactory and (iii) excellent awarded by the Audit Commission's Quality Control Review process on (1) the two occasions in 1994, (2) the two occasions in 1995 and (3) the occasion in April 1996 when reviews were undertaken of the Auditor's investigation into Westminster City Council's designated sales policy. [116440]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Only one of the reviews conducted in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 was a comprehensive QCR report on the audit of the accounts of Westminster City Council and that related to the 1994–95 audit year. I understand that the auditor's overall performance was adjudged better than the level required by the Commission's Code of Audit Practice.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many quality control reviews were carried out in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996, where the preliminary finding awarded differed from the final finding awarded. [116436]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This information about the overall number of reviews is not available centrally.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress with the creation of directly elected regional assemblies in England. [116371]
  319W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on 27 March 2000,Official Report, column 17W.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the notional time commitment for each chair of the regional non-departmental public bodies; [116361]

  Non-departmental body: regional

  Chairman's time input2

  Total

  Board membership1 (a) Male

  (b) Female

  Regional Development Agencies

  Eastern

  2 dpw

  13

  10

  3

  North East

  3 dpw

  13

  10

  3

  North West

  3 dpw

  13

  9

  4

  South East

  2 dpw

  13

  9

  4

  South West

  2 dpw

  13

  10

  3

  East Midlands

  3 dpw

  14

  10

  4

  West Midlands

  3 dpw

  13

  10

  3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3 dpw

  13

  10

  3

  Total (RDAs)

  105

  78

  27

  1 Includes Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen

  2 Days per week

  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many board members he appoints to each non-departmental public body. [116335]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A full list of the non-departmental public bodies to which the Secretary of State makes appointments is published in the publication Public Bodies 1999 (ISBN 0 11 430159 X), copies of which are available in the House Library.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the accountability of regional quangos to the people of their regions. [116329]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  As executive NDPBs, the eight Regional Development Agencies are accountable to Ministers and Parliament. They are required, by the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, to take account of the views of voluntary regional chambers in preparing their strategies, and to give an account of their activities to the chambers. Chambers are representative of the people in the regions that they serve: 70 per cent. of their members are elected members of the region's local authorities, with the remaining 30 per cent. drawn from the region's social, economic and environmental sectors.

  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met representatives of the regional chambers to discuss possible future development in regional Government. [116330]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and I met representatives of all but one of the regional chambers on 16 December to discuss a range of issues, including the future development of regional governance.
  320W
  (2) how many (a) male and (b) female board members each regional non-departmental public body for which he is responsible has; 1116374]

  (3) if he will list the regional non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible. [116375]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The table provides the information requested.

  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will set a date for a referendum on the creation of a directly elected regional assembly in Yorkshire and Humberside. [116370]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government are committed to move to directly elected regional government in England, where there is support demonstrated in a referendum. While no date has yet been set, Yorkshire and the Humber is strengthening its regional presence through the work of Yorkshire Forward, the Regional Chamber for Yorkshire and Humberside, and other regional stakeholders.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the value of the site of the Dome(a) with and (b) without the Dome building. [116364]

  Ms Armstrong
  A pre-sale valuation of the site is being undertaken in the context of the competition to identify a use for the Dome when the Millennium Experience finishes. The Government estimate of the financial value of the site is commercially confidential until the end of the competition.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the cost of removing(a) pesticides and (b) nitrates from drinking water supplies in each of the last five years. [116656]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Director General of the Water Services collects this information from each of the licensed water and sewerage companies in England and Wales, via their July Return. The Director General
  321W
  informs me that capital expenditure to remove nitrates and pesticides from drinking water supplies (in 1998–99 prices) in each of the five years was:

  Capital expenditure

  £ million

  To remove nitrates from drinking water supplies

  To remove pesticides from drinking water supplies

  1994–95

  20

  138

  1995–96

  9

  160

  1996–97

  5

  121

  1997–98

  6

  64

  1998–99

  6

  11

  Total

  46

  494

  There are also running costs associated with nitrate and pesticide removal but neither the Director General or the Government hold this information.

  New Dwellings
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what annual scale of migration of(a) people and (b) households into the South East from (i) London and (ii) the rest of England is assumed in his proposals for new dwellings to be provided in the next five years. [116654]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The latest sub-national population projections, from the Office for National Statistics, project annual net migration in 2001 into the South East Government Office region from London to be 28,200, and annual net migration from the region to the rest of England to be 5,400. By 2006 annual net migration into the region from London is projected to be 28,000 and annual net migration from the region to the rest of England to be 6,700.

  The population projections take account of these migration assumptions. They are one of the inputs used to calculate the household projections. No explicit migration components are identified in the household projections.

  Household Statistics
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the number of households for each five year period between 1996 and 2021 for each English county and metropolitan area assuming zero net internal migration. [116655]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This information is not currently available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  DVLA
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many birth and marriage certificates have been lost by the DVLA since the introduction of the new driving licence with a photograph. [116507]

  Mr. Hill
  DVLA had reimbursed the replacement cost of 220 birth certificates and the 32 marriage certificates. Of these, the Royal Mail accepted responsibility for the 322W
  loss of 141 birth certificates and 20 marriage certificates. During the period April 1999 to date DVLA has issued over 3 million photocard licences.

  Rateable Values (Water)
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the avenues open to a member of the public to resolve a dispute with a water company about the notional rateable value of their home. [116491]

  Mr. Mullin
  Notional rateable values are used by water companies to set water charges for some premises. Rateable values ceased to be used for local taxation in 1990.

  Customer complaints are investigated by the regional Customer Service Committees (CSC) of the Office of Water Services on behalf of the Director General. If the CSC does not resolve a complaint to the customer's satisfaction, the customer can ask for the complaint to be considered by the Director.

  The exercise of the Director's statutory functions is subject to the scrutiny of the courts and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Traffic Growth
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the levels of traffic growth for(a) England, (b) Hampshire and (c) each local authority in Hampshire in (i) 1979, (ii) 1990 and (iii) for each year from 1992 to date. [116477]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: The table provides annual growth estimates for all motor vehicle traffic on English roads. Separate estimates for England are not available before 1988; the growth figures for 1979 to 1988 are therefore based on Great Britain as a whole.

  Estimated annual traffic growth on English roads 1979 to 1998

  Year

  Annual percentage change in motorised road traffic

  1979

  -0.2

  1980

  6.2

  1981

  1.8

  1982

  2.7

  1983

  1.3

  1984

  5.2

  1985

  2.2

  1986

  5.1

  1987

  7.7

  1988

  7.2

  1989

  7.8

  1990

  1.4

  1991

  0.0

  1992

  -1.2

  1993

  0.6

  1994

  2.2

  1995

  1.4

  1996

  3.6

  1997

  2.5

  1998

  1.7

  Note:

  Data for 1979 to 1988 based on Great Britain averages.

  The Department's annual road traffic statistics are currently based on 12-hour manual counts at about 8,500 sites each year, supplemented by data from automatic

  323W
  traffic counters. Although this sample is now sufficient to provide reliable estimates by road type at a regional level, it is not large enough to provide estimates at the county or local authority level, particularly for minor roads. The 1999 manual count data are currently being analysed with a view to publication of a 1999 traffic growth estimate in May.

  Shot (Toxic Substances)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department is carrying out or evaluating on the effect of the use of toxic substances in shot. [117523]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is not currently carrying out or evaluating any research specifically on the effects of the use of toxic substances in shot. However, from 1993 to 1996, the Department part-funded the development by University College, London of a ballistics testing facility, in order to assist the evaluation of non-toxic shot and provide the shooting community with guidelines for judging alternative shot types. In addition, the Department also funded Cranfield University to design a comprehensive computerised predictive model of the effectiveness of differing shot types against wildfowl; this work was completed in 1998.

  Sustainable Construction
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the Government's strategy for more sustainable construction. [117619]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  "Building a better quality of life—a strategy for more sustainable construction" will be published on 4 April. The document will set out how we want the construction industry to contribute to sustainable development. The strategy will be a catalyst for change in the way buildings and infrastructure are designed, procured, constructed, maintained and used. It will lead to greater social, economic and environmental value in the built environment needed to modernise Britain.

  Copies of the strategy will be placed in the Libraries of the House on 4 April.

  Residential Units (Shops)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the potential number of residential units which could be formed in empty or under-used space above shops; and what his target is for the number of such units to be formed in the next five years. [116906]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We estimate that the potential number of residential units that could be formed in empty or under-used space above shops to be 300,000 in England. This estimate does not take account of any space which may not be suitable for conversion. Nor does it take account of the significant financial, managerial and attitudinal obstacles which will need to be overcome if a high proportion of these spaces are to be brought into use.

  Given the constraints that may exist, we have not set a target for conversion of vacant space above shops. However, my Department recently published a report
  324W
  "Conversion and Redevelopment: Process and Potential" which looked at the potential for residential conversions in detail. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his target is for reducing the number of empty homes over the next five years. [116907]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We recognise that it is necessary for a proportion of the housing stock to be empty at any point in time to enable the process of buying, selling and letting to work efficiently. It is also inevitable that properties will be empty when under repair. We estimate the effective minimum level of empty properties is between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. 3.7 per cent. of the housing stock was vacant on 1 April 1999.

  We are pursuing policies designed to reduce the number of empty homes towards the minimum level.

  Dial-a-ride
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the balance of advantage and disadvantage in establishing a fuel duty rebate for dial-a-ride services. [117149]

  Mr. Hill
  Possible changes to the scope of the existing fuel duty rebate scheme are currently being considered by the Commission for Integrated Transport, as part of its review of value for money from public financial support for the bus industry. At present a key eligibility criterion for rebate is that the bus service concerned should be available to the general public; we will give careful consideration to the case for extending eligibility in the light of the Commission's report expected later this year.

  Housing Adaptations (Disabled Children)
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make housing adaptations more affordable for families with disabled children; and if he will make a statement. [117650]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Each year, nearly 25,000 people receive disabled facilities grants to help with the cost of adapting their homes. However, some parents of disabled children are finding it difficult to afford their contributions, because no account is taken of the additional cost of housing a disabled child.

  To make adaptations more affordable, I am introducing into the grant assessment a new housing allowance of £65 for applications on behalf of a disabled child. For other applicants, the allowance for housing costs will increase by £10 to £50. The new allowances, which come into effect today, will save parents of disabled children up to £9,000 and other applicants up to £3,500, depending on the size of their contributions.

  Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what
  325W
  information he has collated on the manufacture in the United Kingdom of methyl tertiary butyl ether; when he expects the Environment Agency to complete its research project on the incidence of methyl tertiary butyl ether; and if this report will be published. [116237]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is estimated that about 90,000 tonnes of MTBE was manufactured in the UK in 1999, although not all of this was blended into petrol. The research undertaken by the Environment Agency will provide information on the incidences of MTBE in groundwater in England and Wales and should also provide further information on the amount of MTBE and other oxygenates used in petrol. The results of the research are due to be published in the summer.

  Hedges (EU Biodiversity Regulations)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he plans to take to ensure that the EU Court of Auditors' decision permitting release of agricultural support to farmers on condition that they minimise the width of hedges between fields, does not undermine the EU directives on biodiversity in the countryside. [116266]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 29 March 2000, Official Report, column 172W.

  Rents
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99 gross expenditure on (i) rent allowances and (ii) rent rebates for each local authority in England. [116700]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish statistics on the extent of Green Belt land in each local authority. [117772]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I am today publishing estimates of the extent of Green Belt land in each local authority in England in the Information Bulletin 'Local Planning Authority Green Belt Statistics: England 1997'. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The bulletin shows that there was very little change in the extent of Green Belt land between 1993 and 1997—an estimated net increase of just 1,850 hectares. This net increase is significantly less than that indicated by a comparison between 1993 figures published in PPG2, which have now been shown to be inaccurate, and the figures for 1997 calculated using digital (computerised) boundaries. Separately, we estimate that some 30,000 hectares have been added or proposed for addition to the Green Belt since May 1997.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Waste Incineration Directive
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the exemptions agreed in respect of farmers and growers in other EU countries to the Waste Incineration Directive. [116253]

  Mr. Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Council agreed a Common Position on the proposed Waste Incineration Directive in June 1999. The Common Position text excludes from the scope of the Directive experimental plants used for research, development and testing in order to improve the incineration process and which treat less than 50 tonnes of waste per year, and plants treating only the following wastes:

  (i) vegetable waste from agriculture and forestry,

  (ii) vegetable waste from the food processing industry,

  (iii) wood waste with the exception of:

  wood waste that may contain halogenated organic compounds or heavy metals as a result of treatment;

  treated wood originating from building and demolition waste,

  (iv) cork waste,

  (v) waste excluded from the scope of the Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC) as amended, pursuant to Article 2(1) of that Directive. (Article 2(1) excludes from the scope of the Waste Framework Directive the following:

  (a) gaseous effluents emitted into the atmosphere;

  (b) where they are already covered by other legislation:

  (i) radioactive waste;

  (ii) waste resulting from prospecting, extraction, treatment and storage of mineral resources and the working of quarries;

  (iii) animal carcases and the following agricultural waste: faecal matter and other natural, non-dangerous substances used in farming;

  (iv) waste waters with the exception of waste in liquid form;

  (v) decommissioned explosives; and

  (vi) waste resulting from the exploration for, and the exploitation of, oil and gas resources from off-shore installations and incinerated on board the installation.

  The Council decided it was appropriate to consider vegetable waste from the food processing industry and cork waste as biomass, and therefore to add them to the exclusions from the scope of the proposal alongside those originally proposed by the European Commission to avoid discouraging use of biomass for energy purposes.

  The European Parliament is seeking to amend the list of exclusions, including by the addition of an exclusion for fibrous vegetable waste from sorting, screening and washing of virgin pulp and paper production, if it is co-incinerated at the place of production and the heat generated is recovered.
  327W
  There are no country specific exclusions from the scope of the proposal, nor does any individual member state have the right to opt out of parts of the proposal.

  Workplace Parking
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many workplace car parking spaces are available at the buildings used and controlled by his Department. [116767]

  Building

  Total car parking spaces

  Nobel House, London, SW 1P 3JR

  12

  Ergon House, London, SW 1P 3JR

  1

  55 Whitehall, London, SW 1A 2EY

  0

  3/8 and 10 Whitehall Place, London, SW1A 2HH

  0

  Eastbury House, London, SE1 7TL

  15

  Page Street, London, SW1 4PQ

  15

  Foss House, 1-2 Peasholme Green, Kings Pool, York, YO1 2PX

  270

  Government Buildings, Epsom Road, Guildford, GU1 2LD

  335

  Lion House, Willowburn Trading Estate, Alnwick, NE66 2PF

  56

  Wessex RSC, Block 3, Government Buildings, Burghill Road. Bristol, BS10 6NJ

  150

  Northern RSC, Eden Bridge House, Lowther Street, Carlisle, CA3 8DX

  34

  North Mercia RSC, Electra Way, Crewe, CW1 6GJ

  150

  North East RSC, Government Buildings, Crosby Road. Northallerton, DL6 1AD

  168

  South Mercia RSC Block C, Government Buildings, Whittingdon Road, Worcester, WR5 2LQ

  2176

  East Midlands RSC Block 7, Government Buildings, Chalfont Drive, Nottingham, NG8 3SN

  2170

  Anglia RSC Block B, Government Buildings, Brooklands Avenue, Cambridge, CB2 2DR

  450

  South East RSC Block A, Government Buildings, Coley Park, Reading, RG1 6DT

  136

  South West RSC Clyst House, Exeter, EX5 1DY

  242

  Quantock House, Paul Street, Taunton, TA1 3NX

  52

  Central Science Laboratories, Sand Hutton, York, YO4 1LZ

  496

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, NR33 OHT

  117

  CEFAS, Burnham Remembrance Avenue, Burnham-on-Crouch, CM08HA

  15

  CEFAS, The Nothe, Barrack Road, Weymouth, DT0 8UB

  28

  Veterinary Laboratory Agency and Veterinary Medicines Directorate, New Haw, Addlestone, KT15 3NB

  440

  1 A travel plan has not yet been prepared for this site as the Ministry only fully occupied the building in February this year.

  2 The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not the major occupier at these sites. Car parking spaces at the sites are allocated on a first come first served basis. The figures represent a percentage of the total car parking spaces available based on the number MAFF staff as a percentage of all staff on the site.

  Plant Viruses
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of recent research from the Research School of Biological Sciences at the Australian National University concerning plant viruses recombining with vertebrate-infecting viruses; what evaluation he made of the risks of parts of the HIV virus being used as carriers in the context of his risk assessment of GM crops; and if he will make a statement. [115200]

  Ms Quin
  We will be studying the research referred to carefully. No parts of the HIV virus have been used in the construction of GM plants assessed for safety in the UK. If any such GM plants were to come forward for assessment they would be subject to stringent scrutiny.

  Field Boundaries
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will defer for 12 months the alteration to Integrated Administrative and Control System rules regarding the width of field boundaries; and if he will make a statement on his discussions with the European Commission regarding these rules. [116688]
  328W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: The Ministry and its Agencies are made up of more than 200 separate sites and this information is not readily available for all of those sites. We are preparing travel plans for all our key buildings (offices with over 50 staff) in line with the commitment set out in the Transport White Paper and we are reviewing our car parking requirements in that context. The number of workplace car parking spaces available at the buildings where we are developing travel plans are shown in the table.

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 29 March 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 29 March 2000, Official Report, column 172W.

TREASURY

  Personal Tax Allowance
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the full-year cost to the Exchequer from April 2000 of transferring an unused personal tax allowance to an earning spouse. [116067]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated cost for 2000–01 of allowing a married person to transfer an unused personal allowance to their earning spouse is £2,000 million. The estimated cost of allowing a married person to transfer a personal allowance in the way most beneficial to the couple, regardless of whether it would be otherwise unused, or either or both spouses are earning, is £4,250 million.

  Child Care Tax Credit
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the additional cost to the Exchequer of replacing the child care tax credit with a non-means-tested
  329W
  parenting allowance of £70 a week for one child, £105 a week for two or more children, available to all families with a child under the age of three years, regardless of the parents' employment status or the form of child care used and assuming that the child care tax credit still applied to families with children where the youngest child was over the age of three years and the parenting allowance did not apply to Statutory Maternity Pay recipients. [116642]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 March 2000]: If a weekly, non-means-tested allowances of £70 were to be given to all families with a single child under the age of three years and of £105 to families with two or more children, at least one of whom is under the age of three years, then the current full-year cost, based on data from the Family Resources Survey, would be about £8.5 billion.

  Sterling
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of his budget proposals on the value of sterling. [116522]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 28 March 2000]: Sterling's exchange rate is affected by many factors and events, both here and abroad. It is not possible to isolate the impact of the Budget on the value of sterling with any degree of precision.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the value of sterling for(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002 using Treasury models. [116523]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 28 March 2000]: The Treasury does not forecast movements in the exchange rate.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are in place to help with the transition from weekly to monthly payments for those recipients of Working Families Tax Credit who will receive the credit through a monthly pay packet from April. [116701]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Tax credits will start being paid through the pay packet from 18 April and this will help to demonstrate the rewards of work and to make work pay for families on low incomes. Tax credits will be paid at the same intervals as pay—weekly for employees paid weekly, fortnightly for those paid fortnightly and monthly for those paid monthly.

  In the first few weeks of a 26-week tax credit award, the Inland Revenue will pay the tax credit direct to the employee—either direct to a bank account or by Girocheque. These initial payments will be made fortnightly (one week in arrears and one week in advance). The guidance notes for tax credit applicants make it clear that tax credit payments by employers will be made at the same frequency as wages or salary.

  Travel-to-Work Areas
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the travel to work areas in order of the fall in unemployment during the past(a) 12 months, (b) 24 months and (c) 36 months for which figures are available. [116720]
  330W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 3 April 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the fall in unemployment in travel-to-work areas (TTWA's).
  The ONS publish a monthly count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  Information on the falls in the levels of the claimant count by TTWA during the past 12 months, 24 months and 36 months can be obtained from the Nomis database at the House of Commons Library.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the subjects of the parliamentary questions which have been transferred to his Department from other Departments in each session since 1 May 1997. [117222]

  Mr. Timms
  The Treasury, in common with other Departments, does not keep records relating to transferred questions.

  Family Benefits
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the take-up of the child care credit in the Working Families Tax Credit. [115876]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The childcare tax credit component of the Working Families Tax Credit has been particularly successful, with over 90,000 recipients at the end of February. At its peak, in August 1999, 47,000 families claimed the child care disregard in Family Credit.

  Cruickshank Report
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to stimulate development of credit unions following the Cruickshank report. [117106]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government announced moves to encourage credit unions to develop on 16 November 1999, including the creation of a new central services organisation and regulatory changes designed to help them to deliver a more consistent and flexible service to members.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) number and (b) percentage of properties in his charge are empty; and what steps are being taken by his Department to reduce the number of such properties. [116921]

  Mr. Timms
  None of the properties owned or leased by the Treasury are empty.

  Civil Procurement
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made in implementing
  331W
  the recommendations of the Review of Civil Procurement in Central Government; and if he will make a statement. [117778]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  From 1 April 2000, the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) will be operational. Peter Gershon has been appointed Chief Executive and Brian Rigby deputy Chief Executive. The Chief Executive will be responsible to Treasury Ministers on both policy and executive matters. The OGC will include the Private Finance Policy Team, and staff dealing with Procurement Policy and Procurement Practice and Development.

  On 1 April 2000 the OGC will inherit from the Cabinet Office responsibility for the Buying Agency (TBA), Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA). Their Chief Executives will report to Peter Gershon. These new arrangements will help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Government's £13 billion annual civil procurement budget by creating a single, unified operation at the centre to focus on high value added activities.

  A Supervisory Board chaired by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and constituting officials and external representatives will help ensure a coherent cross departmental approach to procurement and provide on-going top-level support and strategic direction to the OGC.

  Banking Services
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of people in receipt of Income Related Benefit do not have use of banking services(a) in the UK and (b) in Scotland. [116369]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  Over 80 per cent. of all benefit recipients have bank accounts. Estimates from the 1997–98 Family Resources Survey are that 28 per cent. of individuals in Great Britain who are in receipt of Income Related Benefits do not have access to banking services and 38 per cent. of individuals in Scotland in receipt of Income Related Benefits do not have access to banking services.

  Notes:

  1. The source of the data used to answer the question is the Family Resources Survey (Great Britain only). The latest year for which data are available is 1997–98.

  2. The estimates are based on sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for region, Council Tax band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

  3. The figures given have been rounded to the nearest whole per cent.

  4. For the purposes of answering this question, income related benefits (IRBs) are taken to be Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based), Family Credit. Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Disability Working Allowance and Social Fund Grants.

  5. Where two people are living together as husband and wife and they are in receipt of one or more IRBs between them, it should be noted that one of the couple claims the benefit(s) on behalf of both individuals. However, both individuals are regarded here as being in receipt of the benefit(s). Therefore, for such couples, the access of both recipients to banking facilities has been considered, as opposed to solely those of the claimant.

  332W

  6. For the purposes of this analysis, an individual's access to Banking facilities has been defined as whether or not they have in their name (on a sole or joint basis) any one of a Current Account, a Post Office Ordinary/Investment account or any other type of savings/bank account held with either a hank or a Building Society.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he has made in dealing with fraudulent claims for housing benefit. [115866]

  Mr. Darling
  I wrote to all council chief executives on 6 March warning them to act immediately to remedy weaknesses identified by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate.

  I am today announcing a further 30 inspections of a range of councils including a number which are not operating all of the Departments anti-fraud initiatives.

  If the BFI report to me a local authority's persistent failings I will direct them to achieve the standards I set within a rigorous timescale.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what percentage the budget for housing benefit has increased in real terms(a) in each year since the introduction of housing benefit and (b) in total since the introduction of housing benefit. [117279]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Real annual change in expenditure on housing benefit, 1988–89 to 1999–2000, Great Britain

  Financial year

  Percentage increase on previous financial years in real terms

  1989–90

  6.3

  1990–91

  11.0

  1991–92

  18.8

  1992–93

  17.4

  1993–94

  13.9

  1994–95

  8.1

  1995–96

  4.6

  1996–97

  1.4

  1997–98

  -4.4

  1998–99

  -4.1

  1999–2000 (estimated)

  -0.9

  Whole period

  95.4

  Notes:

  1. Figures represent changes in the total amount of Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances paid to recipients, regardless of the source of funding.

  2. Figures for 1999–2000 are based on estimates that underlie the March 2000 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  3. Expenditure figures have been converted to constant prices (real terms) using the Gross Domestic Product deflator underlying the March 2000 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  State Second Pension
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates will benefit from the proposed state second pension. [115868]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member of Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) earlier today at column 616.

  Pensioners (Minimum Income Guarantee)
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to improve the take-up of the minimum income guarantee among pensioners. [115885]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our unprecedented take-up campaign will commence in the spring.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have incomes which are below the level of the minimum income guarantee. [115864]

  Mr. Rooker
  We currently estimate that just over half a million people are missing out on their Minimum Income Guarantee. We have announced details of a take-up campaign which will identify pensioners who may be entitled, and encourage them to claim. Details are in the Vote Office.

  McDonald Report
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the McDonald report on pension provisions. [115886]

  Mr. Rooker
  We welcome the publication of the Retirement Income Working Party's Report as a contribution to an important debate. We are assessing the implications of the Report's proposals for pension scheme members, for the Exchequer and for private pension provision generally. Our willingness to be flexible for the benefit of pensioners is demonstrated by our recent decision to allow more pensioners to buy an investment-linked annuity as an alternative to a limited price indexed annuity.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress the Government are making in tackling child poverty. [115887]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have pledged to eradicate child poverty over the next 20 years and to halve it within 10 years. We are making good progress. Our £7 billion tax and benefit package will lift 1.2 million children out of poverty. And by helping parents back into work we are tackling the biggest cause of child poverty.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact to date of Government measures to reduce child poverty in the north-west of England. [115900]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are committed to halving child poverty over the next 10 years and to eradicating it within 20 years. And this strategy covers all regions of the UK.

  Child poverty is a problem which has built up over generations and it will take time to eradicate. But we are already making substantial progress. Our £7 billion tax and benefit package will lift 1.2 million children out of poverty. As a result, the poorest two-child families will be £1,500 a year better off in 2001 than they were in 1997.
  334W
  Poverty is multi-dimensional. It is characterised not just by low income, but also by factors such as poor educational attainment, poor housing and deprived communities. It is about the lack of opportunity and aspiration. That is why we are investing heavily in measures to provide children with a better start in life and to increase the opportunities to allow them to break out of the cycle of deprivation.

  We are prepared to be judged on our results. We set out our indicators for tackling poverty in "Opportunity for all" (Cmd. 4445) and we will report progress against these in the autumn.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to help disabled people stay in work. [115888]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have a range of measures to help disabled people stay in work. These include the Disabled Person's Tax Credit to help make work pay; improvements in the support provided by the Independent Living Funds to allow severely disabled people to keep a higher proportion of their work income; and the New Deal for Disabled People pilots to help people to move into or stay in employment.

  The Budget announced new plans to develop pilots to test the effectiveness of helping people when they become ill in work.

  Marginal Tax and Benefit Withdrawal Rates
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to reduce the number of people who face high marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rates. [115889]

  Mr. Rooker
  As a result of the tax and benefit changes announced in the last three Budgets around half a million fewer working households will face the very high marginal rates of 70 per cent. or more.

  Winter Heating Allowance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households containing elderly persons in(a) Inverclyde and (b) Scotland received the winter heating allowance in the last year. [115890]

  Angela Eagle
  Last winter in Scotland [99/00] around 900,000 Winter Fuel Payments were made at a cost of around £70 million. We estimate that approaching 12,000 payments were made to around 9,000 households at a cost of more than £900,000 in the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency area.

  Next winter [00/01] payments will be increased from £100 to £150 per eligible household.

  Pensions
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that pensions are increased at least in line with the rise in the cost of living. [115891]
  335W
  Mr. Rooker
  We have said that the basic pension will remain as the foundation of income in retirement, that it will not be means-tested and that we will increase it at least in line with prices. We have increased Retirement Pension in line with the Retail Prices Index for third year running at a cost of £375 million.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the Government propose to ensure that pensioners share in rising national prosperity. [115893]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to increase the disposable income of pensioners since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [115897]

  Mr. Rooker
  The measures flowing from the Green Paper "Partnership in Pensions", together with those announced in the last two Budgets, demonstrate the priority we have given to improving pensioners' incomes.

  We have introduced a Minimum Income Guarantee for today's pensioners which is being increased in line with earnings each year during this Parliament. From April 2001, it will be increased to £82 a week for a single pensioner and £90 for a pensioner over 80. The lower capital limit for the Minimum Income Guarantee will be doubled from £3,000 to £6,000 while the upper limit will be raised from £8,000 to £12,000, benefiting around 500,000 pensioners who have modest savings.

  In addition, we have recognised that pensioners have special needs. That is why the £100 Winter Fuel Payment has been introduced and will be increased next winter from £100 to £150 per eligible household.

  Other measures which impact favourably on pensioners' incomes include the reduction of VAT on fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent., the introduction of free TV licences for people over 75 next Autumn, the restoration of free eye tests, and the minimum tax guarantee which will help take 200,000 pensioners out of tax completely.

  Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department in combating fraud in the social security system. [115892]

  Mr. Rooker
  We set out our strategy for combating fraud and reducing error in "Safeguarding Social Security", published on 23 March 1999. We are putting this strategy into practice with strong and sensible safeguards to ensure the right money goes to the right people.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Government's interaction with local authorities in the detection and prevention of benefit fraud. [115898]

  Angela Eagle
  Local authorities are responsible for the administration of Housing Benefit and we are working in partnership with them in developing and implementing anti-fraud initiatives such as the Verification Framework and the use of direct computer links between local authorities and the Department's benefit systems. We have recently reformed the anti-fraud financial incentive
  336W
  scheme for local authorities to ensure they can be rewarded for detecting and prosecuting cases of fraud and for the longer term we are working with local authority representatives to develop revised incentives for rewarding local authorities for their efforts to prevent, detect and deter fraud.

  We have also made available extra funding for local joint anti-fraud activities between local authorities and the Benefits Agency in addition to funding for national initiatives.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral statement of 27 March 2000,Official Report, column 42, concerning 400 new fraud investigators (1) what the net increase in fraud investigation staff will be for each of the organisations relevant to his announcement when the recruitment is completed; [117277]

  (2) how many of the new investigators will be recruited to each relevant organisation. [117278]

  Mr. Rooker
  This Department and the Revenue Departments are in discussion about the best deployment of additional staff to meet the business need identified by the noble Lord Grabiner. No decision has yet been made as to how many new investigators will be recruited to each relevant organisation.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the new deal for lone parents. [115894]

  Angela Eagle
  Independent evaluation has shown that the New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) is helping lone parents move into work. Since the launch of the national programme, over 103,000 lone parents have volunteered to participate in the programme and over one in three of these have obtained jobs.

  As announced in the budget, from April 2001 we will be asking lone parents with a youngest child of five or over to come forward for a work-focused interview with a personal adviser. We want to ensure that all lone parents have the opportunity to find out about the choices, and the support, available to help them move into work.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress with the new deal for lone parents(a) in the UK and (b) in Yorkshire. [115882]

  Angela Eagle
  Independent evaluation shows that the New Deal for Lone Parents is working. Since the launch of the national programme, in October 1998, over 116,000 lone parents have attended an interview with 89 per cent. agreeing to participate and over one in three of these obtaining jobs. In Yorkshire and Humberside 9,137 have agreed to participate and 3,440 have obtained jobs.

  Child Support Agency
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to ensure that the self-employed comply with Child Support Agency instructions. [115895]
  337W
  Angela Eagle
  We expect all parents to meet their responsibilities to their children by providing information to the Child Support Agency. If a self-employed person refuses to provide details of their income, the CSA has a range of measures available to obtain the information, including powers to examine accounts and, as a last resort, to ask the Inland Revenue for information about earnings provided for tax purposes.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his proposals for reform of the Child Support Agency. [115899]

  Angela Eagle
  Our reforms will introduce a customer focused child support system that parents will be able to understand. It will ensure regular and reliable maintenance for over one million more children.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a statutory obligation on the Child Support Agency to pay compensation to its clients for delays and mistakes they have experienced. [115873]

  Angela Eagle
  In common with other Government Departments, the DSS and its Agencies have a discretionary compensation scheme to cover financial loss, suffering or distress caused by poor administration. The CSA also has the power to write off child support arrears and compensate the parent with care where substantial delays have occurred. Provisions in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, currently before the House will put these arrangements on to a statutory basis.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates will take out stakeholder pensions. [115901]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are around 5 million people in the target group for stakeholder pensions, but some of those initially in that group will have personal pensions and may be unlikely to take up stakeholder pensions when they are introduced. Take up will depend on how stakeholder and other pensions are marketed by providers, and on individual choices by savers.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the percentage of successful appeals in tribunals was against a refusal of disability living allowance in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999; and if he will make a statement. [115902]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  338W

  Disability Living Allowance appeal decisions

  Percentage

  1997

  1998

  1999

  All decisions which were successful1

  54

  48

  48

  Successful decisions which were against refusal (as opposed to awarded level) of benefit2

  67

  66

  67

  1 Based on 100 per cent. data. Includes cases where increased level of benefit awarded.

  2 Based on 5 per cent. data.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division

  Benefits Agency Inspectors
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many inspections of building sites have been made in the past 12 months by Benefits Agency inspectors to check on the employment status of construction workers. [115053]

  Angela Eagle
  This information is not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefits Agency Delays
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) national insurance number applications and (b) benefit applications are awaiting processing due to delays in clarification being received by the Benefits Agency from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and if he will make a statement. [116078]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Edward Davey, dated 30 March 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many (a) national insurance number (NINO) applications and (b) benefit applications are awaiting processing due to delays in clarification being received by the Benefits Agency (BA) from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND).
  BA allocate, when necessary, a NINO to a benefit applicant. The process rarely requires any contact with or information from the IND.
  Information on the number of benefit applications awaiting clarification from IND is not held. Collation of these statistics would involve a sift of files held at over 400 offices and would entail disproportionate cost.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend the regulations relating to the date from which retirement pensions are payable to persons reaching retirement age, to ensure that such people receive their full entitlement, including any part-weeks, from the date of the relevant birthday; and if he will estimate the cost in the next financial year of such changes to the Exchequer. [116830]

  Mr. Rooker
  We do not intend to amend the present regulations which provide for payment of retirement pension in whole weeks in advance.
  339W
  There would be no costs to the Exchequer for part weeks because it would follow that recovery of overpaid benefit would take place upon the death of the pensioner. It is because we are not prepared to countenance this recovery that we plan no change.

  Bereavement Benefit
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of men who will be eligible for bereavement benefit when the relevant provisions of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 are implemented. [116882]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Number of men who will be eligible for each of the bereavement benefits in the first year of implementation

  Number

  Bereavement Payment

  15,000

  Widowed Parent's Allowance

  25,000

  Bereavement Allowance

  10,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. Rounded to nearest 5,000 for each benefit.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what gross budget will be set for the Social Fund in 2000–01. [117673]

  Angela Eagle
  The gross discretionary Social Fund budget for 2000–01 will be £596 million. This represents an increase of £60.8 million over the total gross budget for 1999–2000 made possible by improved loan recovery performance.

  As part of this allocation we have increased the Community Care Grant budget by £2 million to £100 million. All Benefits Agency Districts will receive an increase. This will provide more help to grant applicants, in particular families with children and the disabled.

  The loans budget will be £494 million; an increase of £57.3 million. To improve the fairness of the scheme this increase will be allocated to Benefits Agency Districts in a way that will, over time, achieve greater consistency of outcome for applicants wherever they live.

  £2 million will be retained centrally as a contingency reserve to provide additional help to any Benefits Agency Districts that face unexpected and unplanned expenditure as a result of a local emergency or disaster.

  Details of individual District budget allocations will be placed in the Library today.

  Benefits Agency/Employment Service Merger
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the proposed merger of the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service; and if he will make a statement. [115878]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 16 March our intention to create a new, modern organisation for people of working age helping
  340W
  more people on welfare towards independence and into work. Ministers have had discussions with representatives from a range of interested groups in the short period since the announcement. The response to date has been a widespread welcome of this move and a positive reaction to creating a single agency focused on work for those who can and ensuring proper support when they cannot.

  SERPS
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate his Department has made of the cost to public funds arising from compensation to those who were misinformed about SERPS entitlement, other than the cost of postponing the change to surviving spouses entitlement to SERPS. [117104]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is not possible to estimate with confidence how many people will apply successfully to the Inherited SERPS scheme and therefore no estimate has been made of the cost to the National Insurance fund. I refer my right hon. Friend to the estimates made by the National Audit Office in the recently published report.

  Family Benefits
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families have been in receipt of(a) Family Credit but not the Working Families Tax Credit, (b) Working Families Tax Credit but not Family Credit and (c) Family Credit and Working Families Tax Credit for each month since February 1999. [117105]

  Angela Eagle
  Family Credit was replaced with Working Families Tax Credit from 5 October 1999.

  The information is in the table.

  Numbers of families in receipt of Family Credit and WFTC, for each month from February 1999 to February 2000

  Thousand

  Month

  Family Credit

  WFTC

  Total

  February 1999

  789

  —

  789

  March 1999

  792

  —

  792

  April 1999

  793

  —

  793

  May 1999

  791

  —

  791

  June 1999

  801

  —

  801

  July 1999

  797

  —

  797

  August 1999

  784

  —

  784

  September 1999

  758

  —

  758

  October 1999

  625

  253

  878

  November 1999

  464

  466

  930

  December 1999

  365

  566

  931

  January 2000

  249

  701

  950

  February 2000

  109

  849

  958

  Notes:

  1. These figures, and in particular the WFTC figure for February, exclude awards made after February and backdated.

  2. Figures are for Great Britain only.

  3. Sample size 5 per cent., therefore subject to sampling error.

  4. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  Family Credit/Working Families' Tax Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what(a) number and (b) percentage of properties in his charge are empty; and what steps are

  341W
  being taken by his Department to reduce the numbers of such properties. [116922]

  Mr. Rooker
  In early 1998, all of the Department's properties were transferred to the private sector under two separate Private Finance Initiative contracts. We no longer hold or own any property. Instead, serviced accommodation is purchased from our two private sector partners, Trillium plc and the Newcastle Estate Partnership.

  The deal that we negotiated with Trillium, the PRIME contractor, allowed us to hand back all of our "surplus" space, in both wholly and partly occupied buildings. On 1 April 1998, 134,991 sq m of vacant space transferred to Trillium so that there is now no continuing cost to the Department. The Department also has the flexibility to vacate and hand back further space over the period of the contract, at nil cost.

  As a result of the PRIME contract there are now no vacant properties still being paid for by the Department.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will lay the necessary regulations to amend the standard rate for income support mortgage interest payments. [117038]

  Mr. Bayley
  Regulations were laid before Parliament on 24 March 2000.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it would have cost his Department if he had amended the standard rate for paying mortgage interest in January when the January rate of 6.29 per cent. was more than the 0.25 per cent. point change required to trigger a change. [117028]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Office for National Statistics informed the Department on 8 March 2000 that a change in the standard interest rate had been triggered. Regulations were laid on 24 March 2000 and will come into force on 16 April 2000. There was no delay.

HEALTH

  London NHS Trust Budgets
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the projected budget forecasts for each of the London NHS trusts for the end of the current financial year; and if he will make a statement. [110538]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest available information, based on income and expenditure forecasts by National Health Service trusts and health authorities at Quarter 3 (December 1999) has been placed in the Library.

  The total deficit position includes the impact of technical accounting changes. The forecast deficit excluding this technical element is £36 million, which represents a very small deterioration from original plans for the year.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the new 100 intensive care beds announced earlier in the year are now in place; if he will give the
  342W
  location and the number of beds that have been provided in each health authority area; and if he will make a statement. [113867]

  Mr. Denham
  Fast-track information on the number of critical care beds on 17 January 2000 compared with the position in a census on 31 March 1999 was placed in the Library on 1 February 2000.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 346W, on intensive care beds, when the hon. Member for New Forest, East will receive the information promised. [117151]

  Mr. Denham
  The information was placed in the Library on 1 February.

  Pay Award
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the percentage increase in the total pay bill for the NHS will be as a result of the Pay Review Body award to(a) nurses, (b) midwives and (c) health visitors for the year commencing April 2000. [114748]

  Mr. Denham
  Implementing the recent Review Body recommendations on pay for midwives, health visitors and other nursing and midwifery staff will increase the total National Health Service paybill by an estimated 0.1 per cent., 0.1 per cent. and 1.3 per cent. for each respective group, giving an overall increase of 1.4 per cent.

  Correspondingly, the awards will increase the paybill for midwifery staff by 3.4 per cent., the paybill for health visitors by 3.4 per cent. and the nursing paybill by 4.1 per cent.

  Note:

  Figures may not add due to rounding

  Tobacco
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what mandate he has given to the European Commission to negotiate on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in meetings on the World Health Organisation's Convention for Tobacco Control; [114944]

  (2) what estimates he has made of the impact on (a) employment and (b) exports of the World Health Organisation's Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, indicating the constituencies affected in each case; [114940]

  (3) what recent discussions (a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) officials have had with (i) EU partners, (ii) other nations, (iii) the World Health Organisation and (iv) the European Commission regarding the World Health Organisation's Framework Convention for Tobacco Control; [114943]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the World Health Organisation's Framework Convention for Tobacco Control. [114941]

  Yvette Cooper
  The White Paper "Smoking Kills" makes clear our strong support for the World Health Organisation's (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The first and current phase in the
  343W
  development of the convention is to consult the 191 World Health Member States for their views on the Convention and its protocols. The second phase will cover negotiations on the content of the Convention.

  The United Kingdom has been, and will continue to be, an active participant in the European Union and WHO working groups, which are the main bodies for taking forward work on the Convention, and in bilateral discussions with the Commission, WHO and other member states. The Commission's mandate for participation on issues where it has a legal competence, was developed by the EU's Health Working Group and reported to the EU Health Ministers at the Health Council in November 1999. The Commission's mandate will be kept under review as the work develops.

  It is too early to say what the likely impact of the Convention on employment and exports will be, as this depends on the content of the Convention, which is yet to be negotiated. However, the World Bank's recent study on tobacco control "Curbing the Epidemic" concludes that adopting effective tobacco control policies would result in no net job losses in most countries, and even a net gain in some.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to consult on allowing the NHS Pensions Agency to pay benefits from the NHS pension scheme to a contributor's unmarried partner. [115116]

  Mr. Denham
  Providing survivor benefits for unmarried partners is one of a number of possible changes to the National Health Service Pension Scheme currently under consideration. There are no firm proposals for change at this time.

  We have made our position clear at paragraph 60, Chapter 8 of the Green Paper "A new contract for welfare: partnership in pensions" published on 15 December 1998 Cm 4179. If the general membership of a public service scheme wanted, in future, to extend eligibility for survivors' pensions to unmarried partners and were prepared to meet the additional costs, the Government would be prepared to consider how practicable arrangements could be devised for achieving this in the context of a statutory scheme.

  NHS Bodies (Budgets)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of deficit allocated to(a) NHS trusts and (b) health authorities, and their predecessors where applicable, for 1979 to 1999. [115106]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Surplus/(deficits) of NHS trusts and health authorities (and predecessors) England 1984–85 to 1998–99

  £000

  Health authorities
  1
  (including predecessors)

  NHS trusts
  2

  1984–85

  (51,778)

  —

  1985–86

  (76,145)

  —

  1986–87

  (110,400)

  —

  1987–88

  (10,756)

  —

  1988–89

  (48,212)

  —

  344W

  Surplus/(deficits) of NHS trusts and health authorities (and predecessors) England 1984–85 to 1998–99

  £000

  Health authorities
  1
  (including predecessors)

  NHS trusts
  2

  1989–90

  (237,786)

  —

  1990–91

  (125,170)

  —

  1991–92

  57,255

  46,065

  1992–93

  (34,983)

  88,445

  1993–94

  (56,071)

  185,608

  1994–95

  (153,237)

  178,678

  1995–96

  (296,242)

  46,097

  1996–97

  (238,206)

  (221,488)

  1997–98

  (7,681)

  (103,720)

  1998–99

  18,350

  (35,908)

  Note:

  Changes (in line with best accounting practice) since 1979 in the accounting and financial reporting arrangements for Health Authorities and subsequently NHS trusts mean that comparable information is not available prior to 1984–85. The changes also mean that the figures provided over the period 1984–85 through to 1998–99 are not directly comparable.

  Sources:

  1 1984–85 to 1995–96—Summarised account of Regional and District Health Authorities and Special Health Authorities for the London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals

  1 1985–86 to 1989–90—Summarised account of Family Practitioner Committees

  1 1990–91 to 1995–96—Summarised account of the Family Health Services Authorities

  1 1996–97 to 1998–99—Summarised account of the Health Authorities

  2 1991–92 to 1998–99—Summarised account of NHS trusts except for 1996–97 which has been adjusted to take account of a change in the financial regime of NHS trusts.

  Cancer Patients
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of(a) the quality of treatment and (b) survival rates among cancer patients on low incomes; and if he will make a statement. [115716]

  Yvette Cooper
  As part of the national performance assessment framework, the Government are developing the national cancer standard and performance indicators to improve consistency in the quality of cancer services across the country. In addition, both the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Commission for Health Improvement have been set up specifically to help to reduce variations and ensure fair access to high quality treatment.

  Data published in Cancer Survival Trends in England and Wales 1971–95 produced by the Office for National Statistics show that survival rates for adults in deprived groups are lower than those in more affluent groups for several cancers.

  We have appointed Professor Mike Richards as the National Cancer Director to spearhead the drive to modernise all aspects of cancer care. He has indicated our intention to develop a national cancer programme building on the Calman/Hine Report to set out action to improve prevention of cancer and ensure patients from all social groups have access to faster better cancer care. The National Cancer Director will be developing the plan over the coming months and will engage with clinicians, managers and patients in the process.

  MRSA
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will commission an independent inquiry into the incidence of MRSA; [115928]

  (2) what was the incidence of MRSA in hospitals in England and Wales for 1996. [115927]

  Yvette Cooper
  MRSA is the antibiotic-resistant form of Staphylococcus aureus, a bacterium which is carried harmlessly on the skin by at least a third of the population. About 80 per cent. of the population who acquire MRSA similarly carry it harmlessly on the skin and do not suffer from any infection. Neither the number of hospitals recording MRSA outbreaks nor the total number of patients in National Health Service hospitals who have MRSA are recorded centrally. The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) compiles aggregate data on numbers of incidents of MRSA which are voluntarily reported by NHS trusts. The available data on MRSA for England and Wales show that there were 2,107 reported incidents in 1996. An incident is three or more patients infected or colonised by the same strain of MRSA in the same month from the same hospital. We are working with the PHLS on improving surveillance systems so as to provide more complete data on MRSA and so that we can consider what further action is required.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his assessment of the total number of deaths which have resulted from(a) MRSA and (b) other hospital-acquired infection in each of the past 10 years. [115946]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 28 March 2000]: There are no centrally held statistics on deaths caused by hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), including Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Different doctors will have different views on the role of HAI in a patient's death.

  MRSA infection can take the form of many different diseases from trivial skin infection to pneumonia or septicaemia. Often the causative micro-organism is not specified on the death certificate. MRSA does not have a distinct code within the revision of the International Classification of Diseases used for encoding death registration data at the Office for National Statistics.

  Hospices
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received regarding the payments negotiated by NHS trusts and hospices for the provision of services in hospices; and if he will make a statement; [116009]

  (2) what guidelines his Department issues to NHS trusts regarding the purchase of services from hospices. [116008]

  Yvette Cooper
  Successive guidance to health authorities has made clear their responsibilities for commissioning services that meet the assessed needs of their local communities. Health Service Circular 1998/99: "Palliative Care" states that commissioners, including primary health care groups need to work together with providers to develop a palliative care strategy which is right for their population, based on health needs assessment.
  346W
  HSC 1998/198: "Commissioning in the new National Health Service" makes it explicit that full development of the new commissioning arrangements needs to involve partnership working both in and beyond the NHS. The guidance also states that regional offices should pay particular attention to the commissioning of cancer services in the follow-up to Calman/Hine.

  Where services are commissioned from the non-NHS sector, commissioners should ensure the service provided is valuable, effective and offers value for money. The decision to commission services provided by non-NHS facilities will continue to be made locally and will be made in the best interests of the patient.

  I met members of the National Council for Hospices and Specialist Palliative Care Services, including representatives of the independent sector and also attended a recent All Party Group on Hospices meeting. On both occasions the issue of funding of hospices was raised.

  Professor Mike Richards, the National Cancer Director, is working to develop a supportive care strategy as part of his wider work programme, and this will set the context for future developments in the commissioning of services from hospices.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the funding of(a) children's hospices and (b) adult hospices. [117150]

  Yvette Cooper
  The funding of adult and children's hospices is a matter for local discussion and agreement and must be based on local health needs assessment. The Health Improvement Programme (HImP) is and will continue to be the funding mechanism for palliative care services. Voluntary healthcare providers are viewed as important players in the planning and provision of services and should be involved in the development of HImPs. From this should flow more detailed plans for commissioning services, including arrangements for palliative care.

  Chronic Diseases
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the incidence of(a) ME, (b) MS and (c) HIV/AIDS, and what was the level of public expenditure, in each of the past five years in respect of each category. [116254]

  Ms Stuart
  Information on the incidence and level of public expenditure on Chronic Fatigue syndrome (CFS)/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) is not available in the format requested. A number of definitions, disease descriptions or diagnostic criteria have been proposed to describe CFS/ME. However, there is no general agreement as to which should be used. This makes the results from studies on the prevalence of CFS/ME difficult to interpret and there is no agreement on the incidence of the illness.

  Services for people with CFS/ME are funded from baseline expenditure.

  The Department is currently supporting a number of projects at a total cost of £221,000 on CFS/ME research. In addition, we have also awarded the ME Association a
  347W
  total of £30,000 for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 and the Association of Youth with ME a total of £6,200 in 1998–99 under the Section 64 scheme of grants.

  Information on the incidence and level of public expenditure on Multiple Sclerosis is not available in the format requested. MS is one of the most common diseases of the central nervous system. It is estimated to affect between 80-90,000 people in the UK. However, the incidence (new diagnoses each year) is not known.

  Services for people with MS are funded from baseline expenditure.

  The Medical Research Council supported about a dozen projects on multiple sclerosis and associated demyelinating diseases in 1998–99 representing a spend of approximately £640,000 in that year.

  The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the National Health Service. The Department is currently spending approximately £150,000 per year on projects related to MS.

  Funding for HIV/AIDS

  £ million

  Year

  Health authorities

  Local authorities

  Voluntary organisations

  Public education

  Research

  Total

  1995–96

  244.7

  13.4

  1.54

  8.0

  20.6

  288.2

  1996–97

  237.7

  13.7

  1.63

  5.2

  19.5

  277.7

  1997–98

  251.9

  13.7

  1.52

  5.2

  15.4

  287.7

  1998–99

  281.4

  13.7

  1.58

  4.8

  16.2

  317.6

  1999–2000

  286.4

  15.0

  1.60

  4.5

  16.0

  323.5

  Total

  1,302.1

  69.5

  7.87

  27.7

  87.7

  1,494.7

  NHS Volunteers
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Training Organisation for Personal Social Services has to incorporate volunteers and their management into the training strategy. [116445]

  Mr. Hutton
  The training strategy set out to identify how a fully skilled and qualified workforce could be obtained to meet the future requirements for modernised social care. This included determining the qualifications needed to meet appropriate care standards, the career pathways to promote life-long learning, and the recruitment strategies to ensure an adequate supply of suitable people. The strategy has considered the skills needed to manage social care teams, including the use of volunteers.

  NHS Staff (Suspensions)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the total(a) number and (b) costs of suspensions of consultants, doctors and other medical staff on pay pending inquiries in each year since 1996; [116278]

  (2) how many consultants, doctors or medical staff have been suspended on full pay for more than two months in each hospital trust in the Northern and Trent
  348W
  In addition, we have awarded the MS Society £15,000 per year from 1997–98 until 1999–2000 under the Section 64 scheme of grants, for their emerging therapies project.

  The table reports new diagnoses of HIV and AIDS for England in each of the last five years.

  As people with HIV infection may not have symptoms for some time, new diagnoses are dependent on people coming forward for testing; however, the data on new diagnoses based on clinical reports of AIDS cases are a reasonable measure of AIDS incidence.

  Year of diagnosis

  New diagnoses of HIV infection

  New diagnoses of AIDS

  1995

  2,412

  1,587

  1996

  2,438

  1,298

  1997

  2,441

  960

  1998

  2,557

  677

  1999

  2,289

  460

  Notes:

  1. Data reported by end 1999.

  2. Numbers, particularly for the more recent years, will rise as further reports are received.

  Regions in (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000 to date; and what his estimate is of the cost to the NHS of their suspensions. [116277]

  Mr. Denham
  National Health Service trusts routinely report suspensions lasting six months or longer. The information requested is not broken down by year. Since 31 March 1995 a total of 75 cases of suspension lasting six months or over have been reported. At 31 December 1999, the latest date for which figures are available, 27 hospital and community medical and dental staff had been suspended for six months or more at an estimated cost of £2.5 million.

  Since 31 March 1998 the Northern and Yorkshire and Trent regions have reported 18 suspensions lasting six months or more at a total cost of approximately £2 million. At 31 December 1999, the latest date for which figures are available, 10 hospital and community medical and dental staff had been suspended for six months or more at a cost of approximately £1 million.

  An internal management review has identified four areas for improvement in the current suspension procedures. Further work on these findings has been subsumed into the wider proposals for managing poor performance set out in the Chief Medical Officer's consultation document "Supporting doctors, protecting patients". The consultation period has just ended and the Department is currently considering the responses.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce his new NHS dental service strategy. [116340]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our plans for modernising National Health Service dentistry will be published shortly.

  MMR Vaccines
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which EU countries allow the use of single-dose vaccines for measles and mumps; and if he will make a statement about the use of such vaccines in the UK. [116492]

  Yvette Cooper
  Measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is recommended in all European Union countries, none recommend the use of single vaccines. The availability of single dose vaccines is a matter for individual countries.

  To protect public health, United Kingdom medicines legislation restricts the importation of all unlicensed medicines, including single-dose vaccines. Unlicensed medicines may be imported only if there is no licensed medicine available or suitable for the individual patient concerned, and the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) does not object on specific grounds of safety or efficacy. In the case of unlicensed single vaccines, the MCA will object to their import unless a prescribing doctor has decided that the patient has a known medical condition that makes the licensed product (MMR) unsuitable. In addition the MCA objects to the import of the single dose mumps vaccine (Rubini strain) because of concerns about its efficacy.

  There is no evidence that the use of single vaccines benefits children and good reasons exist why their use may put children at significant disadvantage.

  Sellafield
  Mr.Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned on the health implications of the Sellafield MOX plant; and if he will make a statement. [115530]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: No specific study into the possible effects of the MOX plant at Sellafield on the health of the general public has been commissioned. However, the independent advisory Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) has been asked to examine the geographical distribution of childhood cancer in Great Britain, and as part of this study the committee will investigate the incidence of these diseases around all British nuclear installations. This study will include the Sellafield site.

  Genetic Tests (Insurance)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses were received by his Department's Genetics and Insurance Committee to their recent consultation on the use of genetic test results for insurance risk assessment; and if he will list the organisations and individuals concerned. [116571]
  350W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Genetics and Insurance Committee received 15 responses to the recent consultation on the criteria that GAIC will use to assess specific genetic tests and the use of their results for insurance purposes. Responses were received from:

  the Association of British Insurers;

  the Alzheimer's Association

  Comments from Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing members (obtained at an ACGT meeting);

  the Genetic Interest Group;

  the Huntingtons Disease Association;

  the Nuffield Council on Bioethics;

  the Royal College of General Practitioners;

  the Royal College of Pathologists;

  the Royal College of Psychiatrists (Ethics Sub Committee);

  the Scottish Huntingtons Association;

  the Scottish Executive;

  Health Department;

  Public Health Policy Unit;

  the UK Forum of Genetics and Insurance (which includes the response from the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries) and from three individuals who provided personal responses.

  I have arranged for a list of the organisations concerned to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) organisations and (b) individuals asked by his Department's Genetics and Insurance Committee to submit responses to their recent consultation on the use of genetic test results for insurance risk assessment. [116570]

  Yvette Cooper
  The consultation on the criteria that the Genetics and Insurance Committee will use to assess specific genetic tests and the use of their results for insurance purposes was sent to patient support organisations, academics, insurers and actuaries and was made available on the Department website. I have arranged for a list of the organisations and individuals concerned to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Cancer Surgery
  Mr.Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the adequacy of cancer surgery provision within the NHS. [115167]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 28 March 2000]: We are determined to improve our cancer services and to tackle variations in treatment across the country. The National Cancer Director will be developing over the next few months a national cancer programme which will build on the Calman/Hine Report: "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer" and set out our action to ensure all patients have access to faster better cancer care.

  Since 1997 we have invested significant extra resources in workforce, equipment and facilities to speed access to high-quality, evidence-based diagnosis, treatment and care. By the end of 2000, patients with a suspected cancer referred urgently by their general practitioner will see a specialist within two weeks. Over the next five years, the number of cancer specialists will increase by 60 per cent.
  351W
  and we will work with professionals and local cancer networks to identify future workforce demands and ways in which they could be met.

  Ambulances (Response Times)
  Mr.Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of requests for ambulances were met within the target response time in(a) urban and (b) rural areas in the last three years for which figures are available. [117057]

  Ms Stuart
  Details about the performance of each National Health Service ambulance trust are contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 1998–99", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Bed Numbers
  Mr.Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS beds in each category will form the starting point against which any future changes in bed numbers can be measured. [117027]

  Mr.Denham
  Statistics on hospital bed numbers are published in the annual publication "Bed availability and occupancy—England", copies of which are in the Library. Latest figures are for 1998–99.

  Smoking
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the amount to be spent in financial year 1999–2000 on smoking-related illnesses. [117030]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available on a year-by-year basis. However, a study "Cost Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions" by the Health Education Authority, in collaboration with the University of York published in 1997, estimated the annual cost to the National Health Service of treating smoking-related disease was between £1.4 billion and £1.7 billion for England.

  Waiting Lists (Essex)
  Mr.Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting for hospital treatment at Essex Rivers Health Care Trust on(a) 31 March 1997 and (b) the latest date for which figures are available. [116839]

  Mr.Denham
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: The information is as follows:

  Total number of patients waiting at Essex Rivers Healthcare National Health Service Trust on 31 March 1997 and 31 January 2000 (the latest date for which figures are available)

  Month

  Total number waiting

  31 March 1997

  6,737

  31 January 2000

  6,212

  Source:

  Form KHO7 completed Quarterly

  Monthly waiting list return
  352W
  Mr.Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been waiting for 12 months or more for hospital treatment at Essex Rivers Healthcare Trust on(a) 31 March 1997 and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available. [116847]

  Mr.Denham
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: The information is as follows:

  Number of patients waiting over 12 months at Essex Rivers Healthcare National Health Service Trust

  Month/year

  Number

  31 March 1997

  6

  31 January 20001

  534

  1 The latest date for which figures are available

  Sources:

  Form KHO7 completed Quarterly

  Monthly waiting list return

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had waited 13 weeks or more for an outpatient appointment at Essex Rivers Healthcare Trust on(a) 31 March 1997 and (b) 31 December 1999. [116842]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: The information is as follows:

  Number of patients waiting over 13 weeks for a first outpatient appointment at Essex Rivers Healthcare National Health Service

  Month/year

  Number

  31 March 1997

  1,821

  31 December 19991

  3,916

  1 The latest date for which figures are available

  Source:

  Form QMO8 completed quarterly

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had waited over 26 weeks for an outpatient appointment at Essex Rivers Healthcare Trust on(a) 31 March 1997 and (b) 31 December 1999. [116838]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: The information is as follows:

  Number of patients waiting over 26 weeks for a first outpatient appointment at Essex Rivers Healthcare National Health Service Trust

  Month/year

  Number

  31 March 1997

  404

  31 December 19991

  1,336

  1 The latest date for which figures are available

  Source:

  Form QMO8 completed quarterly

  Intensive Care Units
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the staffing levels of intensive care units in each year from 1995 to 1999,(a) nationally and (b) in Herefordshire; and if he will make a statement. [116901]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  BCG Vaccinations
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the BCG vaccination programme for the current academic year. [116953]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 10 February 2000, Official Report, column 261W.

  Ambulances (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency calls were made to ambulance brigades in Durham Health Authority in the last five years; and what was the average response time for each of those years. [117214]

  Ms Stuart
  Details about the performance of all National Health Service ambulance trusts are contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin Ambulance Services, England 1998–99, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Food Action Plans
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress the Government have made in implementing the WHO (Europe) proposals for national and local food and nutrition action plans following the Malta 1999 consultation. [117527]

  Ms Stuart
  We recognise the importance of good nutrition throughout life for maintaining health. We are playing an active role in supporting the development of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Food and Nutrition Action Plan with a view to its adoption by the WHO's Regional Committee in September 2000. We agree that each member state should develop its own action plan in response, taking into account the remit of other key organisations, particularly the European Union. We have set out the role of diet in promoting health and preventing disease in "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", particularly in the key priority areas of coronary heart disease, stroke and cancer. The National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease requires local players, co-ordinated by the local health authority, to develop and implement a comprehensive programme of effective policies including promoting healthy eating by April 2001.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) number and (b) percentage of properties in his charge are empty; and what steps are being taken by his Department to reduce the number of such properties. [116912]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department occupies administrative property (the civil estate). The Department has no empty properties.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's retained estate comprises surplus or potentially surplus property not transferred to National Health Service trusts, and is managed by NHS Estates. There are about 85 properties that are empty, which is about 17 per cent. of the estate.
  354W
  All of these sites are in the course of being sold on an accelerating basis. All surplus property is sold as soon as possible after they become vacant, but only when planning consent for alternative use has been obtained from the relevant local planning authority.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the total cost to the NHS of(a) instituting charges per script and (b) allowing prescription charges to be paid by instalments; and if he will make a statement. [116680]

  Ms Stuart
  Based on 1998–99 figures for charges collected by pharmacists and dispensing doctors in England, it is estimated that around £50 million in prescription charge revenue would have been lost if the prescription charge had been paid for each chargeable form rather than each item. It is likely that there would also be additional costs to the drugs bill arising from the prescribing of items which can be purchased from pharmacies for less than the prescription charge. The current process of paying prescription charges is widely understood by the public and simple to administer. Introducing payment by instalments is impractical as it would unnecessarily complicate the current arrangements and require additional bureaucracy to keep track of instalment payments for each charge payable.

  Cleaning Staff
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the spending on cleaning services and how many cleaning staff were employed in the NHS in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [116682]

  Ms Stuart
  The information is not available as requested. National figures are collected centrally on the number of support staff employed in National Health Service trusts; cleaning staff are included within this category. Similarly, national figures on expenditure are collected centrally on contract hotel services and laundry and cleaning equipment. Expenditure on cleaning staff is included within this category.

  Hospital Infections
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the cost to the NHS of hospital acquired infections in the last five years; what measures his Department is taking to tackle such infections and at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [116683]

  Yvette Cooper
  The recently quoted figure of £1 billion is an estimate derived from a Department commissioned study of one hospital. It is not possible to accurately estimate the cost to the whole National Health Service from these findings. Infection control is a "must do" in current NHS National Priorities Guidance. New standards on infection control were issued in November 1999 and an action plan setting out specific objectives and targets was issued to the NHS on 11 February 2000. Costs of activity to prevent hospital acquired infections are impossible to assess because much of this activity is a fundamental part of the work of all health care staff.

  Nursing
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health care assistants are seconded into nurse education. [117147]

  Mr. Denham
  Since the 1 April 1997, a total of 1,230 existing National Health Service employees have been seconded on to pre-registration nursing and midwifery diploma training courses. Data are not collected centrally on the proportion of these who are health care assistants seconded on to such courses.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trainee nurses are(a) seconded on salary, (b) receiving his Department's bursary and (c) in receipt of a student loan. [117146]

  Mr. Denham
  Since the 1 April 1997, a total of 1,230 existing National Health Service employees have been seconded on a salary to pre-registration nursing and midwifery diploma courses.

  Information on the number of trainee nurses receiving NHS funded bursaries is not held centrally. Of the 17,451 student nurses currently paid an NHS bursary by the NHS Student Grants Unit (SGU), 14,156 are diploma level students who are not eligible for student loans. The remaining 3,295 are degree level students who are eligible for student loans.

  Student loans are a matter for the Department for Education and Employment.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of student nurses left training before completing their course in each year since 1996. [117148]

  Ms Stuart
  Information on the percentage of student nurses who left training before completing their course in each year since 1996 is shown in the table. We do not yet have the data to provide an attrition rate for the 1999–2000 student.

  Year

  Percentage

  1995–96

  17

  1996–97

  17

  1997–98

  15

  1998–99

  7

  Note:

  The data on attrition are based on a snapshot in time of a particular cohort(s). Since nursing and midwifery students can take up to five years to complete their three-year course, for each year there will be students who have yet to complete their training.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from organisations on age discrimination against elderly patients in the NHS. [117294]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have received from Age Concern their thoughtful report "Turning your back on us—Older people and the NHS" which highlighted concern that older people experience ageism within the National Health Service. I met representatives from Age Concern on 6 March to discuss these concerns. Age Concern, Help the Aged and others involved in the care of older people have all contributed to the development of the National Service Framework for Older People which will set
  356W
  national standards for the care of older people. This work covers issues of greatest concern to older people such as promotion of health and well-being, and fair access to services. We hope to publish the NSF later this year.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will initiate an inquiry into age discrimination against elderly patients in the NHS. [117293]

  Mr. Hutton
  Discrimination on the grounds of age within the National Health Service is completely unacceptable. Action is and will be taken to challenge and correct any such unfair practices. The task now is to get on with ensuring this delivers the improvements we intend, so that eliminating discrimination and promoting fair access are firmly embedded as mainstream business for the NHS.

  The provision of first class care on the NHS is our priority and later this year we will be publishing the National Service Framework (NSF) for Older People. This, for the first time, will set national standards for the care of older people, driving up quality and reducing the variations. The NSF will include performance measures for monitoring progress. The development of the NSF has involved many groups, including service users and carers, and has included the issue of access to services.

  We have no plans however to set up any inquiry. Equal opportunities and work against discrimination must be embedded in our total way of working, rather than being treated as a separate and one-off activity.

  "Fit for the Future?"
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many copies of "Fit for the Future?" were(a) printed and (b) requested; if he will increase the number of copies available; and if he will make a statement. [117344]

  Mr. Hutton
  10,000 copies of "Fit for the Future?" were printed and over 8,000 copies have been sent out in response to requests. We have no plans to print further copies. The document was also made immediately accessible on the Department's internet website, and as at 26 March the "Fit for the Future?" web had been accessed over 46,000 times.

  The consultation period ended on 21 January. We are currently carefully considering the comments received on the proposals. "Fit for the Future?" identified over 260 possible standards. We believe that some of the proposals may have only a marginal impact on the quality of care and it is highly unlikely that this many standards will be needed. We intended to publish the final standards and a timetable for implementing them later this year.

  Brittle Bone Disease
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make funding available to health authorities to ensure that children with severe brittle bone disease will be able to receive bisphosphonate treatment. [117102]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group is considering the current and proposed service for children with brittle bones, including the use of bisphosphonate treatment, and will make recommendations on appropriate commissioning arrangements in the summer.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the question tabled on 27 January (ref. 107991) by the hon. Member for Meriden concerning vaccinations. [117108]

  Yvette Cooper
  I replied to the hon. Member on 30 March.

  Health Food Promotion
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to require local authorities to promote healthy food policies. [117526]

  Ms Stuart
  Although this Department cannot force local authorities to promote healthy food policies, there are a number of initiatives that we are undertaking with the co-operation of these agencies as part of our strategy for combating heart disease, stroke and cancer. For example, the Heartbeat Award Scheme, which promotes healthy eating in restaurants, cafés and other catering establishments, has been running for a decade with the support of local and health authorities. Furthermore, the recently published National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease set out several health milestones, one of which is the delivery by April 2001, of a wide-ranging healthy eating promotion in conjunction with local authorities. Co-operation also extends to local education authorities as part of the Department of Health and Department for Employment and Education-funded Healthy Schools Programme. This initiative requires schools to adopt consistent messages about healthy eating in order to meet the Healthy Schools Standard.

  Primates
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many diseases non-human primates are known to carry; how many of these are screened for when such animals are brought into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [115275]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The diseases that non-human primates are known to carry are numerous and can be found in text books dealing with diseases of non-human primates. The hazards associated with simians are listed in the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens' publication "Working safely with simians: Management of infection risks". A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  All simians that are imported into the UK are required to undergo six months' quarantine against rabies in premises authorised by the Department.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the maximum daily capacity of the Millennium Dome is between 21 March and 31 December; [115273]
  358W
  (2) pursuant to his answer of 14 March 2000, Official Report, column 153W, on the Millennium Dome, for what reason the total number of available tickets varies on a daily basis. [115726]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: The licensed capacity of the Millennium Experience site, including the Dome, is 35,000 visitors at any one time during opening hours.

  During the early weeks of operation, fewer tickets were released for sale than the optimum number allowed under the operating licence. This was to ensure a high-quality visitor experience while the inevitable teething problems were being addressed, at a time when many visitors were staying inside the Dome to shelter from poor weather conditions. The number of schools participating in free Education Tours during the morning and afternoon sessions also has some bearing on the quantity of tickets released for sale.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many parliamentary questions asked in respect of the millennium dome since 1 January 1999 have received holding answers; what percentage of such questions this represents; and what has been the average time taken to answer written questions on the millennium dome during this period. [109913]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: Since 1 January 1999, 102 written parliamentary questions on the millennium dome have received holding answers. This represents 96 per cent. of the total number of Named Day questions tabled on this subject, 39 of which have been from the hon. Member. The average time taken to answer written questions on the millennium dome during this period is 20 days.

  My Department makes every effort to answer questions on time, but the need to ensure that responses are completely accurate can make the issuing of a holding answer unavoidable. Holding answers are usually issued while relevant information is being obtained from the New Millennium Experience Company.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the total(a) value and (b) number of contracts to provide services to the New Millennium Experience Company were awarded following an open competition tender process. [109723]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: 100 per cent. of key service contracts, i.e. electricity, security, waste disposal and cleaning, were awarded following open competition. The overall value of these key contracts is about £15.5 million.

  Library Services
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action has taken place since the publication of the paper entitled, "Libraries for All: Social Inclusion in Public Libraries", to involve more volunteers in strengthening library services. [116446]
  359W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We are still evaluating the consultation responses to "Libraries for All: Social Inclusion in Public Libraries". We will then be undertaking a similar consultation on social inclusion in museums, galleries and archives. We expect to make an announcement on the way forward for both policies later in the year.

  Pirate Ship (Kensington Palace Gardens)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reason the Royal Parks Agency did not invite open tenders for the pirate ship in Kensington Palace Gardens; and if he will make a statement. [116296]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency and I have asked them to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Viviane Robertson to Mr. Paul Tyler, dated 3 April 2000:
  Pending the appointment of a new Chief Executive, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media, and Sport has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the tender for the ship in Kensington Gardens, which is an operational matter for which the Agency is responsible.
  In commissioning the design and construction of the play ship in the Diana, Princess of Wales playground in Kensington Gardens, the Agency followed the guidance in the "Guide to the Appointment of Consultants and Contractors" produced by Property Advisers to the Civil Estate. This guide promotes the procurement of services on the basis of best value for money. There is no requirement under this procedure to invite open tenders because the EC procurement rules do not apply in the case of this contract.
  The Agency identified some 70 suppliers and from them drew up a list of 7 potential tenderers. This in turn was reduced to a short list of three by evaluating them against the original selection criteria. The three short-listed companies were interviewed and the contract was awarded to the company which, in the opinion of the Agency, met the selection criteria and offered the best value for money.

  BBC News 24
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he plans to commence his Department's review of BBC News 24. [117241]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I aim to announce my proposals for the reviews of the BBC's digital services in due course.

  London Film Commission
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the future of the London Film Commission. [117571]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department has been working closely with the London Film Commission and the Film Council to ensure that the valuable services provided by the Commission continue to be provided. I am very pleased that a solution has been found which will enable the Commission to focus on its main priorities while seeking to ensure that it has a sound financial basis for its future operation.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what(a) number and
  360W
  (b) percentage of properties in his charge are empty; and what steps are being taken by his Department to reduce the number of such properties. [116920]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department has the following properties unoccupied at present:

  Address of property

  Wholly or partly unoccupied

  Date vacated

  Core Department

  2nd Floor, 179a Tottenham Court Road, W11

  Partly

  January 2000

  Basement, 7 St. James's Square, SW12

  Partly

  January 2000

  Royal Parks Agency

  Brew House Bushey Park3

  Wholly

  © 1998

  New Lodge Bushey Park4

  Wholly

  December 1999

  White Lodge, Bushey Park4

  Wholly

  © 1980

  Vanburgh Gate Lodge, Greenwich Park4

  Wholly

  ©January 2000

  1 Area became vacant following closure of Y2K contingency office. Temporarily occupied by the Film Council but being actively marketed.

  2 Area became vacant following Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) reducing their occupation prior to finding alternative premises. Being actively marketed.

  3 Requires the completion of restoration before re-occupation.

  4 Expected that re-occupation by RPA staff will occur during 2000–01.

  The Department's office premises that are partly vacant are being marketed with a view to occupation during the new financial year (2000–01), and the Royal Parks Agency expects at least three of the four properties listed above to be re-occupied by members of staff during 2000–01.

  Parliament Square (Demonstrations)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his policy is on the use of Parliament Square by campaigning organisations for demonstrations. [116276]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  The use of Parliament Square requires the permission of the Royal Parks Agency, which I understand was not given in the case of the current protest by pig farmers. Any action to remove demonstrators is an operational matter for that Agency.

CABINET OFFICE

  Corporate IT Strategy
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to publish the Government's corporate IT strategy. [117305]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have today launched the re-titled 'e-Government Strategy' which meets this commitment.

  I have placed copies of the e-Government Strategy in the Libraries of the House.

  Civil Service College
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the future arrangements for the Centre for Management and Policy Studies and the Civil Service College. [117612]
  361W
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  From 1 April 2000 the Civil Service College will be fully integrated into the Centre for Management and Policy Studies (CMPS) at the heart of government within the Cabinet Office. As a result, the College will no longer operate as an executive agency.

  CMPS will enjoy extensive management delegations and will operate within the terms of a framework document. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Civil Service Leavers
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many male ex-Government employees there are under the age of 65 years. [117127]

  Mr. Stringer
  The information is not held in the form requested and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The number of male permanent staff who have left the Civil Service during the last 10 years who, if still alive, would have been under the age of 65 at 1" April 1999 was approximately 167,000.

  GM Plants
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to visit a research laboratory engaged in research into genetically modified plants. [116565]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have recently accepted an invitation to visit the John Innes Centre in order to learn more about the implications of GMO's for the environment and their potential applications in UK industry and agriculture. I meet a range of outside organisations as part of the Government's ongoing dialogue on biotechnology, including environmental groups, consumer bodies and industry representatives. The UK's commitment to a science based approach to biotechnology which protects public health and the environment is made clear in all such discussions.

  US International Trade Commission
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) for what reason, when her officials met analysts from the United States International Trade Commission during the last two weeks, they advised the analysts not to meet hon. Members; [116313]

  (2) what representations her Department has made to visiting analysts from the United States International Trade Commission in respect of their inquiry on behalf of the United States Senate Finance Committee on the impact on the United States economy of including the United Kingdom in NAFTA. [116316]

  Mr. Stringer
  I refer to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,Official Report, column 285W.

  Privy Council Judicial Committee
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans there are for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to meet in Scotland when dealing with Scottish devolution or European Convention on Human Rights cases. [116518]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have been asked to reply.
  362W
  There are presently no plans for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to sit in Scotland.

  Scottish Law Books
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many(a) Scottish legal texts, (b) Scottish session cases and (c) other Scots law books are held by the Privy Council; and if she will place a list of all such material in the Library. [116517]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have been asked to reply.

  As at 29 March 2000 there were 16 volumes of Scottish legal materials held in the library of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Details are as follows:

  Laws of Scotland 1828 (comprising Laws and Acts of Parliament)

  Erskine's Institute of the Law of Scotland—(1871)

  Stair's Institutions of the Law of Scotland—(1832)

  Bell's Principles of the Laws of Scotland—(1899)

  Bell's Commentaries on the Laws of Scotland—(1826) 5th and (1858) 6th

  Bell's Dictionary Scotch Law A-E

  Bell's Dictionary Scotch Law F-Z

  Compendium of English & Scotch Law (Paterson)—(1865)

  Session Cases (Cases decided in the Court of Session and also in the Court of Justiciary etc. and House of Lords)—(1998) and (1999)

  Scots Law Times (Reports) (News. Sheriff. Lord)—(1998) and (1999)

  The Scotland Act (Hinsworth & Munro)—(1998).

  In addition the following are on order and due to be delivered shortly: a set of Sessions Cases from 1821; a set of Scots Law Times Reports from 1893; the Parliament House Book (five volumes); Current Law Statutes; together with updating material on the above as it is issued.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what resources are available to the Privy Council this year to purchase Scottish texts, Scottish sessions cases and Scots law books. [116519]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have been asked to reply.

  An additional sum of £20,000 has been allocated on the current year's allowance for the acquisition of textbooks and other reference material for use for the purposes of devolution appeals and references to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Prescribed Drugs (Compensation)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what plans he has to introduce legislation to ensure higher levels of compensation from pharmaceutical companies to those suffering from the deleterious effects of the prescribed use of drugs. [116986]
  363W
  Mr. Lock
  The level of damages is a matter of common law for the courts to decide, in their own independent sphere. The Government have no plans to introduce legislation on levels of damages in the categories of cases specified.

  Legal Aid
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what was the annual cost of legal aid in spousal maintenance cases in each of the last five years. [116707]

  Mr. Lock
  The Legal Aid Board does not record separately expenditure on spousal maintenance cases. I am, however, able to provide information on expenditure in respect of all ancillary relief cases, which includes both child maintenance and spousal maintenance:

  £ million

  1993–94

  47.6

  1994–95

  45.9

  1995–96

  51.6

  1996–97

  54.9

  1997–98

  53.5

  The figures provided are derived from closed cases. A case is regarded as closed when all outstanding matters relating to the certificate are completed. They may include payments made in more than one year. Due to changes in the Legal Aid Board's computer systems, we do not have as yet closed case data for 1998–99.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what steps he is taking to ensure that justices of the peace are properly valued in the criminal justice system. [R] [116971]

  Jane Kennedy
  More than 95 per cent. of criminal cases begin and end in the Magistrates courts. They also deal with many family, civil and licensing matters. Magistrates courts play a key role in our system of justice. I and my colleagues take every opportunity to make it clear publicly how much we value the work of Justices of the Peace. Their voluntary contribution to civic life is much appreciated by this Government. They put great time and effort into their judicial duties, in their own time and without any remuneration.
  364W
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent research his Department has commissioned into the level of truthfulness and accuracy of financial statements of personal circumstances provided by those who have been found guilty in magistrates' courts. [116943]

  Jane Kennedy
  None.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action his Department takes to ensure that magistrates' courts provide facilities for magistrates that are of a high standard. [R] [116942]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has issued guidance to Magistrates Courts Committees and local authorities on the type of facilities it is expected should be provided in new or refurbished court buildings. Provision of such facilities is a matter for the Magistrates Courts Committee and local authority.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to ensure that magistrates courts check the financial details provided by defendants. [116941]

  Jane Kennedy
  Magistrates Courts Sentencing Guidelines shortly to be produced by the Magistrates' Association, with the support of the Lord Chancellor, are expected to remind magistrates that section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 requires courts to look into the financial circumstances of the offender before fixing the amount of a fine. If magistrates are not satisfied with the information available, they are able to adjourn the case for further information to be given.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what(a) number and (b) percentage of properties in his charge are empty; and what steps are being taken by his Department to reduce the number of such properties. [116916]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Court Service currently has six vacant properties and holds vacant space in another six Government buildings. In total this represents 3.1 per cent. of the Court Service estate. Of the six vacant buildings, five are being actively marketed and the Court Service is actively trying to negotiate early surrender of the sixth. Of the space held in the six other Government buildings, the Court Service is about to serve notice to terminate occupation in two. Attempts are being made to sub-let or negotiate early surrender of the remainder.

  The Northern Ireland Court Service currently has three properties vacant which represents 9 per cent. of its estate. These three properties are in the late stages of disposal.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Jury Trial
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000,Official Report, column 820W, on jury trial, for what reasons he has assumed that eight per cent. of formerly electing defendants would be committed for sentence to the Crown Court under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill. [115060]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: Home Office Research suggests that the magistrates would be able to sentence in cases where the Crown Court currently imposes a custodial sentence of up to 15 months—since sentences are two and a half times longer for defendants who elect Crown Court trial than for equivalent cases sentenced in the magistrates courts. In 1996, 76 per cent. of defendants in either-way cases dealt with at the Crown Court fell into this category. However, only one third of these defendants would have elected jury trial, and since defendants who elect are four times less likely to receive such a sentence compared with directed defendants, this means that magistrates would be able to sentence 92 per cent. of such defendants. The remainder, eight per cent., would be committed for sentence.

  Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of prisoners who will be returned to prison after breaching the(a) monitoring and (b) drug testing requirements of their release on licence under the provisions of Part III of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill; and if he will make a statement. [115821]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 22 March 2000]: The use of the new licence conditions provided for under Part III of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill will be subject to piloting before any consideration is given to wider implementation.

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions2 on applications, 2000

  Principal applicants

  Decisions

  Total applications

  Total decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Total refusals

  Grants of ELR underbacklog criteria

  Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria

  Turkey

  640

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Poland

  275

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Lithuania

  125

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Romania

  585

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  366W
  For full national implementation, the estimated additional number of people who would be returned to prison every year is as follows:
  between 200 and 600 people returned following breach of the electronic monitoring requirements of their licence, or following breach of other licence conditions identified through electronic monitoring; and
  between 500 and 2,700 people returned for breach of the drug testing requirements of their licence, or as a result of drug use identified through testing.

  The actual figures will depend on the extent to which the new licence conditions are used, and the breach rate.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on housing asylum seekers on ships; and if he will make a statement. [116305]

  Mrs. Roche
  All offers of accommodation for asylum seekers under the national asylum support scheme are assessed with regard to the suitability of the accommodation offered, including its quality and whether it is in a location where the support needs of the asylum seekers are capable of being met. We would also assess its cost and whether any necessary planning permission has been issued. The National Asylum Support Service has also undertaken to consult with local authorities before any contract for accommodation is signed.

  Any offer of accommodation that includes facilities to accommodate people on floating accommodation will be considered in the same way and in accordance with the same criteria as any other offer of accommodation.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from each country which is a candidate for EU membership applied for refugee status in the United Kingdom in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000 to date; how many were accepted in each case; and what criteria each successful applicant and their family fulfilled. [116307]

  Mrs. Roche
  All asylum applications are considered against the criteria specified in the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. In order to qualify for asylum, a person must be outside his/her country of nationality and have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The spouse and minor children who accompany an asylum applicant to the United Kingdom will normally be recognised as refugees if the principal applicant's application is successful.
  367W

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions2 on applications, 2000

  Principal applicants

  Decisions

  Total applications

  Total decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Total refusals

  Grants of ELR underbacklog criteria

  Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria

  Slovakia

  4—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Czech Republic

  345

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Latvia

  80

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Estonia

  90

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Bulgaria

  5

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Cyprus

  10

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Slovenia

  4—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Hungary

  —

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 5, with 4= 1 or 2

  2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions

  3 Not available

  4=1 or 2

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1999 and initial decisions2,3 on applications, January to May 1999

  Principal applicants

  Decisions

  Total applications

  Total decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Total refusals

  Grants of ELR under backlog criteria

  Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria

  Turkey

  2,870

  625

  15

  5—

  100

  505

  5

  Poland

  1,865

  160

  4—

  —

  160

  5—

  —

  Lithuania

  615

  130

  —

  —

  130

  5—

  —

  Romania

  1,990

  65

  —

  —

  60

  5

  —

  Slovakia

  75

  90

  —

  —

  90

  —

  —

  Czech Republic

  1,790

  50

  —

  —

  50

  —

  —

  Latvia

  520

  15

  —

  —

  15

  —

  —

  Estonia

  455

  5

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Bulgaria

  85

  40

  —

  —

  10

  30

  —

  Cyprus

  25

  75

  5—

  —

  —

  75

  —

  Slovenia

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hungary

  15

  5—

  —

  —

  —

  5—

  —

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 5, with5= 1 or 2

  2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions

  3 January to May only

  4 Not available

  5 =1 or 2.

  Deportations
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been deported from the UK in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [116485]

  Passengers refused entry and removed and persons removed or departing voluntarily as a result of illegal entry or deportation action1, 1995 to 1999

  1995

  21996

  1997

  1998

  2,31999

  Passengers refused entry and removed

  18,950

  21,430

  24,540

  27,600

  31,300

  Removals and voluntary departures under illegal entry procedures1

  3,160

  3,460

  4,540

  5,580

  5,220

  Removals and voluntary departures under deportation procedures1

  1,920

  2,000

  2,070

  1,720

  1,150

  Total

  24,030

  26,880

  31,140

  34,900

  37,660

  1 Includes only those voluntary departures taking place after the initiation of such action

  2 Data are revised

  3 1999 data are provisional

  Note:

  Data are rounded to 10
  368W
  Mrs. Roche
  The numbers of people removed or departing voluntarily from the United Kingdom under port, illegal entry or deportation procedures between 1995 and 1999 are shown in the table.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what experiments took place under licence at Wickham Research Laboratories, Wickham, Hampshire, in each of the last two years; what animals were involved; and if he will make a statement; [116939]

  (2) how many applications for licences for experiments in the Wickham Research Laboratories, Wickham, Hampshire have been made in each of the last five years; and how many applications were successful. [116940]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prevents disclosure of detailed information about individual establishments licensed under the Act that has been given in confidence.

  Wickham Laboratories Ltd. has agreed to release the following information about its work. Wickham Laboratories Ltd. has applied for three project licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 during the last five years and currently holds three licences under the 1986 Act. The establishment undertakes mandatory safety testing of pharmaceutical and medical products. The animals used are rabbits, guinea pigs and mice.

  We are reviewing section 24 in the context of the Freedom of Information legislation.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many laboratory rodents were killed in each of the last four years as a result of scientific procedures; and if he will make a statement. [116715]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on the number of rodents killed as a result of their use in scientific procedures is not collected centrally by the Home Office. The number of rodents used in scientific procedures is set out in Table la of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain published annually. Figures for 1999 are being collected now and will be published in July. Figures for the four years up to 1998 are as follows:

  Number

  1995

  2,270,097

  1996

  2,304,483

  1997

  2,248,094

  1998

  2,243,377

  These figures represent the number of rodents on which scientific procedures were started during the reporting year. Almost all of these animals would have been killed when the procedures were completed, but this would not necessarily have been in the same year.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many scientific procedures were started on laboratory animals in 1999–2000 and in each of the previous three years. [116718]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of scientific procedures carried out by species of animal and primary purpose of procedure is set out in Table 1 of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain
  370W
  published annually. Figures for 1999 are not yet available and will be published in July. Those for the previous three years are as follows:

  Number

  1996

  2,716,587

  1997

  2,635,969

  1998

  2,659,662

  Prisons (Drug Free Units)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug free units there were in(a) men's and (b) women's prisons, and how many (i) male and (ii) female inmates there were in such units, in England and Wales on 1 February. [116827]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table shows the latest available figures for voluntary testing units sub-divided by male/female prisons.

  Voluntary testing units in prison establishments

  Prisons with unit

  Capacity

  Male

  56

  6,350

  Female

  5

  223

  Mixed—Male/Female

  2

  56

  Total

  63

  6,629

  Prisons (Segregation Units)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on who should adjudicate on breaches of prison rules by inmates held in a segregation unit in a prison in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [116828]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Rules and Young Offender Institution Rules give authority to conduct adjudications to the governor of the establishment, or the controller in the case of contracted out prisons. Any governor, or controller who conducts an adjudication must have been specifically trained for the purpose.

  Speeding Fines
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the revenue from speeding fines (i) nationally and (ii) in each police area in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98 and (g) 1998–99. [116947]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the revenue raised from speeding fines is not available.

  However, the table shows the total amount of fines ordered to be paid following conviction for speeding offences. As the majority of such offences are dealt with by the issue of a fixed penalty, the table also shows the total amount of fixed penalties ordered to be paid. The readily available information relates to the calendar years 1992 to 1997. Information for 1998 and 1999 is not yet available.

  Not all fines and fixed penalties will have been paid.
  371W

  Total amount of fines and fixed penalties ordered to be paid for speeding offences—England and Wales 1992 to 1997

  £000

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Fines

  Avon and Somerset

  532

  408

  376

  621

  479

  798

  Bedfordshire

  139

  89

  75

  89

  73

  177

  Cambridgeshire

  127

  233

  131

  135

  463

  453

  Cheshire

  175

  148

  100

  49

  99

  400

  Cleveland

  79

  48

  30

  43

  58

  51

  Cumbria

  478

  494

  245

  197

  223

  240

  Derbyshire

  251

  226

  226

  241

  317

  318

  Devon and Cornwall

  343

  258

  399

  395

  377

  496

  Dorset

  94

  115

  131

  101

  115

  95

  Durham

  90

  82

  69

  50

  41

  47

  Essex

  1,121

  965

  793

  608

  627

  644

  Gloucestershire

  284

  317

  254

  266

  304

  185

  Greater Manchester

  725

  807

  925

  1,141

  1,017

  942

  Hampshire

  693

  631

  686

  820

  778

  610

  Hertfordshire

  169

  150

  172

  243

  179

  352

  Humberside

  117

  135

  82

  105

  129

  122

  Kent

  239

  444

  491

  296

  233

  255

  Lancashire

  476

  269

  234

  268

  395

  438

  Leicestershire

  220

  329

  238

  186

  137

  152

  Lincolnshire

  264

  223

  110

  23

  164

  234

  City of London

  14

  6

  6

  17

  14

  17

  Merseyside

  128

  116

  247

  541

  331

  285

  Metropolitan Police

  1,053

  1,319

  1,254

  1,261

  1,310

  1,403

  Norfolk

  308

  191

  113

  100

  137

  193

  Northamptonshire

  146

  138

  85

  64

  22

  19

  Northumbria

  322

  282

  275

  254

  151

  216

  North Yorkshire

  197

  135

  127

  137

  170

  313

  Nottinghamshire

  52

  32

  30

  36

  49

  75

  South Yorkshire

  251

  192

  174

  211

  252

  294

  Staffordshire

  206

  195

  161

  233

  174

  387

  Suffolk

  198

  216

  154

  168

  133

  178

  Surrey

  203

  173

  131

  115

  162

  227

  Sussex

  299

  282

  333

  281

  338

  477

  Thames Valley

  532

  574

  778

  959

  981

  1,325

  Warwickshire

  214

  230

  127

  201

  200

  198

  West Mercia

  304

  453

  347

  334

  337

  382

  West Midlands

  366

  413

  407

  651

  586

  580

  West Yorkshire

  455

  422

  451

  416

  418

  499

  Wiltshire

  363

  272

  274

  261

  323

  582

  Dyfed-Powys

  69

  54

  54

  60

  90

  95

  Gwent

  108

  175

  148

  120

  258

  372

  North Wales

  211

  148

  154

  142

  166

  163

  South Wales

  81

  84

  79

  71

  95

  233

  Total

  12,697

  12,475

  11,676

  12,512

  12,904

  15,523

  Fixed penalties

  Avon and Somerset

  574

  298

  237

  211

  240

  292

  Bedfordshire

  91

  97

  99

  142

  225

  348

  Cambridgeshire

  422

  324

  221

  293

  255

  593

  Cheshire

  541

  255

  132

  165

  333

  431

  Cleveland

  286

  118

  105

  181

  158

  130

  Cumbria

  282

  287

  203

  226

  185

  195

  Derbyshire

  348

  283

  402

  469

  624

  698

  Devon and Cornwall

  344

  562

  1,037

  1,043

  1,163

  1,446

  Dorset

  378

  416

  497

  546

  399

  447

  Durham

  196

  156

  171

  167

  25

  129

  Essex

  850

  623

  911

  1,227

  902

  1,925

  Gloucestershire

  263

  162

  224

  191

  182

  250

  Greater Manchester

  1,051

  1,200

  1,261

  2,224

  1,947

  2,188

  Hampshire

  632

  795

  1,254

  1,196

  1,085

  1,098

  Hertfordshire

  162

  188

  404

  452

  474

  704

  Humberside

  307

  194

  156

  222

  365

  389

  Kent

  495

  438

  461

  500

  690

  1,148

  Lancashire

  405

  322

  318

  515

  821

  953

  Leicestershire

  226

  262

  210

  165

  184

  224

  Lincolnshire

  372

  307

  183

  295

  278

  264

  City of London

  24

  6

  25

  17

  15

  21

  Merseyside

  398

  345

  755

  748

  692

  472

  Metropolitan Police

  1,729

  1,612

  1,668

  1,876

  2,030

  1,820

  372W 373W

  Total amount of fines and fixed penalties ordered to be paid for speeding offences—England and Wales 1992 to 1997

  £000

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Norfolk

  342

  162

  150

  146

  195

  196

  Northamptonshire

  164

  92

  71

  46

  81

  149

  Northumbria

  491

  395

  350

  413

  738

  1,028

  North Yorkshire

  270

  227

  245

  250

  387

  467

  Nottinghamshire

  51

  35

  58

  70

  159

  185

  South Yorkshire

  692

  558

  649

  745

  896

  1,562

  Staffordshire

  357

  355

  496

  430

  699

  902

  Suffolk

  208

  211

  212

  295

  283

  291

  Surrey

  344

  245

  136

  266

  520

  214

  Sussex

  512

  679

  742

  514

  862

  1,005

  Thames Valley

  551

  860

  2,055

  2,003

  1,988

  2,131

  Warwickshire

  156

  106

  116

  123

  146

  74

  West Mercia

  497

  485

  486

  507

  677

  616

  West Midlands

  453

  382

  413

  445

  573

  375

  West Yorkshire

  752

  602

  530

  524

  594

  964

  Wiltshire

  465

  388

  524

  529

  434

  453

  Dyfed-Powys

  200

  187

  211

  233

  227

  268

  Gwent

  104

  136

  90

  104

  171

  211

  North Wales

  290

  252

  262

  326

  353

  366

  South Wales

  212

  182

  166

  168

  446

  889

  Total

  17,485

  15,790

  18,899

  21,207

  23,802

  28,510

  Income-related Fines
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of relevant overseas practice in relation to income-related fines. [116946]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No research has been conducted recently into use of income-related fines overseas.

  EU Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Brussels on 27 March; and if he will make a statement. [116833]

  Mr. Straw
  The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), represented the United Kingdom at the Council. The main matters dealt with were as follows:

  'A points'

  The list of 'A' points was agreed in full, including, among other things, the Europol Work Programme for 2000; the exchange of information in the evaluation of risks and control of new synthetic drugs; and the Council Decision concerning the better exchange of information in order to fight the use of counterfeit travel documents.

  Open Debate on the protection of victims in the European Judicial Area

  The priority being given to improving the position of victims in the European Union was welcomed wholeheartedly by the Council. The Commission's consultation paper was regarded as the basis for future work. All member states had domestic schemes to assist victims, but it was agreed that action was needed at Union level to ensure adequate protection for those who were victims abroad. The right to compensation was also discussed.
  374W
  Adoption of the Agenda

  In view of ongoing discussions between Spain and the United Kingdom, in consultation with the Government of Gibraltar, the Presidency dropped four items (Insolvency, Service of Documents, Eurodac Regulations, Mandate for a parallel Dublin Agreement with Norway and Iceland) from the meeting's agenda, since the outstanding issue on these dossiers was the question of application to Gibraltar.

  Tampere Score-Board

  There was a presentation by the Commission. The Council gave broad endorsement to the objectives, structure and deadlines set out in the Commission Score-Board, as a political, not legal, commitment. It was acknowledged that the document should be flexible, with deadlines and substance being kept under review. A revised version would be presented for review once per Presidency. Member states set out their priorities, with the next Presidency giving a detailed picture of its Presidency objectives.

  Counterfeiting the euro

  There was political agreement, subject to one member state's parliamentary scrutiny reserve. The Commission announced its intention to bring forward a supplementary instrument including provisions on co-operation, training and exchange of information.

  Draft Mutual Legal Assistance Convention

  Agreement was reached on outstanding issues except territorial scope and data protection. The draft Convention would be submitted for adoption at the May Council, following further consultation and consideration.

  Framework Decision establishing Joint Teams to conduct criminal investigators in one or more member state

  Member states remained divided as to the most appropriate means of implementing the paragraph of the Tampere conclusions calling for the establishment without delay of Joint Investigation Teams to conduct criminal investigations. The issue would be remitted back to the appropriate working group.
  375W
  The prevention and control of organised crime: a European strategy for the beginning of the new Millennium

  The text of the strategy was approved and would be published in the Official Journal in due course.

  Collective Evaluation preliminary country reports on Czech Republic and Hungary

  The Council noted the reports by the Collective Evaluation Working Group. The importance of Justice and Home Affairs matters in the enlargement exercise was stressed. Member states would assist applicant countries all they could, but it was considered important that pressure should continue to be placed on the applicant counties themselves. It was agreed that the Council Secretariat would prepare a document for the Enlargement Working Group setting out any areas of omission or weakness identified in the country reports.

  Brussels II Regulation (proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for joint children)

  Substantial progress was made on this item, subject to the outstanding issue of territorial scope. The United Kingdom did not lift its parliamentary reserve and in that respect the reference in the press statement by the Council reporting on the outcome of the proceedings that "political agreement" has been reached on the draft instrument was incorrect.

  Brussels I Regulation (proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters)

  The Presidency gave a 'state of play' report on discussion of the draft Regulation. It was noted that the European Parliament's opinion was awaited. The Commission announced its intention to propose an amendment to Article 15 of the Regulation to make clear that it applied to distance contract only.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights

  The Presidency gave a 'state of play' report on discussions. A final draft would be prepared by June and adopted by the end of October, for submission to the European Council. Major issues such as scope, legal status and relationship with the European Court of Human Rights would be considered once agreement had been reached on the body of the text. There was no discussion.

  Commission's proposal for a European Refugee Fund

  The Presidency gave the state of play, reporting on discussion in the Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum, noting the need for the proposal to be clearer on the aims and target of the fund, on future financing and on the allocation criteria. The Commission was invited to bring forward a proposal on temporary protection as soon as possible.

  Following discussion, the Commission expressed the hope that the proposal could be adopted during the current Presidency.

  Revision of the Dublin Convention

  The Commission paper (analysing the current problems with the operation of the Dublin Convention and considering alternatives for a replacement Title IV measure) was generally welcomed. The Commission planned to consult widely. A proposal would then be made at the turn of the year.
  376W
  High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration

  The Presidency noted that the Action Plan on Albania and the neighbouring region had now been agreed by the High Level Working Group and would go to the General Affairs Council for adoption in June. New working methods had been established to take forward the implementation of all the Action Plans.

  United Kingdom Drugs Initiative

  We provided information on the United Kingdom Initiative for European Union action to tackle drugs with the aim of achieving a drug-free enlarged Union. The Presidency asked the Committee of Permanent Representatives to remit this to the Article 36 committee to take forward.

  German Initiative on Public Contract Law

  Germany introduced its initiative for a Framework Decision to establish uniform minimum standards under criminal law for unlawful/uncompetitive behaviour in the award of public contracts.

  Relations with Mediterranean countries

  An Israeli request to increase the dialogue on judicial co-operation between the European Union and Mediterranean countries through the Barcelona process was noted by the Council.

  Asylum conference

  The Presidency confirmed that it would host a joint conference with the Commission in Portugal on 15-16 June, on asylum issues.

  Recidivism (Canada)
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will study the reasons for the fall in recidivism in Canada; and if he will make a statement. [116745]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are taking account of the work in North America, including Canada, in reducing recidivism when developing their own policies to reduce reconvictions of offenders. In particular, when developing the accredited offender programmes for offenders in the prison and probation services.

  Evidence on what works in reducing offending is summarised in the Home Office Research Series Number 187, 'Reducing Offending', published in 1998, in particular Chapter 8, which deals with effective interventions with offenders and references many United States of America and Canadian reports. Close contact is maintained with those working in Canada, and a recent Home Office seminar was given by Dr. James Bonta from the Canadian Department of Corrections.

  The Joint Accreditation Panel, set up in 1999 under the chairmanship of Sir Duncan Nichol to accredit offender programmes in the prison and probation services, includes several members from North America.

  Postal Voters
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the parliamentary constituencies ranked from highest to lowest by(a) number of postal voters and (b) postal voters as a percentage of registered electors. [116723]
  377W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The lists of parliamentary constituencies ranked by the number of postal voters at the 1997 general election and postal voters as a percentage of registered electors as at the 1997 general election have been placed in the Library.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he plans to introduce to combat domestic violence against women. [116944]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are taking forward the agenda for action set out in "Living without Fear: an integrated approach to tackling violence against women" which the Home Office, in conjunction with the Women's Unit, published last year.

  Most recently, in addition to the new multi-agency guidance for addressing domestic violence which we issued in early March, the Government have issued more detailed guidance specifically for Health Service professionals. Similar guidance for the police will be

  Hampshire constabulary—police numbers for 1992, 1997 and 1999

  31 March 19921

  Increase

  31 March 1997

  Increase/Decrease

  30 September 1999

  Police Officers

  3,211

  +241

  3,452

  -41

  3,411

  Constables

  2,484

  +214

  2,698

  -63

  2,635

  Special Constables

  5292

  +82

  611

  +109

  720

  1 Figures for 1992 are a pure headcount of staff numbers. From 1995 information on police numbers was collected on a full-time equivalent basis following changes to police regulations to allow the employment of part-time police officers.

  2 Information on the numbers of special constables was collected only annually. This figure is therefore for 31 December 1991.

  Oakington Detention Centre
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum seekers and dependants are being held at Oakington Detention Centre; [117099]

  (2) how many asylum seekers have been held at Oakington Detention Centre since it opened; and in how many of those cases the initial decision on an application was made during the asylum seeker's stay at Oakington. [117248]

  Mrs. Roche
  As of midnight on 30 March, 47 asylum applicants had been detained at Oakington Reception Centre since it opened. Of these, 21 have so far received a decision on their claim while at Oakington and the remainder are at various stages of consideration. 24 applicants, but no dependants, were detained at midnight on 30 March.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on allowing detainees at Oakington temporarily to leave the centre. [117100]

  Mrs. Roche
  The purpose of Oakington is to deal with straightforward asylum claims in about seven days. If a decision cannot be taken within this period, the applicant will either be transferred to an ordinary detention centre or given temporary admission. As the process for consideration of the asylum claim will be very intensive, applicants will not be allowed to leave the site unless absolutely necessary, for example to attend a hospital out patient appointment.
  378W
  issued shortly. Projects on domestic violence within the violence against women initiative of the Crime Reduction Programme will be funded from June.

  Police Numbers (Hampshire)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the change in(a) total police strength, (b) the number of police constables and (c) the number of special constables in (i) Hampshire and (ii) each division within Hampshire, between (1) 1992 and 1997 and (2) 1997 and the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [117037]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information is set out in the table. I understand from the Chief Constable that as a consequence of boundary changes to the Division over the years specified and because of further boundary changes being implemented from 1 April, that will make the territorial divisions more co-terminous with local authority boundaries, it is not possible to provide information on police numbers on a divisional basis which would be comparable or helpful.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detainees have been permitted temporarily to leave Oakington Detention Centre; how many have failed to return; and if he will make a statement. [117098]

  Mrs. Roche
  As of midnight on 30 March, no detainees had been released from the Oakington Reception Centre subject to a condition that they return there.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been dispersed from Oakington Detention Centre before a decision on their case has been made; where they have dispersed to; and if he will make a statement. [117249]

  Mrs. Roche
  As of midnight on 30 March, one detainee had been released from the Oakington Reception Centre before a decision on his case had been made. This applicant was granted temporary admission to reside with relatives and was not dispersed under the interim dispersal arrangements.

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the Liquidator of Global Cultural Diversity Congress Ltd; and when he expects that report to be available to members of the Commission for Racial Equality. [117250]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The issue of reports produced as part of the liquidation process is a matter for the Liquidator.

  Rachel Nickell Murder
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) serving and (b) retired police officers who took part in the Rachel Nickell murder inquiry (1) have had documents seized by the Metropolitan police; and if he will make a statement; [117107]

  (2) have (i) been subject to disciplinary action and (ii) been interviewed by (A) CIB and (B) SO13. [116967]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that this information is not readily available. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I have received it.

  Operation Nightshade
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 268W, what was the purpose and cost of Operation Nightshade; and when it was completed. [116965]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that Operation Nightshade was an investigation into the activities of criminals involved with importation of drugs, the supply of firearms and money laundering. It was completed in June 1994. He also informs me that information about the cost of the Operation is not available.

  Keith Green
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 269W on Mr. Keith Green, if the officer who interviewed Mr. Keith Green in the hospital wing of Brixton Prison on 16 December 1997 was the officer referred to in his answer relating to the interview of 9 December 1997; and if he will make a statement. [117014]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the answer is yes.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when(a) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and (b) the PCA received the report of the investigating officer into the complaint of Keith Green; and what has been the cause of delay in its completion. [117017]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the investigating officer's report was received by the Complaints Investigation Branch on 23 June 1999 and not sent to the Police Complaints Authority (PCA). The Complaints Investigation Branch wrote to the PCA on the 10 December 1999 to inform them of the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to proceed further with the complaint. He also informs me there was no delay in the completion of the investigation.

  Mr. Roger Crooks
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 268W, for what purpose Roger Crooks was interviewed by SO13 on 24 June 1994; and if he will make a statement. [116964]
  380W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that officers of SO13 interviewed Mr. Roger Crooks on 21 June 1994 about matters that involved the supply of firearms.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 268W, on which occasions, subsequent to 24 June 1994, Roger Crooks has been interviewed by SO13; and if he will make a statement. [116963]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that there is no record that SO13 interviewed Roger Crooks after 21 June 1994.

  Detective Keith Pedder
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what powers manuscripts and other documents belonging to former detective Keith Pedder were(a) seized and (b) continue to be held; and if Keith Pedder is entitled to have access to them. [117016]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 268W. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the documentation forms part of an ongoing investigation and that it would not be appropriate for him to comment further at this stage.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will write to the hon. Member for Thurrock when the inquiry into the complaint of former detective Keith Pedder is completed. [117013]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Yes.

  Police Complaints Process
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 267W, on the CIB/Kent police investigation, what was the purpose and cost of the CIB/Kent police investigation; and when it was completed. [116966]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the purpose was to investigate the criminal activities of persons involved in the supply of drugs. The combined cost of the Criminal Investigation Bureau/Kent investigation was in the region of £417,000. It was completed in November 1999.

  Operation Cornwall
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost, to date, of Operation Cornwall. [117015]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that it would be inappropriate, for operational reasons, to provide details of the costs associated with this ongoing inquiry.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are employed in the Prison Service; and what proportion this represents of the total work force. [116850]
  381W
  Mr. Boateng
  The total number of women employed in the Prison Service in England and Wales on 29 February 2000 was 11,639. This represents 26.7 per cent. of the total work force.

  DNA Samples
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to legislate to allow DNA samples given voluntarily by members of the public in the course of a police investigation to be retained by the police provided consent has been given by the donor. [117283]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This proposal was included in the consultation exercise on "Proposals for Revising Legislative Measures on Fingerprints, Footprints and DNA Samples", launched on 30 July 1999. We are now considering the most appropriate way to take these proposals forward.

  Metropolitan Police Vehicles
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Metropolitan police PFI contract for vehicle supply and maintenance; [117333]

  (2) what recent representations he has received from the Nottinghamshire police about the effectiveness of the Metropolitan police PFI contract for vehicle supply and maintenance. [117332]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Chairman of the Nottinghamshire Police Authority wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 2 March seeking information about the Metropolitan Police Service contract for the repair and maintenance of its vehicle fleet. It is for the Metropolitan police to assess the effectiveness of the contract. I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the monitoring of repairs has shown some work not up to the required standard and that the Metropolitan police is taking a rigorous approach with the contractor in addressing those concerns.

  Firearms
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken for(a) issuing and (b) renewing firearm certificates and shotgun licences in (i) Devon and Cornwall, (ii) Avon and Somerset, (iii) South Wales, (iv) Northumberland, (v) West Midlands and (vi) Cambridgeshire; and what the figures were in each of the previous five years. [117525]

  Devon &Cornwall

  Avon & Somerset

  Northumbria

  West Midlands

  Cambridgeshire

  Police Officers

  2000

  127

  0

  3150

  2

  0

  1999

  222

  0

  25

  3

  0

  1998

  222

  0

  25

  7

  0

  1997

  222

  0

  25

  11

  0

  1996

  222

  0

  25

  12

  0

  1995

  222

  2—

  25

  12

  0

  382W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not kept centrally, but I understand from the forces concerned that the average number of weeks taken for issuing and renewing firearm certificates and shotgun licences is given in the tables.

  Issue

  Renewal

  Firearms

  Shotguns

  Firearms

  Shotguns

  Devon and Cornwall

  10-12

  10-12

  10-12

  10-12

  Avon and Somerset

  6

  6

  8

  8

  South Wales

  8-10

  6-8

  8-10

  6-8

  Northumbria

  6-8

  6-8

  6-8

  6-8

  West Midlands

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  5.2

  4.2

  4.6

  4.1

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Devon and Cornwall

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Avon and Somerset

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South Wales

  Firearms grant

  6-8

  6-8

  6-8

  6-8

  6-8

  Firearms renewal2

  6-8

  6-8

  6-8

  1—

  1—

  Shotgun grant

  5-7

  5-7

  5-7

  5-7

  5-7

  Shotgun renewal2

  6-8

  6-8

  6-8

  1—

  1—

  Northumbria

  Firearms grant

  6-8

  6-8

  6-8

  6-8

  6-8

  Firearms renewal3

  .5

  .5

  .5

  1—

  1—

  Shotgun grant

  6-8

  6-8

  6-8

  6-8

  6-8

  Shotgun renewal3

  .5

  .5

  .5

  1—

  1—

  West Midlands

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Cambridgeshire

  Firearms grant

  4.4

  5.4

  4

  3.8

  4.3

  Firearms renewal

  3

  5

  3.1

  1—

  1—

  Shotgun grant

  3

  4.7

  4.6

  3.4

  3.6

  Shotgun renewal

  1.7

  3.4

  2.4

  1—

  1—

  1 Not applicable

  2 Renewals by post 1-3 weeks

  3 Postal

  Note:

  Not all forces were able to provide information for the previous 5 years. There were in any event no renewals in 1998 and 1999 due to the extended life of certificates from 3-5 years.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilians are involved in the administration of firearm and shotgun controls; and what the figures were in each of the previous five years in (i) Devon and Cornwall, (ii) Avon and Somerset, (iii) Northumberland, (iv) West Midlands and (v) Cambridgeshire. [117539]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not held centrally, but the information, obtained from the forces concerned, is given in the table.
  383W

  Devon & Cornwall

  Avon & Somerset

  Northumbria

  West Midlands

  Cambridgeshire

  Civilians

  2000

  147

  22

  8

  17

  9.5

  1999

  10

  19

  8

  16

  9.5

  1998

  10

  19

  8

  13

  9.5

  1997

  13

  19

  9

  12

  10.5

  1996

  13

  19

  9

  8

  10.5

  1995

  13

  11

  9

  8

  10.5

  1 Also deal with other non-firearms related inquiries as part of their duties.

  2 Supported by beat officers as needed.

  3 Specifically trained to carry out firearms inquiries as well as their other duties.

  Casinos
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responses he has received to his consultation letter regarding proposals to extend the opening hours of casinos in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [117693]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I published this consultation paper on 11 November 1999 and the consultation period ended on 31 January 2000. The Home Office received 2,820 responses, mostly from casino staff. 2,809 of the responses opposed the proposals. Six were neutral and five expressed support.

  Many casino staff were concerned about the impact which the proposal would have on them and their families, about the difficulties in travelling home especially for female staff in the early hours, and about more exposure to passive smoking. Some also said that management had not consulted them about the proposed change. They wanted us to regulate these employment issues by using the law rather than through employee/employer negotiations.

  The unions opposed the change. They drew attention to the lack of recognition for collective bargaining purposes in casinos and to the timing of the implementation of the union recognition provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999.

  Some residents' associations were also worried about increased noise early in the morning and additional traffic.
  384W
  Having considered the responses very carefully, I have nevertheless concluded that we should proceed with the proposal. The issue is not the number of responses, but the strength of the argument for restricting commercial freedom. Casinos will not be obliged to adopt longer opening hours, but they will have more flexibility to meet consumer demand and increase their competitiveness. The changes will not so significantly affect the running of casinos as to require deferment pending the outcome of the independent gambling review, which is to start after Easter. The Gaming Board for Great Britain has no objections.

  The Government understand the concerns about the impact of additional operating hours on casino staff and their families or on local residents. But the Gaming Act 1968 provides a regulatory framework for gambling in the public interest and is not designed to regulate normal employer/employee relations, which is subject to employment laws and the new provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999. We agree with the view expressed by the unions that any changes to casino hours should not be made before the union recognition provision of the Act is in force. The longer hours will not, therefore, be available until the end of July this year. In addition, it will continue to give to licensing authorities power to impose restrictions on casino hours where necessary to prevent disturbance or annoyance to the occupiers of other premises in the vicinity so that the concerns of residents can be considered.

  The Scottish Executive has consulted on a similar exercise in respect of casinos in Scotland and will report the outcome separately.

  We will place a revised Regulatory Impact Assessment in the Library when the Order is laid.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury

Postal Services: VAT
Baroness Miller of Hendonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they intend to make to the European Union proposal for VAT on postal services.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Commission has not yet made a proposal for VAT on postal services.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I understand from the discussion paper that the Commission is considering doing so. It has been a year since the noble Lord, Lord Simon, responded to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Have the Government come to a conclusion as to what they will do if a firm proposal is put forward, as seems likely?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we do not know what the proposal will be. If the noble Baroness is concerned that vie will accept a tax on stamps, I can say that that is a decision which requires the unanimous agreement of all member states. The Government have made clear that they will not give their agreement to such a tax.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, first, is this issue linked with the proposals for the progressive opening up of the EU postal market, the next step for which is due in 2003? Secondly, can the Minister indicate the Government's attitude to that development?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is linked to the proposals for the opening up of the market for postal services. One of the major issues in that regard is that of monopoly which, under the Postal Services Bill now before another place, is being replaced by the licensed area proposals, whereby a licence has to be obtained by the Post Office and any other competitive body from the new Postal Services Commission. The proposals being made by the European Community are that the licensed area should be no greater than that required for the universal service obligation. As the noble Lord will know, we are committed to the universal service obligation.

Begging
2.37 p.m.
Baroness Sharpiesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to change the law regarding the sentencing of aggressive beggars.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, a person convicted of begging in a public place may be sentenced to a fine of £1,000. Depending on the circumstances of the case, aggressive or intimidatory begging, or using children for begging, may lead to prosecution for offences carrying a custodial sentence. We have no plans currently to increase the sentences for offences relating to begging.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Am I right in thinking that the police cannot take people's fingerprints when they are accused of begging? Assuming that the beggars are also asylum seekers, is the Home Secretary likely to implement his suggestion that they should be fast-tracked?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we should not necessarily assume that all beggars are asylum seekers. Far from it. However, the noble Baroness is right in relation to fingerprinting. The Government are giving consideration to the issue of fast-tracking those asylum seekers who beg. We will no doubt be commenting on that in the near future.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is little justification for the hysteria whipped up by the tabloid press on the whole question of beggars and asylum seekers?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend speaks with great wisdom on this matter. We must look at these issues carefully and proportionately and take appropriate and firm action if and when required. That is the sensible and humane approach.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the existing laws on begging are adequate and that additional sentencing provisions would not be helpful? Perhaps I may point out that begging is not restricted to asylum seekers; others beg too. Also, does the Minister consider that the voucher system meant for asylum seekers is inadequate? Will he undertake to review the system to ensure that those with children have adequate resources to buy nappies and toys? Moreover, will he ask the Home Secretary to use a balanced approach when publicly speaking on these matters?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Home Secretary already takes a balanced view of these matters. We feel that the procedures are right in relation to asylum seekers and we have made adequate provision for those who are destitute.

1079
In relation to begging generally, I looked carefully at the statistics and found that in the mid-1980s 500 people a year were convicted. In the last year for which we have figures, 2,025 people were convicted. It is also the case that the law was changed in regard to the sentencing of beggars in 1982 when the party opposite downgraded the offence. The term "incorrigible rogues" was removed from the provision, plus the ability to send such people to prison. The then government felt that the offence was so minor as to warrant only a fine. That was their attitude at the time; it seems that their attitude has now changed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is the turn of this side; but I shall give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord from the bottom of my heart. He displays his usual wisdom in these matters.
Can the Minister say whether, in cases of persistent begging with very young children who have unquestionably been drugged, it would be more practical, rather than giving money for nappies, to take those children into care?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has struck a strange note. Local authorities have more than adequate powers to take children into care if they believe that they are vulnerable. In the circumstances that the noble Baroness describes, children may well be vulnerable. Under Section 4 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 it is for prosecuting authorities to proceed against such beggars if they wish to do so. They may also consider instituting care proceedings.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend give an assurance that as a result of recent advice by the Magistrates' Association that penalties—that is, fines—should accord with people's ability to pay, we shall not find that aggressive beggars of any kind or of any nationality are sent away with a conditional discharge while people who park on double yellow lines are fined £500?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is obviously not for me to determine how sentences should be passed or what the nature of those sentences might be. However, I think it must be accepted wisdom that the penalties imposed fit the nature of the crime. That is what is enshrined in law. That is the general approach. I am sure that the courts will follow that general and sensible approach. I believe that the sentence passed on someone for begging will relate to the harm, the alarm and the level of distress caused by the begging. I have been alarmed in the past by this activity, as, I am
1080
sure, have other Members of your Lordships' House. There are other times, however, when begging activity is entirely innocent.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that beggars who are not in genuine need depend for their success on the belief of the public that there are beggars who are in genuine need? Does he agree that the best way to stop the public holding that belief is to ensure that no one falls through the safety net of social security?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a wise observation. There are, of course, beggars and beggars. People beg for different reasons and they beg for different things.
Baroness Young: My Lords, one of the most disturbing forms of begging is begging with children, particularly with babies. It is not at all an uncommon occurrence. I suspect that we have all witnessed it. What instructions are given either to the police or to social services departments with regard to such beggars? It is a disturbing sight. Small children are taught to beg, usually by their mothers in the cases I have come across. That is extremely bad for the children, whatever may be said about the adults.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that that cannot be good for the children concerned. I believe that is common cause among us. Cases must be dealt with sensitively, as they are. Carefully considered advice has been given on this matter. As I have explained, begging is a prosecutable offence. People who are convicted can be fined. If Section 4 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is applied, offenders can be imprisoned. No doubt, guidance must be followed in those circumstances. The overriding need is to protect the interests of the child. I believe that all Members of your Lordships' House would agree with that.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, what is the purpose of fining a beggar?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a good question.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, on the question of sentencing, does my noble friend agree that what is so offensive is the organised begging? There are some racketeers out there making large sums of money. Does my noble friend agree that if there is to be legislation on sentencing, first, we ought to get a firm grip on the extent to which we deal with organised begging?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is obviously an operational matter for the police. They need to judge the circumstances. Clearly, there is organised begging; occasionally organised criminal groups beg. However, in those circumstances I have little doubt that the police, with the active support of

1081
the Government and, no doubt, all parties, will take firm action. When I have drawn such instances to the attention of the police, they have mounted campaigns and offensives. It is for the courts to determine what kind of sentence is appropriate for the cases that come before them. However, as was mentioned earlier, how does one fine beggars?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister confident that the new system of voucher support for asylum seekers, for which the Home Office is responsible, as from today, is sufficiently established and sufficiently robust to eliminate the need for asylum seekers to beg?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the new national asylum seeker support scheme is robust. I am convinced that it will be effective. I have no doubt that the company that is contracted to operate it will do an extremely good job in distributing the vouchers. It must be our hope, and our wish that this situation does not lead to begging. As I have explained previously, my honourable friend in another place is considering that issue. We may well need to give it some further consideration. No doubt our action will be firm and swift.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, bearing in mind the reference to incorrigible rogues and my noble friend's reference to organised crime, I inform my noble friend that I received a begging letter from the Conservative Party this morning which I found unacceptable.

Expatriate Pensioners: Australia
2.49 p.m.
Baroness Fookesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the decision by the Australian Government to terminate a social security agreement between the United Kingdom and Australia, they plan to increase the pensions of expatriates currently receiving frozen pensions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): No, my Lords. It is unfortunate that the Australian Government have decided to end this longstanding agreement, which goes back to 1953, but our priority is to help pensioners in the United Kingdom, particularly those who are less well off.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, which was, perhaps, predictable. That stark remark will bring little comfort to the many pensioners living in countries where their pensions are frozen. Is it not time that this long-standing injustice, which brings hardship to so many people, was remedied?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the UK Government currently spend £1.34 billion on supporting UK pensioners who have chosen to live
1082
abroad. If we were to follow the noble Baroness's recommendation, that bill would go up from £1⅓ billion to £1⅔ billion. Releasing that extra £⅓ billion required to unfreeze all frozen pensions is not a high priority of this Government, any more than it was of the previous government.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, will my noble friend at least think very hard about this issue? I remember dealing with this matter in Cabinet some years ago. There was never any question but that, morally, our fellow citizens who worked for us here in Britain and who then migrated overseas were entitled to a pension by virtue of their paid-in contributions. We did not update the pension because of the chronic shortage of foreign exchange, but morally the case was clear. When we were controlling capital movement, when tourists could spend only £50 a year abroad, and when all kinds of restrictions faced us, we could not do it, but morally these people have a right to a pension. Will the Government fulfil that obligation at the earliest moment?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not share the views of my noble friend. Many of the pensioners currently in Australia, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand went out to those countries during their working lives and have for many years contributed to the economies of the countries that they joined. The UK state pension is not a funded scheme but a pay-as-you-go scheme funded by current taxpayers. Given the priorities of government expenditure, I do not think that it is reasonable to ask UK taxpayers to fund the pensions of those currently living abroad who chose to live abroad and who, for a long time, have contributed to the economies of those countries.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the level of pension such people receive will be dependent on the amount of time they spent in this country? If they left during their working lives, the pension will be reduced. Does she not accept that these people paid national insurance contributions and taxes while they were working here? By going abroad, they have relieved the National Health Service of the burden of looking after them in old age. Does not the noble Baroness agree that it is disgraceful that this Government and previous governments have refused to pay these people the increases in their pensions?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords; again, I disagree. Most schemes were set up following the 1946 Act. Except for the 30 "unfrozen" countries where reciprocal arrangements were made and, possibly, some EU countries in waiting, there have never been any such agreements. Going back to 1946, there have never been agreements to uprate overseas pensions, particularly where those pensioners have chosen to live abroad and have often contributed for many years to the economies of those countries abroad. We believe that there are higher priorities for government spending.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that I have been raising this question in both Houses since 1980? There has never been an agreement with Australia, Canada, South Africa or New Zealand, but there have been agreements for reciprocal pensions to be paid with some 33 other non-Commonwealth countries. Does the Minister agree that the pensions we are talking about are those of people who may have left Britain for a number of perfectly good reasons and who, as has been said, have worked and earned their money here? I refer, for instance, to a widow who may have gone to Australia to live with her daughter or with her son. She is entitled to her pension, but this Government and previous governments have steadfastly refused to give such people pension increases. At the same time, is it not strange that we are now canvassing for their votes in elections? We have spent thousands of pounds on trying to force these people to vote for us in our elections while at the same time we refuse to allow them the pension to which they are entitled. Is it not time that a government showed a bit of common sense and decency about this issue?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given the debates in the press recently, I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting payments for votes.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is it not the case that our pensioners in Australia are already in an unfavourable position when compared with those in countries which are members of the European Union? Will not this latest development make their position even worse? Does not the noble Baroness's argument apply equally to those in the European Union? Given the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, is there not a case for going along with the idea of the Social Security Select Committee in another place that the question of whether or not action is taken on this issue should be decided on a free vote?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's first point, we have reciprocal arrangements with the EU in order to free the movement of people of working age. Pensions were not the primary purpose of the legislation, but obviously they are a factor. That is not the situation with Australia and Canada. Approximately 17,000 Australians of pensionable age live in the UK; and approximately 215,000 UK pensioners live in Australia. The same disparity applies to other non-European Commonwealth countries such as Canada, South Africa and New Zealand. The arrangements with the EU are part of our obligations and they need to be honoured.
As to the recommendation of the Social Security Select Committee for a free vote, it would not be particularly appropriate to ask the Houses of Parliament to hold a free vote on an issue which involves £⅓ billion of public moneys. I endorse the reply of the previous government; they thought this was an interesting proposal, but it was a proposal that they did not intend to follow.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are many war pensioners among expatriates? They are diminishing in number and therefore the amount of money required would, regrettably, get smaller every year. How much will the average expatriate get in English money per week in Australia after the present agreement expires?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it would cost £300 million to unfreeze frozen pensions. The figure for Australia is approximately £125 million. As to the noble Baroness's second point, it may be that she misunderstands what the Australian Government are proposing to do. They are not proposing to uprate English pensions; they have never done that. At the moment, for UK pensioners in Australia to qualify for an Australian pension, they have to be resident there for 10 years and to pass a means test. The current agreement, which goes back to 1953, is that UK national insurance contributions may count towards that 10-year residence period. The same is true in reverse; Australian periods of contribution count towards the English state pension. The removal of the current agreement would affect some 850 people in Australia and some 1,000 Australians living in the UK. So, perversely, the effect of Australia reneging on an agreement which has been in place since 1953 will be to save the Government money.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister is aware that we are increasingly living in a global economy. Does she agree that if states, jointly or severally, fail to meet the needs of those who live in a global economy, that could prove as dangerous to the political health of the state as it already is to the financial health of pensioners?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Earl was kind enough to give me notice of his question; I suspect on the grounds that he thought it unanswerable. He is right; it is, but I shall have a go. I cannot conceive of globally co-ordinated social security—if that is what the noble Earl has in mind—between, say, sub-Saharan Africa and Sweden. Our view and the view of the previous government is that it is for national governments to decide the terms of their social security schemes in the light of their national economies.

VAT and Duties Tribunals
2.59 p.m.
Lord Goodhartasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered transferring responsibility for the appointment of members of the VAT and duties tribunals from the Treasury to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the tax appeals tribunals are the subject of a consultation paper published by the Lord Chancellor in March of this year. One of the issues on which views are sought is the responsibility for appointments of lay members to the VAT and duties tribunals. The closing date for responses to this consultation document is 30th June 2000.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But does he accept that the Treasury has a very direct interest in the outcome of decisions by these tribunals? Does he accept that it is certain that as soon as the Human Rights Act comes into force there will be a challenge to an adverse decision on the ground that the decision was taken by a tribunal which was not independent and impartial? Does he accept that there is a very good chance indeed that such a challenge would succeed? Does he accept that, in order to protect public revenues, it is very important that as soon as possible this kind of challenge should be made impossible by transferring the responsibility for the appointments to the Lord Chancellor's Department, which already has responsibility for appointing the chairmen of these tribunals?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, for many years it has been the practice in this country that the appointments to panels of this kind should be the responsibility of the same department as that which is responsible for the administration of the matter before the tribunals. But, of course, the issue raised by the noble Lord is one on which views are sought in the consultation paper to which I referred in my first Answer. Although I cannot confirm what the noble Lord said about the Human Rights Act and what the result of any appeal would be, that is one of the issues which the Lord Chancellor will take into account in responding to the responses to the consultation document.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, has not the Human Rights Act become a great big bogey? Did we not sign the convention many years ago—even decades ago—and is there not recourse to that legislation through Strasbourg, although it takes a long time?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is strictly right. If the case had been as clear as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, implied in his Question to me, an issue or this kind could have been brought to the European Court indirectly. The effect of the Human Rights Act is that it can now be taken directly.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is it a breach of the human rights of the British public for the Government to tell them that their taxes are going down when in fact they are going up?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord keeps on trying with unanswerable questions. Indeed, if he chooses to engage in discussion with me on tax burdens rather than on human rights issues, he will find us talking at cross-purposes, as we so often do.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the latest developments in respect of Rover. The Statement is likely to be taken after the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, in the first debate.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
3.3 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The core purpose of this Bill is nothing less than to reinvigorate our democracy. Over the past decade or so public confidence in our democratic institutions has suffered as a result of the now well documented instances of financial sleaze that at times seemed to pervade the political life of our country. This is not the time or the place—or perhaps the day—to point the finger at particular individuals or particular parties. The debate, as we have seen in another place, has now moved beyond that. But the secretive funding of our political system, including funding from a number of foreign sources which had no direct stake in the future of this country, has undoubtedly left a sour taste.
We came into government determined to clean up the way we conduct the politics of this country. One of our early acts on entering government was therefore to refer the whole matter of the funding of political parties to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, as we had repeatedly pressed the previous government to do. Perhaps I may say how pleased I am to see in the Chamber today members of that committee: the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, who, of course, chairs the committee, my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I particularly look forward to their contributions to the debate on the Bill and I am sure the whole House will be anxious to hear what they have to say on these important matters.
Among the issues which we asked the Neill committee to examine were how best to give effect to our two other manifesto commitments in this area—to ban the foreign funding of political parties and to require the disclosure of donations of more than £5,000. As the House will know, the Neill committee reported in October 1998. Its report and recommendations mark a turning point in the way we conduct the political life of this country. The committee found that once you lift the lid on the funding of political parties, a whole range of wider questions present themselves. I should like to place on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and to his colleagues for the authoritative and incisive way in which they examined the wide range of issues that are covered in their report. Their recommendations provide the foundations of this Bill. Indeed, it is to

1087
their credit that, with only one notable exception, we can map those recommendations across to the clauses of and schedules to this Bill.
This is perhaps as good a point as any to deal with that one exception; namely, tax relief. I am conscious that the Neill committee laid heavy emphasis on the fact that its recommendations had been conceived as part of an overall integrated scheme which should be considered as a whole. This Government have no desire to cherry pick from the committee's 100 recommendations. Indeed, in the spirit of bipartisanship, we have studiously avoided doing so. In the case of tax relief, however, we are simply not persuaded that the case for the recommendation has been made out. In particular, the Government do not believe that a tax relief scheme for political donations sits comfortably with the committee's conclusion, which we share, that there should be no system of general state aid to political parties, Moreover, it falls to the government of the day to make the difficult choices about spending priorities. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his Budget Statement last month, this Government's priorities are efficient and effective healthcare and excellence in education. This is not the time to give a tax hand-out of £4 million or £5 million to political parties.
Tax relief aside, we have sought faithfully to give effect to the other recommendations of the Neill committee. In doing so, we are conscious of the need to take the other main political parties with us where at all possible. Save on a small number of specific issues on which I shall touch later, there was a broad measure of cross-party support for the provisions of the Bill during its passage in another place. I very much hope that we can consolidate and build on that broad consensus so that the Bill that we return to another place is one that will stand the test of time as an important part of our constitutional arrangements. We are going to attend carefully to what this House says on the Bill, and we are ready to discuss any matter at any time with representatives of the other parties.
I shall now turn to the detail of the Bill. Part I establishes the electoral commission on which so much of the rest of the Bill depends. A number of Members of your Lordships' House have long argued for such a body to reinforce the integrity of our electoral arrangements. Among these I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, in their places. It is essential to the effective working of the controls on parties' income and expenditure that they are rigorously enforced. But the electoral commission will be much more than simply an enforcement body. Another key function will be as the moderniser of our electoral system. You Lordships have only recently had an opportunity to examine what needs to be done to bring our electoral machinery into the 21st century. A number argued that the Representation of the People Act, as it now is, did no more than advance the way we organise and conduct our elections into the 20th century. If that is the case, the electoral
1088
commission will have its work cut out to ensure that our electoral law and procedures finally catch up with the 21st century.
The electoral commission will also play a key role in promoting a greater sense of citizenship. This will involve more than simply encouraging voter turn-out at elections, although the commission will undoubtedly have a part to play in that. Indeed the problem of low turn-outs, particularly at local and European elections, cannot be addressed without promoting a wider understanding of both the rights and responsibilities we each have as citizens in a democratic society.
In order to undertake these and the many other functions conferred on it by the Bill, the commission will need to be seen to be scrupulously independent both of the government of the day and of the political parties. We agree with the Neill committee's statement at paragraph 10.8 of the report that the commission, unlike the United States Federal Election Commission, should consist of independent persons and not of party representatives. We also agree that the commission's members should not be people who have previously been involved in any substantial way in party politics. Such involvement would clearly include serving as an MP, MEP or local councillor and holding office within a political party, perhaps as the chairman of a constituency association. That is an important point about the electoral commission which should not be left to the government of the day or to a selection panel. It should be set out on the face of the legislation. I shall be bringing forward amendments in Committee. To judge from debates in the other place, they will command general support.
I should point out that the Bill already contains a number of important safeguards to guarantee the political neutrality of the electoral commissioners. In particular, these will be Crown appointments and not ministerial appointments. What is more, the appointments may only be made with the agreement of the Speaker of the House of Commons and after consultation with the leaders of all parties with two or more Members of Parliament.
Finally, the selection process, which we intend to commence within the next month, will be conducted in accordance with the code of practice on public appointments. In keeping with the provisions of the code the posts will be publicly advertised and the whole selection process will be overseen by an independent assessor.
Part II of the Bill sets out the arrangements for bringing political parties within the regulatory control of the electoral commission. In large measure the provisions of this part re-enact, with modifications, those of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. There is, however, one important difference between the scheme as set out in the 1998 Act and the scheme in this Bill. Under the 1998 Act, the registration scheme was essentially a voluntary one. Under the Bill, organisations which support candidates at an election are effectively obliged to register with the electoral commission. It is only by introducing this measure of

1089
compulsion that all political parties can be brought, as clearly they must be, within the scope of the controls on donations and campaign expenditure.
Consequently, it will no longer be possible for an independent candidate to include a description against his or her name on the ballot paper—unless, that is, the person or the organisation which he or she represents, if any, first registers as a political party, There may be different views on whether this change in itself is good or bad. But it is certainly, we think, unavoidable. If we continued to allow independent candidates to enter a description on the ballot paper, it would be open to an organisation to circumvent the controls on parties' income and expenditure by supporting any number of supposedly independent candidates up and down the country each of whom used the same description on the ballot paper. Because all these candidates had adopted the same description it would be possible to run a nation-wide advertising campaign in support of their election.
Before I leave Part II, I want to outline important changes to the registration scheme that the Government will be bringing forward in Committee. The purpose of these changes will be twofold. First, we shall be proposing a separate registration scheme for parties in Northern Ireland. The Neill committee, in its response to the draft Bill published last summer, rightly pointed cut that any exemptions for Northern Ireland parties from the controls on donations in Part IV should apply to all such parties. As drafted, Clause 65 defines a Northern Ireland party as a party with one or more MPs elected for a Northern Ireland constituency or with one or more Assembly Members. The separate registration arrangements for Northern Ireland parties will enable all parties operating in Northern Ireland to benefit from the terms of an order made under Clause 65.
While on Clause 65, I ought to address the more fundamental objections that were raised when the clause was considered in another place—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question for clarification. Is that to allow the Northern Ireland parties to receive funding from the United States which would not be applicable to other parties?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall attempt to address that point in my concluding comments.
The position of the Official Opposition has been that the ban on foreign funding and the requirements as to disclosure should apply as much to Northern Ireland as to the rest of the United Kingdom. In principle at least I do not disagree. But the fact remains that politics in Northern Ireland are not conducted on the same basis as politics in Great Britain. There is no reason to suppose that the publication of the names of donors to the Conservative or Labour Parties will place those donors at any risk. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said of a person who donates to the Ulster Unionists, the DUP, the SDLP, or Sinn Fein. It is also the case that at least two of these parties receive a significant proportion of their funding from or via
1090
the Irish Republic. In such circumstances it is simply not realistic to seek to apply the new provisions in full and overnight. The Neill committee recognised all these difficulties and it was the committee that recommended that Northern Ireland parties should be exempt, at least for an initial period, from the controls on donations. Clause 65 gives effect to the relevant recommendations and is as much a part of the Neill package as the other provisions of the Bill.
Returning to the registration scheme in Part II, the second aim of the amendments that we intend to introduce in Committee is to allow a party to confine its registration to one part of Great Britain. The objective is to enable a "sister" party to register in another part of Great Britain. Under the provisions of the 1998 Act, the Scottish Green Party has been unable to register despite the fact that the Green Party (which is a registered party) organises only in England and Wales. That is an anomaly which cannot stand. As I understand it, the Green Party and the Scottish Green Party are two wholly separate organisations with no constitutional links with one another; the registration scheme should be able to cater for such circumstances.
While I am on the subject of ensuring that the Bill fits the circumstances of parties, I should also mention the Liberal Democrats. They have concerns about the impact of the Bill's requirements on their federal party structure. I believe that all the main parties accept that they will have to modify the way they operate, to some degree at least, in order to adapt to the provisions of the Bill. But I can assure the House that we want, if at all possible, to find ways around the concerns that the Liberal Democrats have, and we are in active discussions with them.
I can deal quickly with Part III of the Bill, which is concerned with accounting requirements. The requirements on parties to keep proper accounts and produce an annual statement of accounts are ones which I would expect any members' organisation to follow in any event. The provisions of Part III will help reinforce best practice in this area. We remain open, as we have been in the other place, to representations on the detail.
Part IV gives effect to the ban on foreign funding of political parties and the public disclosure of large donations. I accept that the scheme for implementing these controls, based on the Neill report, is a detailed one. It will have an impact on the administration of political parties. There is no getting away from that. We are, of course, ready to listen to any proposals your Lordships may have for simplifying the scheme as set out in this and other parts of the Bill. But, in considering any such proposals, the test that must be applied is whether the scheme is sufficiently robust to achieve its purpose.
The rules on donations, as recommended by the Neill committee and set out in the Bill, are tight. They extend not merely to cash donations but also to donations in kind and to sponsorship. We felt it right to make amendments in another place to soften the impact of these requirements in one small degree. As it now stands, the Bill would allow a party, or an

1091
individual or group, to receive travelling and subsistence expenses for the purpose of visiting another country, even if the money comes from an otherwise non-permissible source. For example, the provision would allow the Government of Gibraltar to continue to support visits by Members of Parliament.
There is a further change which we propose to make to the Bill in your Lordships' House, although it follows on from debates in another place. There is a consensus that it would be unduly restrictive to require the cost of exhibition stands at party conferences to be regarded as sponsorship or a donation. We propose to bring forward amendments to make this clear, building on helpful suggestions which the noble Lord, Lord Neill, has made in a letter to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Parts V and VI of the Bill control election expenditure by political parties and third parties respectively. This is one area where our electoral law has failed to keep up with the realities of modern-day election campaigning. The existing law, as set out in the Representation of the People Act 1983, regulates in considerable detail spending by individual candidates and their agents at the constituency level. The spending limits imposed by the 1983 Act are quite modest: about £8,000 for the average parliamentary constituency. In contrast to these tight restrictions on individual candidates, the political parties are free to spend unlimited sums at national level. This has led to what the Neill committee termed the "arms race" in election spending.
At the previous election some 3,700 candidates spent in aggregate just under £13 million. This sum was dwarfed, however, by the £28 million spent by the Conservative Party and the £26 million spent by the Labour Party. If spending by political parties were left unchecked, the sums involved could well exceed £30 million on each side by the time of the next election, with more to follow as time went on. Elections should be a contest between values, policies and ideas, not between purses. An election cannot be said to be fair if the result is determined by which side can outspend the other. There must be some check against the relentless need to seek large donations. The controls on expenditure set out in Parts V and VI are long overdue and will ensure that in future elections there is a level playing field as between the main political parties.
As to Part VII, I come to the one part of the Bill where we have not yet managed to establish the same degree of cross-party consensus as we have with the other nine parts. Part VII is concerned with the conduct of referendums. It is important to record that this part of the Bill is not concerned about the conduct of any particular referendum but about the conduct of referendums generally. That fact was obscured during some of the debates on Part VII in another place. The essential aim of this part of the Bill is to ensure that each side in a referendum campaign has a fair opportunity to put across its case to the electorate. To this end, the Bill provides for the Electoral Commission to designate an umbrella organisation on
1092
each side of a referendum campaign. Each side will be eligible for a grant of up to £600,000, a free mailing of a referendum address and free air time for referendum broadcasts. These arrangements at least have been generally welcomed.
In addition, Part VII provides for the designated umbrella organisations, and other individuals and bodies campaigning in a referendum, to be subject to spending limits. Your Lordships' House will be aware that the Neill Committee came down against expenditure controls in a referendum, not as a matter of principle but on grounds of practicality. It is the view of the Government that as a matter of principle there should be spending limits in a referendum. The arguments are essentially the same as for an election. Fair play surely demands that there should be some safeguards against the possibility of the whole campaign being skewed by one wealthy individual or organisation.
As to the practicalities, the solution can be found in the Neill committee's own proposals for controlling donations made to referendum campaign organisations. The Neill scheme requires such organisations to be registered with the Electoral Commission for the purpose of applying the ban on foreign funding and the requirements as to disclosure. Once such organisations have been brought within the regulatory remit of the Commission it is then perfectly possible to apply spending controls to them.
How the Bill deals with Recommendation 89 of the Neill committee's report has also attracted much comment. The committee argued in Recommendation 89 that the government of the day should remain neutral in a referendum campaign and not distribute at public expense literature setting out or otherwise promoting its case. We believe that Clause 120 gives effect to that recommendation in a straightforward and unstinting way. There is an absolute prohibition on the government of the day publishing, displaying or distributing promotional material in relation to a referendum in the 28 days prior to the date of the poll.
Suggestions have been made that this 28-day "purdah" period is too short. The period is, however, wholly consistent with the average length of a general election campaign, with which the Neill Committee drew a parallel. Furthermore, in its response to the draft Bill the Neill committee welcomed the way in which the Government had responded to its recommendation on this issue.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I may revert to the question of funding where an organisation does not fund any party's campaign but runs a parallel campaign. To pick an example at random, the European Commission has, quite legitimately, information offices throughout the UK and would have a very clear view on a referendum on EMU.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is an important issue to which we shall no doubt give further consideration as we go through the Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, does the noble Lord's response indicate that he does not have the faintest idea of the answer to the question?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful. For example, candidates will be subject to controls on the source and disclosure of donations similar to those now introduced for parties. The opportunity has also been taken to modernise or remove a number of provisions of the 1983 Act which are now out of date. As I have said, it will fall to the Electoral Commission to continue this modernising process.
There is another amendment to the 1983 Act which I propose to table in Committee. As many of your Lordships will be aware, the existing £5 limit on what a third party may spend in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate at an election has been held by the European Coal of Human Rights in the case of Bowman to amount to an unjustified restriction on freedom of expression. As recommended by the Neill committee, I shall table an amendment to increase the limit to £500 in the case of a parliamentary election. A limit of £50, plus 0.5p per elector, will apply to local government elections. With the agreement of the Scottish Parliament and Executive the amendment (to Section 75 of the 1983 Act) will extend to local government elections in Scotland.
Part IX gives effect to the Neill committee's recommendation that a company should be required to have the consent of its shareholders before making donations to political parties and other political organisations. It is now widely accepted that political donations by a company are of such a unique nature that the decision to make these donations should not be left to the general discretion of the directors. The requirement to seek the approval of shareholders at least once every four years will not be onerous but will ensure that companies maintain the highest standards of corporate governance.
I shall confine my comments on Part X of the Bill to Clause 134, which is concerned with the qualifying period for registration as an overseas voter. This provision does rot stem from the Neill committee hut from the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place. In its 1998 report on electoral law and administration the committee unanimously concluded that the existing 20-year qualifying period was excessive and proposed a reduction to five years. The Government agree with the committee's view that the existing qualifying period is excessive. It is wrong surely that British citizens who have lived abroad for a considerable number of years, and who have in many cases effectively severed their ties with the United Kingdom, should continue to be able to influence the outcome of elections here. That said, the Government felt that a reduction in the qualifying period to five years went too far in the other direction. Therefore, they have opted in the Bill for a qualifying period of 10 years.
I am aware that this clause was subject to considerable debate in another place. At Report stage a number of amendments were lodged which pulled in a number of different directions. In responding to
1094
those amendments the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Privy Council Office indicated that the Government remained ready to listen to alternatives to the 10-year qualifying period in Clause 134. This is very much the sort of provision which should, if possible, be the subject of a political consensus. We shall listen with close interest to what your Lordships have to say on this matter, and particularly to any suggestions which could pass the consensus test.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about the timetable for commencement. The lynchpin will be the successful establishment of the electoral commission. I have already indicated that we intend to commence the selection process for the electoral commissioners within the next few weeks. Subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent by the Summer Recess, we would hope that the appointments could be made by November. Thereafter the priority will be to bring the controls on donations and campaign expenditure into force. Ideally this will be done in time for the next general election. Whether this is possible will naturally depend on when the election is called. Realistically, the earliest that Parts IV to VI of the Bill can be brought into force is in March or Apri12001. Thereafter there is likely to be some staggering of the implementation of the other functions of the electoral commission. In particular, we do not envisage transferring the functions of the four Parliamentary Boundary Commissions to the electoral commission until after they have completed the fifth general review of parliamentary constituencies in 2005 or thereabouts.
This Bill will do much to strengthen public confidence in the democratic process. It will ensure that there is full transparency and openness in the funding of political parties and reinforce the existing rules for the fair conduct of elections and referendums. These are reforms which in many respects are long overdue. They are vital to the health of our democracy. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bassani of Brighton.)
3.31 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not envy the Minister his task in explaining the detail of the Bill. What at first sight would seem to be a few simple, easily understood propositions in the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life have been turned into a long, complicated and, in many places, pretty impenetrable legalese which no ordinary person could be expected to follow. If ever a Bill needed to be written in plain English, it is this one, affecting as it does the very building blocks of our parliamentary democracy.
This Bill will need to be understood not just by the treasurers of our parties nationally—they may have access to legal opinions—but by the treasurers of every constituency association of every political party up and down the land. Frankly, if a potential candidate for the office of treasurer—it is never the easiest office to fill in any organisation—finds that he has to read, mark and inwardly digest the stuff in this Bill, he will

1095
pass up the chance of being constituency treasurer; and, worse, he will advise all his friends to do likewise—and we are supposed to be encouraging people to participate in the political process!
What are the simple propositions to which we can probably all agree, at least in part? First, there should be an electoral commission. Secondly, it should be responsible for the registration of political parties. Thirdly, there should be rules on the conduct of referendums, and these should be overseen by the electoral commission. Fourthly, there should be transparency in the larger donations to political parties and to other bodies which attempt to influence the outcome of elections and referendums. Fifthly, no foreigner should donate to political parties—although who exactly is a foreigner is an interesting question which my noble friend has already raised.
I start with the electoral commission. Your Lordships will recall that during the passage of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill in the summer of 1997, I argued in favour of a general referendums Bill to cover all referendums, and a referendums commission to oversee their conduct. I prayed in aid the report of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums which was set up by the Electoral Reform Society and the Constitution Unit, and chaired by Sir Patrick Nairne. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, remembers my amendments. When we discussed the Registration of Political Parties Bill (now an Act), the need for an electoral commission also arose.
In many ways, the Government put the cart before the horse by introducing referendums and registration before setting up the proper body to deal with those issues. But I suppose we should be thankful that at last they have got round to setting up the commission—better late than never. We shall want to explore the kind of person who will be a commissioner and how that membership will be decided. There must be no possibility of the commissioners being Tony's cronies. I listened with interest to the Minister on the issue of who would be commissioners. I look forward to reading his amendments, and perhaps bringing forward some of my own.
We shall want to explore the way in which the boundary commissions will be composed; and the relationship between the Scottish Executive and Parliament as regards boundaries in relation to Westminster, Scotland and local government. I shall want to study carefully the Minister's remarks that the Government have no intention of bringing the next boundary commission within the rules of the electoral commission. I find that a very odd way for the Government to approach the issue.
We shall want to look critically at Clause 12(1). We are concerned that the commission might become a propagandist for electoral change and, even more oddly, for the European Union. I cannot understand what the first subsection of Clause 12 means.
We look forward to government amendments—it sounds as though we shall have many, but that is par for the course for most of the Bills which arrive in your
1096
Lordships' House—which will link the commission with the Representation of the People Act which we passed a few weeks ago. It is another example of putting the cart before the horse.
I turn to the commission's role in the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. Your Lordships will remember our debates on that Bill. My suspicions and fears about Government putting forward legislation to regulate political parties were somewhat underlined today when I heard the Minister talk about the regulatory control of political parties. Perhaps that is what Mr Cook will talk about today to Mr Mugabe; I am sure that he would very much like a lesson on the regulatory control of political parties. The amazing thing about the Bill is that it repeals the 1998 Act. Is that a record? Why do the Government feel it necessary to do that and to add 16 clauses to what is already a large and cumbersome Bill? In Committee, I shall be looking to the Minister to justify any changes he has made to the 1998 Act in its shift into this Bill.
I turn to referendums. In Committee I shall be judging the details of the Bill against the proposals of the Nairne commission—proposals which were largely, but not wholly, echoed in the Neill committee's report. We shall want to explore the omissions. For example, do we have pre-legislative referendums or post-legislative referendums? Who decides the question? That is perhaps the most important question. What, if any, thresholds should be used to judge the result?
I welcome the fact that the Government accept the recommendation in Nairne and Neill that umbrella campaigning organisations should he recognised for core funding. Both Nairne and Neill looked at the case for capping expenditure and referendums. The Minister spoke about that at some length; and I am not surprised. The Government have cherry-picked both Nairne and Neill as regards this matter. At page 75, paragraph 14, Nairne said:
"On balance, it is not considered practical to exercise government control over the total expenditure by those campaigning on either side in a referendum. Umbrella campaigning organisations should be required to undertake to provide accounts of monies received or spent on the campaign if they are to qualify for public money or services in kind".
Neill said that, perhaps more dramatically at paragraph 12.46 on page 170. Referring to the capping of expenditure, he said:
"It appears to us that under these circumstances it would be impracticable to try to control campaign spending. The number of individuals and organisations involved would often be too large. The time-scale would often be too short. Adequate accounting procedures would often be impossible to put in place. The administrative apparatus required would resemble one of Heath Robinson's most outlandish contraptions— and would almost certainly not work".
The Government will have to explain in detail why they have chosen to go against those recommendations. When I read the Bill, I wondered whether it was to show in Clauses 106 to 113, and more particularly in Schedules 12 and 13, which I invite your Lordships to read during a quiet moment, what exactly a Heath Robinson contraption looks like. I suggest

1097
that those two schedules are just that. I should have thought that transparent donation would be more than sufficient.
If the Government's motive is to have a balanced financial position between the sides in the referendum, their legislation fails. Let us consider the referendum in Scotland in 1997. The Bill does not indicate how the limits would be calculated, but, for easy counting, let us assume that it would be one-tenth of the UK figure given in Schedule 13. Each umbrella organisation would have been able to spend £0.5 million. The three parties in favour of a "yes" vote would have been able to spend between them £1.2 million. That is a total for the "yes" side of £1.7 million. The Conservatives would have been allowed £0.3 million, which would have given the "no" side £0.8 million. According to my arithmetic, £1.8 million and £0.8 million are not a balance, especially when the trade unions can pitch in with perhaps fifty grand each, as can a few more bodies on either side.
However it would have worked, there would have been no balance in the expenditure limits at that Scottish referendum. I suggest that it would be the same for any referendum one contemplates in the future. Therefore, Schedule 13 does not create balance; it ensures imbalance. Perhaps Nairne and Neill were right. We shall I want to hear some convincing arguments from the Minister before we let the Bill go down that road.
Finally, I turn to donations and expenditure. Expenditure is simpler because it builds on the well-used system employed to limit expenditure by candidates in their constituencies during elections. We have no difficulty with the simple idea that there should be a limit, but that is where simplicity ends and the complexity, so beloved of this Government, takes over.
First, the limit is to cover 365 days leading up to the election. So my question to the Minister is: at this moment, are we inside that period for the next election or are we not? Tile Minister will not answer, even if he knows—and I doubt that he does. I do not blame him either way, but the mere fact that I can ask a question which every one of your Lordships knows is impossible to answer shows that the proposition is ridiculous. Have, your Lordships heard anything so daft as counting expenditure in a whole year before an election, the date of which is known only to one person—namely, the Prime Minister—and, I suspect, not even to him at this moment? It would be retrospective accounting. The suggestion is crazy.
What is wrong with using the definition of "election period" used for constituency expenditure at the time of an election? That is simple. Or, if the Government want to cast their net a little wider, why not start the clock ticking when the Prime Minister announces the date of the election and Parliament rises?
However, I Promise your Lordships that the proposal gets dafter! As regards elections to the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies, the period is to be four months before the date of such an
1098
election. That is a little easier because those elections are fixed, but there is every likelihood that there will be overlapping between some (and perhaps all) of those elections. That is where Part III of Schedule 8 comes in because it tries to deal with the various combinations of overlapping which might occur. It is seriously incomprehensible gobbledegook. I shall not read it to your Lordships now, but I promise those of your Lordships who are to attend the Committee stage that I fully intend to read it out then and to demand clear, simple explanations from the Minister. I give him plenty of warning of that. Frankly, I believe that the Government should abandon that system and use the one that is more related to our normal way of dealing with the situation; that is, to define the election period as the three or four weeks leading up to the election.
Then there are the expenses of the third parties—no, in this case, not the Liberal Democrats, the SNP or Plaid Cymru, but organisations such as pressure groups which want to campaign in the election, or individuals such as Mr Souter who is so annoying the Labour Party in Scotland by campaigning against the repeal of Section 28, or Section 2A as it is in Scotland. As we know, the cap for an organisation campaigning in a UK election is to be about £1 million.
Guess what, my Lords: trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party and taking part in elections in the Labour Party (elections of the leader, the recent elections of the mayoral candidate for London), and giving help in cash or in kind to the Labour Party will be considered as third parties. Talk about Chinese walls! And of course each and every one of them will be entitled to spend £1 million campaigning for the Labour Party. If they were all to spend the money—I accept that that is a large assumption, but one must work out how Bills can be used—the Labour Party's allowed expenditure would simply double. I call that cheating—pure and simple.
Mr Peter Riddell was kinder. At page 115 of the Neill report, he said:
"Fuller disclosure should reduce the need for limits either on levels of donations or restricting central spending by parties. Overseas experience suggests that such limits can easily be evaded. Labour proposals for a national limit of f15 million on election expenses and of a tenth of this amount for national campaign spending by 'third parties' are open to abuse. Trade unions and other Labour allies could easily funnel money via such 'third parties', circumventing the intended national limit".
Peter Riddell is clearly politer than I am, but my point is made. We shall certainly want to take the Government to task on why they allow their cousins to escape the cap on expenditure for the Labour Party.
I turn from spending money to raising money. At paragraph 10.32 of the Neill report, the same Peter Riddell said:
"the real issue concerns the raising of money rather than its spending".
However, John MacGregor, who was a member of the standards committee, disagreed with his colleagues and took the view that the disclosure of donations, not their spending, is the key. Given the horrendous complications I have mentioned, perhaps we ought to

1099
think carefully about the opinions of two such experienced men as John MacGregor and Peter Riddell.
Turning to donations, what I find surprising about the Neill report appears at the beginning, at paragraph 4.5 on page 45. In a report of this size, page 45 is near the beginning! It states:
"In fact, the suspicions which are entertained concerning large givers are commonly lacking in any justification. We have been given no evidence that leads us to doubt that nearly all give generously either because they support the general aims of the party which they finance or in order to minimise the risk of the opposing party attaining power".
Normally, if there is no evidence, there is no case and there is no need to take remedial action. However, that position appears to be too logical. The report, and subsequently the Bill, propose that all donations over £5,000 should be made public by reporting to the electoral commission and that no donations should be accepted from foreigners. It seems simple, but nothing is ever simple in this Bill.
First, as regards donations, the boundary is set very inelegantly in a double negative of, "not less than £5,000". Why cannot it merely be "greater than £5,000", making £5,000 the limit? If someone wants to sign a cheque for £5,000, he will not have to declare it, but if it is for more than that, he will. That would seem to be a more sensible situation than opening up the old dodge, which we all see when we go shopping, of goods costing £9.99, or £19.99 or £99.99. In this case, it is £4,999.99 and I do not see the logic in it. I believe that £5,000 ought to be the top of the lower limit.
Furthermore, why report during a general election every seven days? Are we really trying to make things as difficult as possible for party and constituency treasurers at the busiest time for them and everyone else? Surely, a report after the election, when the expenditure has to be submitted, is a sufficient check. Why have not the Government accepted Recommendation 39 of the Neill report? That states, at page 99:
"Political parties should be eligible to claim under the tax relief scheme if at the last general election two members of the party were elected to the House of Commons or one member was elected and the party won at least 150,000 votes".
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, told us that the Government did not agree. I was not in the least convinced about why they did not agree. Certainly, the cost of £4 million leaves me quite unmoved. I understand that that is approximately the cost to the taxpayer of the Labour Party supporters who work in departments in Whitehall as political advisers. When my party and other parties ask about that £4 million, we are told that it is "peanuts" in the whole scheme of things. If it is "peanuts" so far as concerns spending on political advisers, may I suggest that it is "peanuts" in this regard, too? If the Government want us to remain with the Neill report, they should jolly well not have cherry-picked it themselves first.
I turn to the matter of the "permissible donor". As usual, that begins simply but ends up as a little minefield. One might have thought that "British
1100
citizens" would be a good place to start; but no. After all, some of them live abroad, many working for British companies and many working in British interests. However, unless they are listed on the register as "overseas voters"—and that will be made more difficult by the Government—they will not be able to donate. Yet, citizens of the Commonwealth and of the EU who are resident here even for a short time can get on to the register and contribute.
Therefore, a Canadian citizen who is resident here for his work can register and donate. Yet, an American in exactly the same position cannot, unless that American stays in America and wants to donate to Sinn Fein/IRA. We all know where some of that money ends up, and it is not only in the democratic process. Yet, under the Bill, that will be all right. It is not all right in my book.
Let us consider the Scottish example. Why should the Irish diaspora be allowed to donate to a party which is deeply mired in violence, but a member of the Scottish diaspora be forbidden from donating to the Scottish National Party, which has never been involved in violence? Although I have no truck with the Scottish National Party's principles, I shall want to know the Minister's answer to that. He will have to work very hard to convince me that his approach is right.
I might be convinced of the Neill recommendation that citizens of the Irish Republic, or, to be logical, people on the register of electors in the Irish Republic, should be allowed to donate. However, I would put two conditions on that: first, they should be allowed to donate to any party in the UK, not only to the parties in Northern Ireland; and, secondly, any donation over the limit should be declared and made public. Otherwise, how will we ever know where the money is coming from and what source is providing those donations?
Lastly, I turn to companies. We start with a simple proposition that shareholders should agree donations. Why the Government feel that they have to legislate is beyond me. Actually, it is not beyond me; I believe that it is called "spite". If shareholders did not want money to go to political parties, they could raise the matter at the annual general meeting and do something about it.
Of course, the simple proposition soon collapses. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will he able to say that I am wrong in my reading of the Bill. A company incorporated in Europe and carrying out business in the UK will be able to give donations without seeking shareholder agreement. Therefore, for example, BMW might decide to give donations to any party (other than the Labour Party after the way that the Government have behaved) and it would not need shareholder permission; yet a British company would. That does not seem logical.
As I have said more than once, the intention of the Bill is to implement a number of simple propositions, most of which it is fairly easy to agree with. However, by the time those simple propositions are translated into the Bill, they become complicated, contradictory, illogical, certainly bureaucratic, and expensive for the

1101
political parties to implement. We shall subject the Bill to intense scrutiny and shall expect proper debate in Committee. We shall expect the Government to attempt to simplify the Bill as we go along so that ordinary folk who are interested in politics can understand what regulatory provisions are being placed on the fundamental freedoms of people in this country. We shall hope also that the Government will act in a non-partisan way in relation to a Bill which, in my view, strikes in parts at the very heart of our democratic process.
3.53 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I was quite looking forward to the Committee stage of this Bill until the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, explained how he planned to handle the schedules to it. Usually, his speeches are sparkling and witty. But the thought of him reading out in detail the schedules makes one think that it will be hard going. However, I agree with something that he said at the end of his speech. The Government may well have been motivated by feelings of "sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander" in terms of making companies justify their party political donations, pretty well as the Conservative government forced through ballots of trade unions. I believe that one of the dangers in approaching this Bill is the idea that, "It is now our turn t D draw up the rules". If that is the case, we shall never obtain the kind of consensus that the Minister called for when he introduced the Bill.
On these Benches we give the Bill a broad welcome and broad support, although we make clear that we believe that it is he beginning of a process rather than the last word on the matter. Of course, there are anomalies which must be cleared up. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on the question of part of the Bill being put in place a year before the general election. Perhaps I may help the noble Lord: I calculated 395 days to the general election. However, I am not sure that that will work for this Bill.
We are dealing with three important areas of politics: how political funds are raised; how they are spent; and how elections and referendums are conducted. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, it is a debate which is as topical as the morning's headlines. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred to the difficulty of filling the post of party treasurer. I believe that we are probably all the poorer without the experience of "Lord Ashcroft of Belize". Perhaps he will join us in time for the Committee stage. If not, perhaps we could persuade the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, to contribute. Both have considerable expertise.
We have always considered one of the specialities of this House to be that around us were dotted Members with particular expertise on the matter under discussion. Before the noble Lord intervenes, I recognise that someone who speaks from the Benches of Lloyd George should not dwell for too long on these matters. I believe that that may have been what he was intending to say.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was simply going to say that I was under the impression that at least one of his colleagues is, or had been, treasurer of his party.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I shall move on quickly! I believe that Sir Edward Heath and, indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said all that has to be said on that matter. However, I recommend to noble Lords the article in today's Guardian by the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley. He is not in his place, but then he rarely is. There is no doubt that there is about the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, the fervour of the born-again radical. Somehow, my complete approval is tempered only by that old Hollywood saying, "I knew Doris Day before she became a virgin"!
The background to the Bill is that it is part of a whole package of reforms. Having read an article by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, in this morning's Times, it is clear that some elements view with disapproval the attempt to bring our politics up to date. However, as the Minister intimated in his remarks, the point is that there was a need to rebuild public confidence in our political system, a need to devolve power from Whitehall and Westminster, and a need to make the systems fairer and reflect more the will of the people. In particular, there was a need to remove the stench of sleaze that had gathered around politics. I believe that today's Bill is part of another building block in that process. In our view, the aim should be to make political funding transparent and accountable. Spending rules should be fair and manageable.
We should not be setting up a system, rather like some elements of our tax laws, where the challenge is how you get around them. We need a system that is going to be obeyed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that to achieve that, the system needs to be simple, understandable and usable by people, many of whom are amateurs. It is not just professional politicians that will make the system work, but thousands and thousands of volunteers. If the system becomes too complicated, it will become extremely difficult.
I can tell your Lordships of my own experience in 1983. I was passing a newspaper stand where the headlines were: "Five candidates to be prosecuted for election malpractice". Having had some experience of these matters I wondered who the fools were who were not able to get their returns in within their expenditure limits. I bought the paper and saw my own name there. The fact is that I had consulted Stockport Town Hall which had given me a figure. I told my voluntary agent that she should return figures accurately and within the figure we received from Stockport Town Hall. Stockport Town Hall had made a mistake. But it was my responsibility, not theirs or even that of my agent. I ended up being interviewed by two policemen from Greater Manchester police about possible election malpractice. The spending limits must be simplified, as the Bill attempts to do, so that volunteers and political innocents, such as myself, do not fall foul of them.

1103
The other problem is that national expenditure was uncontrolled and it overlapped increasingly with local campaigns. It really did not matter how much I spent in Stockport when the work of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, was all over the constituency on national campaign hoardings. Added to that, we now have the massive increase in telephone canvassing, which is very hard to link to any particular constituency. There is an increasing use of the Internet. I am told that at Millbank there is already a special unit gathering Internet names for Internet campaigning. I am sure that the Conservatives have likewise. That kind of new technology campaigning will be difficult to control or account for. Therefore, we must set limits to party fundraising which, once and for all, cuts the umbilical cord between party fundraising and party-political patronage. It offends the general public.
I say that it is not the end of the matter because I think we shall have to return to it. We have said consistently that state funding is the real way to keep politics clean. The sums mentioned in the Bill for the two major political parties are extremely difficult to raise by means that do not involve either organisations or individuals making donations to political parties which imply some influence-buying.
If we are to achieve a political system that is truly clean, we need state funding. There has been a degree of hypocrisy regarding state funding, not least among the parliamentarians. They have consistently resisted state funding for the party outside Parliament, and yet been ever ready to extend state funding to parliamentarians through the Short money and now the Cranborne money. They take it for themselves but do not to see it as a logical extension in relation to this matter.
Short money was introduced because Harold Wilson was determined that not a penny piece of state funding should get to Transport House, which was then under the control of the ever-loyal Mr Wedgwood Benn. Therefore, the Short money scheme was devised. We should try this system of capping and transparency. However, if we really want to clean up our politics, the only way is through a proper system of state funding.
I wish the electoral commission well. I think this is an important innovation. It must be seen to be truly independent. I query what the Minister said as regards the exclusions that he set out. Outside of a Cistercian monastery, I am not sure who he will find who is qualified to sit on the electoral commission. I see some old friends there, but I have never been as dazzled by the independence of the Cross Benches in this place as some people purport to be. I do not believe that political eunuchs are particularly well qualified to take on the particular roles set down for this commission. After all, we have had some fairly good examples in the past of ex-MPs becoming extremely good judges. Furthermore there are those who were active in political parties who have become very good magistrates. The point I make is that being active in party politics should not be a disqualification, as the Minister seemed to be implying, from taking on a role
1104
that requires independence and judgment. I think that that is an unnecessary debarment of extremely worthwhile talent, although I take the point that "cronyism" has to be avoided as well.
I look forward to the debates on how we organise our referendums. I see a few familiar names on the speakers' list today who might be examining this. My own suspicion is that even if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, were allowed to count every vote personally, he would still object to the outcome of some referendums. But I look forward to his speech.
We shall take up a number of matters in Committee. The Minister indicated my party's continuing concern about federalism, and we welcome the constructive attitude he has taken in relation to that. We are still worried about the overall expenditure limits allowed by the Bill, although they are less than the £28 million spent by the Conservatives, the £26 million spent by the Labour Party and the £3 million spent by the Liberal Democrats—that was not mentioned—at the last election. But it is still an enormous amount for the Conservative and the Labour parties to raise. We are also concerned that the by-election campaign expenditure limit has been very high. I return to a point I made earlier, and I believe it was made also by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. We must remember that, particularly in relation to smaller parties, one is dealing with volunteers and with very small organisations. Therefore, we should not impose too rigorous legal requirements upon them. Mention has also been made of the need—and we shall deal with this in Committee—to look at the qualification for overseas voters.
I was interested to hear what the Minister said about exhibition stands at party conferences. From my experience, I have seen a growth of trade fairs around the party conferences which are now major sources of funds for all the political parties. That is something which may need to be looked at so that funds are not dog-legged through large charges for exhibition stands to overcome the other restrictions.
I look forward also to our discussions about third party campaigning. I believe that there are dangers for democracy if we do not look carefully at and perhaps learn something from the American experience of how very well-funded, single-issue pressure groups can distort the electoral process. That needs to be looked at. We must also take on board the points made about the capacity of organisations with an interest in the outcome of a referendum trying to distort the process.
In the end, from these Benches, we welcome the Bill because it takes us in the direction of greater fairness and transparency in relation to both the funding and organisation of political campaigning. It is a beginning, not an end but, as such, we support it.
4.11 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill which I believe will be lively. But I hope that, as in the other place, we can

1105
proceed on a consensual basis and that we do not get so bogged down in the detail that we lose sight of the principle of the Bill.
It seems to me that the Bill is an important milestone in the development of our democratic institutions. It will be the first time that political parties have been subject to statutory regulation. We should offer our congratulations to the Neill committee on its work in making the Bill possible. We should congratulate the Government on following through many of the recommendations of the Neill committee. As most of those recommendations were ones I suggested in my evidence to the Neill committee, I feel particularly strongly about that.
There is a powerful democratic and ethical, as well as constitutional, case for the financial affairs of political parties being open and accountable. A vacuum of legal principle has led to a level of disquiet about the financial affairs of political parties. I hope that this new era of openness, transparency and accountability w ill help to restore the electorate's faith in the political Process. That is a faith which we have tried to uphold historically.
From the early days of universal franchise, it was seen as an essential principle of democracy that economic power should not be able to buy political power: from the passing of the Secret Ballot Act 1872, which protected voters from intimidation, to the introduction of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883. That Act remains the basis of our election law. But it takes into account only the expenses of the candidate and the election agent. That was understandable at the time because political parties barely existed outside the constituency or the parliamentary caucus. But things have changed. There have been dramatic changes in campaigning techniques over the past 120 years. Political parties have become more dominant. There has been much more control from the centre. That created an anomalous situation which has to be rectified by the introduction of a level playing field for national expenditure at general elections. It is a great pity that we have had to wait so long to do that. I shall return later to that point.
It is always gratifying when something for which one has argued and campaigned comes to fruition. The Labour Party was the first political party to promote the case for an independent electoral commission. It is encouraging to see the Conservative Party now converted to that view. It is better late than never. The party was certainly opposed to it in government, and I have the evidence to prove it.
I understand that it is hoped that the electoral commission will be in place before the end of this year. It is crucial that a speedy timetable is adhered to because the work and functions of the commission underpin all that follows. It is the bedrock on which the Bill is based. As there is such general consensus on the establishment of a strong, independent commission, there is no need to argue the case for supporting—at least in principle, if not in detail—Part I of the Bill.
1106
It is important that the commission is seen to be open and transparent. The accountability and regulation applying to the political parties must apply also to the commission. Its independence is crucial to its successful operation.
As the Minister said, the Bill identifies clearly the commission's independence from the government of the day. The arrangements to be followed are those which apply to the National Audit Office, and I do not believe that anyone can say that that is controlled by government. It will be directly accountable to Parliament, and the distinctive machinery for appointing members of the commission and for setting its budget will help to reinforce that independent status.
I have a small problem with absolute independence, as has the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I believe that the commissioners must have a detailed understanding of the reality of running elections locally and running political parties nationally. The commission's many functions rightly cover all aspects of political party and election activity; that requires a real level of expertise, experience and an understanding of the political process. The issue is important because I do not believe that there will be time for a learning curve. The commission's first actions will determine its success for the future.
It has been suggested—and no doubt the claim will be made again today—that the commission could become merely an advisory body or that it will be partisanly packed. That is a complete misinterpretation of the provisions in the Bill in respect of the commission's membership and functions. Representation on the Speaker's Committee, which will oversee the work of the commission, has also been challenged by the suggestion that it will be dominated by senior government appointees. Those seem to me not very valid attempts to challenge the conduct of referendums as proposed in Part VII prior to the referendum on British entry to the European single currency. Of course, we must be concerned that there is independent oversight and monitoring of the conduct of all referendums, not just that one, and that both sides of the argument have a fair opportunity to put their case to the voters. I believe that the Bill adequately meets both of those requirements.
The commission's structure and functions in respect of referendums fully satisfy the views of the Nairne commission, of which I was a member, and provide the necessary guidance on organisational, administrative and procedural matters relating to the holding of a referendum. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I look forward to having discussions about the detailed funding of referendums in Committee and at future stages.
However, I make one point today on the wording of the question, which we discussed in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe. It is essential that the question should be short, easily understood, objective, fair and designed for only two possible answers—"yes" and "no". It should not be multi-optional nor open to alternative meanings. I hope that the commission will advise the Government on that issue.

1107
I make one further point on the role of the commission. It is right that the registration of political parties now comes under its umbrella, even though the Bill was passed only two years ago, and that the process of registration is no longer voluntary. However, I wish that the Bill had gone further. I believe that registered parties should have to prove that they have a membership of a certain level and that they are properly constituted bodies.
The constitutional logic behind public disclosure laws is that political corruption thrives on secret financial gifts. In exercising their vote electors have a legitimate right to know who is financially underwriting the political parties they are being asked to support. The public scrutiny of large donations by permissible donors will give that right, eliminating, as it does, donations from secret sources, blind trusts, foreign donations and loans which suddenly become donations. It is right also that donors should have to be registered electors. I might go further and suggest that they should be resident in the UK.
Donations from institutions must be treated differently from those of large individual donors. Since 1913, trade union funding has been controlled by legislation, added to by further regulation in 1984 and 1993. In 1989, your Lordships' House interestingly passed an amendment to put donations by companies on much the same footing as donations from trade unions. The amendment was rejected in the other place. On this occasion, its Members have finally been persuaded of the unfairness of the current position. However, one aspect of this part of the Bill requires further examination. The subject may be covered by the Minister's reference to exhibitions at conferences. Currently, there is no provision for small-scale sponsorship. While retaining the principle, there could be a case for setting a de minimus limit which would be of benefit both to companies, as the CBI has suggested, and to political parties.
I turn to expenditure. I have a number of queries, although not, I hasten to say, concerning the £20 million maximum limit on national expenditure, which was another of my suggestions to the Neill committee. I wish to probe the requirement in the Bill that political parties nationally declare all expenditure regionally and locally not covered by the current statutory requirements in the RPA as part of the £20 million. It is difficult to understand how that provision will work in practice. Clarification is needed. For instance, what is the position of a national party which may unknowingly exclude from its returns an item of local expenditure which should have been included but could not be because the party knew nothing about it? We need to see how such a situation would be covered. Equally, from my experience of over 40 years as a party organiser, both voluntary and paid, and having spent time in police stations, I believe that Schedule 7, outlining the list of accountable expenses, is too detailed and will be rather difficult to enforce. I am uncertain also how that detailed list will allow the commission to prepare a code of practice as laid down in paragraph 6(1)(a) of the schedule. I hope that the
1108
Minister will agree to further discussions on both those points. They are important for both national and local treasurers.
My main concern, however, relates to there being no provision in the Bill to limit third party expenditure at local level. I was pleased to hear my noble friend say that an amendment is to be made to the Bill to cover that situation. I do not understand why the provision was dropped from the draft Bill, but I am pleased that it is coming back. Without such a provision, third parties would be free to spend as much as they liked in a constituency campaign for or against a candidate. Not only were vast amounts of money spent in the Ayr by-election, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred, but it is reported also that the same source of funding is attempting to spend £1 million on a referendum on Section 28 in Scotland.
It is not the issue that is relevant, but the example illustrates that vast amounts can be spent to influence local opinion. If that money was spent during an election, such action would seriously erode the concept of equity between the parties and corrupt the election process. There is also the whole question of Precious Life in Scotland, now being funded by international donations from all over the world. We cannot say that it should not receive money from all over the world, but we must regulate what it can spend during an election period.
I have one point for clarification on the trade unions. It is not, however, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, based on a rather selective reading of the Neill report. Clause 83(2)(c) cross-referenced with Clause 49(2)(b) implies that trade unions are unincorporated associations. My understanding is that under trade union legislation, they are classified as quasi-incorporated organisations. I do not know whether I am right, but if I am, the definition should be the same. Many points will be raised in Committee, not least the question of whether the formula in relation to overseas voters is right or whether we should be looking for differing views. As I said, I hope that we can go through the Bill on a consensual and friendly basis because it provides the foundations for an open and transparent system of party funding. It provides the foundations for the fairest and most equal elections and the best enforced election campaign regime. The Bill is long overdue and deserves support.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I hope that I may be forgiven if, not for the first time this Session, I beg absence from the end of the debate, because I have a longstanding commitment to entertain the Minister for Justice of the People's Republic of China on his arrival in this country. I daresay that our discussion will not touch upon items of the kind before the House in this legislation.
I speak with great diffidence, particularly at this stage in the debate, speaking immediately before the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and immediately after the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, both of whom have

1109
expertise far beyond my wildest dreams. I cannot plead any such thing, nor can I plead any recent coalface experience, although I can offer some other insights.
My position corresponds in a strategic sense closely to that of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and the noble Lord, Lord McNally; a Scotsman and an Irishman followed by a Welshman, dissenting on the same point. My experience goes back a long way in the sense that as a Law Officer I had to deal with the enforcement of election law in the early 1970s, when we were still quite content to rely upon the 1883 legislation. We had to give consent to prosecutions. They were extremely rare events and I appreciate that the world has moved on since then. I want to speak much more about my experience at the sharp and modest ends of the coalface to which noble Lords have referred; at constituency level. I am concerned that in the strategic sense the scope, intrusiveness and detail of this legislation go beyond what is sensibly manageable.
Although half of my dozen election campaigns were undertaken in the lush comfort of Surrey, the other half-dozen were undertaken in more arduous settings: two in a marginal seat on Merseyside; two in my home seat in South Wales; and two in a different capacity in Poplar. It is with the concept of an accounting unit as set out in Clause 23 as applied to a minimum recordable donation of £200 that I am concerned, particularly with the detail of surveillance contained in the Bill.
It was difficult, even in those unregulated days, to find anyone able or willing to act as treasurer. How much more difficult will it now be when this legislation will be judged not simply by the particular provisions brought to bear on any action, but by the fact that it is contained in a Bill of 180 pages with 19 schedules, one of which is five pages long, listing 75 possible offences, 30 of which are punishable by up to one year in prison? It is that overwhelming, comprehensive set of provisions which will be the worry when the legislation comes to be applied. It will be seen as a serious legislative intrusion into the arteries, and indeed the capillary tubes, of democratic life, at a time when the lifeblood of democracy seems to be coursing ever more slowly and in ever shorter supply. I am deeply concerned about legislation, however well considered, on that scale, passed at such speed. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, talked about the need to get the legislation under way quickly and I understand why that is part of the aspiration, but I am concerned that we place too much faith in the legislative process.
In my evidence to the first meeting of the Nolan committee, presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Nolan, I said:
"My first"—
and most important—
"point, please do not expect too much by way of salvation from detailed legalistic provision … One can too easily be led to think that things have beer rightly done by compliance with a whole series of rules rehearsed by rote, so I think it is very important not to go too far down that road".
1110
I make that point with due modesty because I am not without experience of the disillusionment that follows the enactment of comprehensive and swiftly considered legislation. I plead guilty to introducing prices and incomes legislation; the first Bill on consumer credit; one of the early Bills on the regulation of insurance companies. I also plead guilty to faltering attempts to amend company law which were subsequently taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, and, in the area of industrial relations, to a comprehensive attempt to resolve all our problems at speed, which, even after much consideration, was not wholly successful.
I do not mean to be frivolous by suggesting that in the end the tempo followed, over a series of Parliaments, by my noble friends Lord Prior and Lord Tebbit produced a more durable and a more effective solution and a solution with more consensus than the alternative. But, broadly speaking, consensus now reigns on that.
By all means let us proceed to establish the electoral commission, but I am worried about the possible consequences that may face such a body if it is so overloaded with a burden of obligations to be performed at high speed that they may be incapable of being fulfilled. Once again, we have the experience of similar situations in relation to the Passport Agency, asylum seekers or the Criminal Cases Review Body. In relation to each of those, quite suddenly huge waiting lists appeared and there were inadequate resources with which to deal with them.
I hesitate to quote again from a learned judge who was quoted only a week or two ago by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but he deserves to be quoted. In 1944 Judge Learned Hand of the United States said in Central Park in New York:
"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts".
He said that a society that needs a court to save it "no court can save".
It is not because, as a lawyer, I shrink from reliance on the law where it is appropriate, but I believe that in some important matters it is best to make progress by agreements outside the law, agreements of a self-policing kind. In the 1920s a Liberal Peer, Lord Moulton, said:
"There are three great domains of human conduct. The first is where our actions are limited or forbidden by law. Then there is the domain of free personal choice. But between these two is a third domain, that in which there is neither law nor unfettered freedom. This is the domain of 'obedience to the unenforceable', where people do right although there is no one and nothing to make them do right but themselves".
I may be naive to quote that, but I believe that that thought is worth bearing in mind, as we develop regulation of a kind that is necessary in an extremely sensitive area.
I offer two reasons for being so naïve. The first is that our past experience often leads us to conclude that even without detailed legislative interference the truth will out. As some lawyers say, "even in an affidavit, the truth will out". The fact is that the circumstances surrounding contributions to my own party by Mr Asil Nadir and those to the Labour Party by Mr Bernie

1111
Eccleston saw the light of day in advance of and without the need for legislation. The parties themselves then changed the rules so as to deal with the problem.
In a wider area, on the regulation of advertising by tobacco companies—the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, will be glad to hear—I found it difficult to explain this to his friend Mr Jacques Delors. We have been able, in this country, to regulate advertising of that kind without any legislation, but by a code drawn up between the parties that may or may not subsequently need legislation. Self-policing of the right kind can often be as effective because we are capable of developing, even in political parties, a sense of guilt.
That is what concerns me in this legislation. In truth the concern, the sour taste in our mouth, as the Minister said, does not arise because of our fear of corrupt wickedness on the part of the treasurer of the Birkenhead Conservative Association, or the Poplar Labour Party. Dismay and shock are not caused by donations of £200 from people at that level. I regret that the real concern is much more often at a higher level. Whether the concern is justified, the concern about the treasurer of our own party has caused concern among the former leaders of my party in both Houses. So it cannot be dismissed as mere triviality. It is related to these issues.
Similarly, there is the recent accession to membership of this House of a group of supporters of the Labour Party. No doubt they too have many achievements to their credit, but the one qualification that the public perceive of that self-serving mass baptism is the scale of the substantial donations made by many of them—although not all—to the Labour Party.
This huge legislative mountain—I wish my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and his colleagues well as they plough their way through it in Committee—may well suffer from over-intrusiveness, over-prescription and over-detail, and, I add from bitter experience, from the inclusion of errors and mistakes, particularly if it is driven through the House at speed. To deal with the matter in that way adds little credit to our legislative process.
That is my main concern. What could be an alternative approach to some aspects of this? I mention two points. First, I am not sure that we are right, as the Bill provides, to concentrate so much on the regulatory process of expenditure as a whole. Are there not other ways of limiting the demand for political money as well as doing so in the aggregate sense? In this country, by prohibiting paid-for advertising and propaganda on broadcasts on television or radio, we have already achieved what our American friends have not. We do not have to face that huge level of expenditure, but the Americans do. Is it unthinkable that we should adopt a similar approach to the strident, sight-bite, oversimplification of posters and newspaper advertising? That is not much more sophisticated than some of the sound-bites that one hears on American broadcasting channels. Advertising of that kind on posters and on
1112
campaigns cost 50 per cent of the money spent by my party at the previous election and a little over 40 per cent of the money spent by the Labour Party.
My second proposal which does deserve support, sadly the one proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and his colleagues that has so far been rejected, is for tax relief for political donations. At a time when the Chancellor is liberalising the provision of tax relief for charitable donations, which is to be respected, the concept of doing the same for £4 million in relation to political donations seems to me to be entirely attractive and cannot be dismissed on budgetary grounds.
Perhaps I am revealing a previously undisclosed secret, but one surprise that met me when making out my first Budget was that the size of the public sector borrowing requirement had to be measured to the nearest £0.25 billion. In that context I do not believe that £4 million, or even £5 million or £6 million, would be too much to begrudge.
Those are my two positive points: consider the prohibition of poster advertising and newspaper advertising; accept the recommendation of the Neill commission for tax-free charitable contributions; and reflect seriously on whether the other detailed and intrusive provisions to which I have referred will encourage or discourage participation in the political process at a time when we badly need it. Is it really necessary, even in today's sour atmosphere—as the Minister said—to proceed on the assumption that the mischief that this legislation is aimed at is to be found among the foot soldiers of the democratic process at constituency level? The commission, and I hope the House, if it gets that far, will consider carefully whether these ever-forward-rolling frontiers of legislation may not be restrained. We can learn more by proceeding step by step.

Rover
4.39 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat, in the form of a Statement, the Answer to a Private Notice Question given by my right honourable friend Mr Stephen Byers, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place. The Answer is as follows:
"There are thousands of individuals and their families who have been affected by the decision taken by BMW in relation to Rover. Whole communities will also have to deal with the consequences. It is these individuals, their families and communities, that are the focus of our efforts.
"On 16th March, BMW's Supervisory Board announced that it had entered into an agreement with Alchemy Partners to negotiate for the disposal of Rover cars within six weeks. The following day it announced that the heads of agreements had been reached with Ford for the sale of Land Rover at Solihull. On the same day I established a task force

1113
involving all the partners in the areas most affected by BMW's decision to advise me on how we can support those affected.
"This task force is led by Alex Stevenson, who himself has personal experience as a former Rover director. The Longbridge Task Force has three objectives: first, to assess the impact of any reduction in activity at Longbridge on the people, businesses and communities of the region; secondly, to advise on the public and private resources that are already avail able to help to deal with these consequences, and, thirdly, to draw up proposals for action by local partners and by central government.
"The task force is working hard on an interim report to be submitted in the next three weeks. I have asked the task force to take a wide remit, looking at what measures it will best use to regenerate the area and replace economic activities lost at Rover. I have committed —129 million to support the recommendations of the task force. It is looking at everything, including the implications to the supply chain and what we can do to support it; at training; and at infrastructure, including transport links. The task force has already issued a questionnaire to 5,000 companies, including 450 direct suppliers of Rover, to quantify the scale of impact on the supply chain. It will feed its recommendations in to me.
"At this stage, I am not ruling anything out. I shall await the report. I can, however, say that I will do everything I can to encourage job creation and economic activity in the area, not only stepping up my department's action on attracting new inward investment to the area, but also by supporting the development and growth of homegrown companies.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has taken action to help those affected by any redundancies at Longbridge. The Employment Service has established a unit to offer help and assistance. A job shop is in place at Longbridge to help those workers affected by any job losses. Anyone made redundant at Longbridge will qualify for fast-tracking of benefit claims, early access to training, and employment service programmes such as New Deals, and job finder services.
"The task force, with the job shop, has launched a freephone advice hotline supported by BT to advise supply chain companies with difficulties and to pool information on vacancies presently available in the car industry. The local training and enterprise council is also looking at specific training to meet the needs of those affected.
"On 23rd March, I met with BMW. We agreed that we now need to look forward and plan ahead for the future. During our discussions BMW agreed to minimise the losses of jobs as the result of its decision. I explained to BMW that we felt it was important that it should co-operate with the task force; BMW responded positively to this proposal.
1114
"Over the next few weeks our objective is to manage the changes that will flow from BMW's decisions in a way which minimises the number of jobs to be lost, whether directly or indirectly, in the supply chain or dealership network. We will also need to put in place a programme of economic regeneration and job creation.
"When I met workers on the assembly line at Longbridge the day after BMW's decision, their anger and shock was clear, but so was their commitment and strength of character. The West Midlands has overcome some difficult times in the past. I am confident that it will do so again. On behalf of the Government, I can say that we will do all we can to ensure that together we can meet the challenges that lie ahead".
My Lords, that concludes the Answer.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating as a Statement the Answer previously given in the other place. I speak as one who, when I became a Member of your Lordships' House, bought a Rover as I felt that it was appropriate that I should own a British car, to find only a few weeks later that Rover had become part of BMW. Now we find that a reputable British marque is—not to put too fine a point on it—being discarded, with the tragic results of losses of jobs for thousands working at Rover, as well as for those working in the component industries.
We naturally welcome the creation of a task force to review the consequences of the sale of Rover, but would it not have been more effective if such contingency work could have been set in hand last December when the threat to Longbridge first became clear to the DTI? Or do the Government claim that Ministers were never aware that there were problems at Longbridge—something that would be quite extraordinary on their part? If they were aware, will the Minister tell the House when Ministers first concluded that Rover/BMW as a whole might be in some difficulties?
If, as the DTI claims, Dr Milberg said last December that difficulties only surrounded investment in the R30 car, did the DTI step up its efforts at that point to secure the grant which might have saved this part of the project? If so, when, and how?
I understand that, several weeks ago, the German magazine Der Spiegel carried an article that BMW itself was in difficulty, solely because of Rover, and that it was contemplating ditching it. If that is the case, can the Minister say whether we employ a commercial attaché in Germany? Would not part of his duties be to inform the Government in this country of those matters? Would not the most sensible course now be to allow the Permanent Secretary at the DTI to publish the minutes of the discussions, including notes of telephone calls between Ministers and BMW, in order to clarify this matter? We could then dispose of all these claims and counter-claims.

1115
The future of many thousands of jobs is now at stake. That, as the Statement quite rightly says, must be the matter that is uppermost in all our minds. There has been much blaming of BMW, but does the Minister agree that jobs in British industry will not be saved by vilifying foreign investors, given that inward investment is hard enough at this time because of the weakness of the euro?
Can the Minister tell the House what is being done to secure an alternative buyer to Alchemy for the Rover plant? Can he also tell us the latest state of play as regards the sale of Land Rover to Ford? Finally, will he undertake to come to the House and to allow a debate in government time when the report of the task force that he has just announced is received?
4.47 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, like the noble Baroness I, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating this Answer as a Statement. I believe that this is the first time that Government Ministers have made a Statement on developments at Rover. For that reason, I shall be grateful if he will use this opportunity to answer one or two questions covering wider areas than those set out in the Statement.
First, will the Minister confirm the Government's opposition to the expressions of xenophobia, and in particular the anti-German feelings, with which this debate has been conducted in certain sectors of the press? Will he further confirm that the Government have no part in that view and that a country that is obviously so dependent on foreign investment must condemn views of that kind whenever they are expressed and by whomever they are expressed?
Can the Minister also take this opportunity to agree with me that the approach taken by the Tory Opposition to the issue, which has been demonstrated by the words of the noble Baroness this afternoon, does no service to the employees of Rover, in particular those at Longbridge? A kind of, "Who said what to whom and when?" amateur detective story approach tends to mask the seriousness of the issues that are at stake here. One does not have to be a "Brain of Britain" or even a winner on "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" to realise that a company that has been losing over £1 billion—as BMW was losing on its UK investment in Rover—must at all times consider the future of that investment?
Furthermore, it is also apparent to anybody who has been involved in these issues that until a final decision is taken by the management of a particular company, it will always say that no decision has been taken. Indeed, perhaps the Minister will confirm that as late as the end of February the top management of BMW was saying at the Geneva Motor Show that it had absolutely no intention whatsoever of closing down Rover or withdrawing its investment from that company. So will the Minister please confirm that the line which is being taken by the Tory Opposition is an irrelevance to the real issue?
1116
Also, will the Minister confirm that the real problem, as the Labour Party and the Government will not say and the Tories cannot say, regarding what has happened at Rover, is that our currency has for far too long been significantly overvalued against the continental currencies? Honda has said it this week; Ford has said it this week, as have representatives of the CBI. It will not come as a surprise to your Lordships' House that we from these Benches would regard the only significant solution to such a problem recurring—indeed, had the appropriate steps been taken earlier perhaps this could have been avoided—is entry into the euro at the appropriate exchange rate. Will the Government now accept that the only way of preventing catastrophes of this nature is for them now to give a clear route map to entry into the single currency, and not something of the micro proportions which the Treasury is now putting in place? Can they give a clear announcement of a clear plan, which will obviously include the whole process of entry into the single currency, including how the currency will be managed "down" during that period?
I said that the Labour Government will not say that this is the real background to the Longbridge tragedy. Does the Minister accept that the Tories cannot say it, because of course they regard the euro debate as the issue that will win them next election? Finally, will the Minister go so far as to say that when the Leader of the Opposition travels around the country on the back of a lorry, whipping up opposition to the euro, he is playing with the livelihood of the workers of Longbridge?
4.51 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, having listened to the debate in another place on this PNQ, perhaps I may say that I am grateful to noble Lords opposite at the very least for the reduction in decibels on this occasion and in this House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, says that the Rover marque, of which she is a loyal adherent, or has become a loyal adherent since coming to this House, has been discarded. However, the R75 is still being made in Cowley and other Rovers are still being made in this country. I have to say that BMW is a significant player in the British motor industry, and its continued contribution to that industry should not be undervalued.
The noble Baroness repeats the canard that in December we were told that there was a threat to Longbridge. She clearly did not listen to my right honourable friend when he quoted Professor Milberg precisely. He said:
"I never said that the BMW group would have to reconsider investment at Longbridge".
Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, has reminded us, Professor Milberg said at the Geneva Motor Show on the 28th February that they were—and I quote:
"serious and steadfast in our commitment to Rover at Longbridge".
So the suggestion that is being made—that we were aware of a threat to Longbridge which was positively being denied by BMW and that we should disbelieve

1117
it—is not particularly plausible. Indeed, I agree with the noble Lord Lord Razzall, that there is not much to be gained from this sort of amateur detective work on what has happened in the past.
Nevertheless, the Secretary of State has made it clear that, subject to commercial confidentiality, which in very large part depends on how much BMW is willing for him to say, he will make available to the Trade and Industry Select Committee all the documents that he can, not just when he meets the committee on Wednesday, but before then. Our commitment to open government in this respect is unimpaired.
The noble Baroness asked whether we should not have stepped up our efforts to secure the grant from the European Commission. Yes, it has been a problem that when you t se the Article 88(2) procedure it takes a long time to get the grants. That is because the European Commission is now open: it seeks to make its thinking known to allow for possible objections. However, we are assured by BMW that this was not a significant issue in its decision.
The noble Baroness also asked whether we would stop vilifying foreign investors. We never started. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, is quite right: we have always rejected any suggestion that we should indulge in the kind of xenophobia which regrettably has been seen in some of the tabloid press in recent weeks in this country. It is not in our interests, in the automobile industry or anywhere else, to attack those who invest in this country. It is in our interests to see that such investment is well justified and that other people are encouraged to come and invest in this country as a result.
The noble Baroness asked whether there was any alternative to Alchemy. We do not intend to undermine Alchemy at this time. That is the deal which is being discussed with BMW and we do not propose to intervene. Se far as Ford and Land Rover are concerned, I understand that a memorandum of understanding has been produced and I am not aware of any setback in the negotiations.
As to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, about the overvaluation of the currency, we have always recognised that for manufacturing industry in general the strength of the pound in relation to the euro is a difficult problem. However, we simply cannot accept that using the magic wand of declaring entry into the euro straightaway would somehow resolve these problems so that the currency would go down and our interest rates would converge with those in euroland. It is a very nice thought and it would be lovely if it were true, but I do not think that any serious economist thinks that is the case.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, if I may intervene, I did not actually say that. I did not say that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord suggested flat what has happened is due to our failure to do what his party has been arguing for over a long period, which is to make an immediate commitment to the euro, regardless of economic
1118
circumstances. Perhaps he has not said it on this occasion, but I can assure him that members of his party from the Benches from which he speaks have made that suggestion on many occasions in recent weeks; I have been required to answer them. I can assure him that that is their view, but I do not believe that there is any magic wand or any "quick fix" of that kind which is available.
The noble Baroness asked whether it would be possible to find government time for a debate on this issue. That, as she knows, is a matter for the usual channels.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, first, will the Minister appreciate that I have no wish to vilify foreign investors, but what bothers me is the fact that 22 miles away from Longbridge, at Ryton outside Coventry, Peugeot, the French company, is making a huge success of its operation. What is more, it is drawing from roughly the same labour pool. Have the Government considered this issue from that point of view?
Secondly, I should like to ask the Minister whether any consideration has been given by the Government to taking the Rover concern into public ownership.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in relation to my noble friend's first question, we are glad to recognise the success of Peugeot and its 206 line at Ryton. We are pleased that that particular foreign investment is going well. In response to my noble friend's second question, I saw the Socialist Worker-inspired posters at the demonstration—a marvellous, clearly well-supported and deeply-felt demonstration for which I have nothing but admiration. But when the Socialist Worker takes it into its head to demand re-nationalisation of Rover, does it carry with it the obligation on ordinary people in this country to buy Rover cars?
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the Nissan project team arrived in this country some years ago, it took a conscious decision that if it decided to invest in the United Kingdom it would not do so on a site within travel-to-work distance of any British car company? Is the Minister aware therefore that the plant was staffed overwhelmingly by ex-miners and not ex-car workers? Does the Minister further accept that the productivity today of Nissan is some 300 per cent in excess of that of much of the British motor car industry? The idea that this is a question of the strength of sterling and entry into the single currency is grotesque. Does not the Minister accept that the real problem is massive over-capacity in the European car industry which successive governments in many countries have tried to meet with massive state subsidies and achieved nothing other than to prolong the agony?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, appeared to be approaching his

1119
first question rather obliquely, but I suspect that he was saying that British car workers are no good and one could do better employing ex-miners.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I was saying nothing of the sort. British workers and British managers made Nissan in the UK the success it is. I am simply saying that the problems of Longbridge go back a long way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord is saying about the workers at Longbridge. Only to a very minor extent is productivity in the motor industry the reflection of militancy many years ago. Productivity in the motor industry is largely an issue of capital and management. Given the right management and the right capital, I am convinced that the workers at Longbridge are the equal of any in the world and that they continue to convince the world of that. I would not wish anything to be said from this Dispatch Box disparaging the workers at Longbridge.
In relation to the broader issue raised by the noble Lord of over-capacity in the car industry, that is the nature of capitalist production. When there is a threat of over-capacity we have to make better cars and sell them better. That is the solution not just for Rover and BMW, but for all car manufacturers.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former employee of the British Motor Corporation and also a minor pensioner of the Rover Group. The Minister opened with the statement that houses, people and whole communities will be affected. The grief that will arise from this situation is significant and I hope that your Lordships' House will not bat such words as "xenophobia" and so forth across the Chamber.
I want to ask the Minister two questions. I believe that sums of money were committed to the Rover plant at Longbridge, though they have not yet been paid over. In order to get something out of this wreck and as a lesson for the future, if government money is likely to be committed to a project, should not a working party be set up between the members of the company and people from the DTI? An ongoing investigation could therefore take place into what is happening in the plant. If some of our senior civil servants who are well skilled in getting to the bottom of these problems had been involved with people from BWM, perhaps the shock would not have been so severe and some action might have been taken.
Further, does the Minister have any firm views as to how the Government will help with the dealership network? That is in total disarray. People are talking about Alchemy buying the site and continuing some production, but the dealer network is in a serious condition and the ripples from Longbridge are spreading throughout the country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked, first, about government money. It is true that a total of
1120
£152 million was to be made available to Longbridge, of which £129 was government money. The rest was to be raised locally. As the Statement says, that money is to be made available to the task force to deal not just with the social problems in the community, to which she rightly referred, but also any prospects there may be of reviving or continuing car manufacture at Longbridge. It cannot be assumed that it is available to Alchemy because that is now a separate deal.
The noble Baroness asked also whether a working party should be set up to bring together the company and the DTI. That is exactly what the task force is doing. Because BMW agreed to participate in the work of the task force, that company is now involved. Central and local government and agencies in the area are also involved. So the task force is doing what the noble Baroness asks us to do, and more.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, my point was that it should have been done beforehand. Doing it now is rather like shutting the stable door.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I indicated the extent to which, only one month ago, BMW was indicating its steadfast commitment to Rover production at Longbridge.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, having seen the concern about their jobs of the 80,000 people in Birmingham on Saturday, I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that Alchemy, a venture capitalist with a short-term interest, is not the right company to be taking over at Longbridge. Can he say what the Government are doing to find someone more suitable to take over the factory and preserve jobs?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my understanding was that the figure was 100,000 and not 80,000 people, and all credit to them. It was clearly a magnificent demonstration of solidarity. But it would not be appropriate for this Government to undermine the deal which is in negotiation between Rover and Alchemy, or to describe Alchemy in particularly pejorative terms. If it can be made to work and Alchemy intend to preserve jobs and car manufacture, that may be better than nothing. At the moment, that is what is on the table.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the general public will welcome his statement that there is to be no nationalisation of Rover or any other car manufacturer, particularly in view of the taxpayers' experience with British Leyland? Secondly, the general public will be pleased to hear the Minister say that the introduction of the euro is irrelevant in relation to this problem. However, perhaps I can go back to December of last year when pointers were given to the Government. If action had been taken then, contingency plans could have been started in December rather than in March when the

1121
final decision was made. That is what is confusing the public. If BMW is not telling the truth, why cannot we do something about it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clark, puts words into my mouth which I did not use. I said that nationalisation of Rover was not a possibility. However, that is not to say that public ownership in itself is always to be deplored. The second point that the noble Lord made is just plain wrong. I did not say that the euro was irrelevant; indeed, Professor Samann himself said that it would have been easier for BMW if we had already been in the euro. You cannot say that it is irrelevant. What I rejected was the rather "quick fix" proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. As to the pointers in December that the noble Lord, Lord Clark, refers to, I have already quoted the statement of Professor Milberg which gives the lie to what the noble Lord, Lord Clark, says. I have nothing further to say on that matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is not xenophobia to criticise a foreign firm which failed properly to consult its workers about an action which was a calamity for them and their families and, indeed, the area in which they live? Will my noble friend confirm that the firm did not make proper use of the consultative council machinery which was available to it? I hope that my noble friend will agree that it is not xenophobia to criticise a firm for not doing what it properly should have done. Will be also confirm that it is not the appreciation of the pound against the euro which is at stake, but the depreciation of the euro against the pound? Perhaps he will ask the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, whether he would go into the euro now at the rate of 3.20 marks, because we would not be able to devalue and we would be left with the present exchange rate. Finally, will my noble friend say what is the total number of jobs that are at stake as a result of the action that BMW has t taken, both in the car industry itself and in associated industries?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend protests too much about xenophobia. I have not used that word except in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, when I denied that we were xenophobic about the foreign car industry. We are disappointed about what has happened. The Secretary of State said in another place an hour or so ago that we were badly let down by the lack of consultation and the speed with which BMW came to its decision. That is not xenophobia. My noble friend asks me to ask questions of the Liberal Front Bench. I shall not ask questions of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, any more than the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, will persuade me to ask questions of the Conservative Front Bench. I am not in that business; I am here to do my best to answer questions, not to ask them. My noble friend asked me about the definitive number of jobs that are likely to go. This process is by no means complete. Even if it were complete, I prefer to rely on the ongoing work of the task force to discover the scale of the problem as well as to make suggestions for solving it.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, made the good point that if there had been earlier liaison between civil servants and BMW the problem would have showed itself perhaps last year. The civil servants would surely have had to inform the Minister—in fact, the Minister did not know this—that there were 60,000, 70,000 or 80,000 Rovers parked around Britain which were not saleable. That surely must have been a red light to the Government to take earlier action than they did.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course civil servants have been in discussion with Rover and they have reported to Ministers the results of their discussions. Among the issues discussed has been the question of the application for European authorisation for funding for Longbridge. But in the face of the clear statements from BMW both in December and in January of its continued commitment, it is difficult to see how we could have said, "We think you are liars".
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I think my noble friend will agree that BMW is not blameless in this matter but there is here a fundamental problem of the misalignment of the pound with the European euro or European currencies. That situation exists and we cannot just ignore it. Whether it is because the euro is too low, as my noble friend Lord Stoddart suggested, or whether sterling is too high, is in a sense irrelevant. Certainly we cannot just join now at 2.20 marks. To do so would be ridiculous. We would bankrupt the whole of our manufacturing industry.
I put it to my noble friend in the form of a legitimate question that this clearly is not just a matter of BMW. We have Honda at Swindon—which I thought my noble friend would refer to—announcing lay-offs. Are we really to preside over the collapse of Dagenham as well? Something has to be done. If my noble friend agrees that there is a serious misalignment of currency, he must do something to operate through the Chancellor and the Bank of England on the exchange rate. Either he must sell forward and manipulate sterling, or he must give the Bank of England different terms of reference other than internal price stability.
When we think that since the Germans bought Rover in 1995 there has been the largest appreciation—30 per cent—of the pound, are we surprised that they are in great difficulties? They bought Rover when it was losing £150 million a year; last year it was losing £750 million a year. That is not because of lack of productivity in the workforce; they have improved productivity every year. However, not only are we losing our exports, but imports are undercutting demand for our own cars in Britain. Something has to be done.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend makes particular reference to Honda and to Ford at Dagenham. He really must not believe the scare stories in the Sun about Honda at Swindon. Honda has not made an announcement of job losses at Swindon. It has said that, having produced something

1123
like 25,000 to 30,000 below its 150,000 capacity, it proposes to reduce production by another 4,000 or 5,000 vehicles a year as a short-term measure. That is a far cry from what some newspapers have reported. Dagenham is not European-owned. Eurosceptics have insisted, with some justification, that the pound is not as strong against the dollar as it is against the euro. It is no good my noble friend simply saying that something must be done. We had a sensible two-and-a-half hour debate on this subject last week which I recommend my noble friend should read. Otherwise, it is simply like the Duke of York visiting the Welsh valleys; that does not contribute to political debate.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what meetings have taken place between the dealerships and the Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, any detail which it is possible for the Secretary of State to give within the bounds of commercial confidentiality in advance of and at his meeting with the Trade and Industry Select Committee will be made public. However, it is not for me to do that now.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
5.18 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I take the House back to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. I have an interest to declare in that I had the honour to be the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life which produced the report we are discussing. My interest is to see that a Bill which carries into effect the recommendations of our report goes on to the statute book.
It is a little intimidating to have so many members of my committee present, two of whom will speak after me and, no doubt, correct me. I refer to them in batting order: my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I also see in the Chamber the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. So four out of the 10 members of the committee are present today.
I propose to follow the injunction of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for brevity certainly and, I hope, clarity. My colleagues and I have written at considerable length in the report what we believe needs to be done. In the debate on the Queen's Speech on 24th November last year, I spoke in general terms on this matter, welcoming the fact that the Bill was to be introduced and giving a little of the background to the work that the committee had undertaken. I shall refer briefly to that in a moment.
Three general reflections have occurred to me on thinking about the debate. The first reflection is to remind your Lordships of the background. The committee of which I became chairman was about the
1124
fifth committee to have under consideration the topic of the funding of political parties. The Houghton committee was the first, some 24 years ago in 1976. That committee divided on party lines and nothing followed. There was then a Home Affairs Select Committee of another place in 1994, which met with a similar fate. In the mean time, there had been efforts by the Hansard Society. The only general reflection one draws from this is that it may on occasions be an advantage, in considering what is, in a sense, a highly political issue, to have the matter considered by an independent committee which is not in itself political. As your Lordships are aware, we had one member of each of the three major parties nominated to serve on the committee. They do not serve as spokesmen on the committee, but they have a great importance for the rest of the committee in telling us how the world works. That is one reflection.
Another general reflection—I do not think that this point has been made today—is that great efforts will now be made in the House to perfect and to produce an excellent Bill.
In addition, a change in the political climate and in the climate of thought is required. We do not need to look very far overseas to come across one or more countries which have on their statute books some excellent statutes which provide for the control and regulation of party funding. Those statutes are useless unless there is a general will to comply with their provisions. The only provision in the past of which we have any evidence that there has been some disregard is concerned with by-elections. There was evidence before the committee that in by-elections there was, as it was put by some witnesses, almost a conspiracy between the political parties not to report one another, even though there was some fairly blatant overspending. We shall have a series of extremely detailed rules backed by criminal sanctions, but it is essential that it should become unthinkable for any political party to want to cheat on the rules.
My third general reflection concerns the question of public perception. In our work, my committee is constantly made aware that it is not enough for an institution or for a set of rules to be extremely good; we need to be aware of what the public think is happening on the ground. That was particularly relevant when we came to one of our main points, that there should be disclosure of the sources which give money to political parties. We encountered a great deal of public cynicism about such sources. The argument ran that people do not give large sums of money unless there is something in it for them. So we tried to come up with recommendations that had very much in mind the way in which ordinary people, the voters, will think of the system once it is up and running.
If I were asked to summarise the key points in our report, I would say that there are only about five. First, we were very firm that there should be no state funding. We do not want that here. We visited at least one country where there was a large element of state funding and we did not particularly like what we saw.

1125
I have already made the second point: for transparency of the sources from which money comes. We thought that that was of prime importance. Any gifts above £5,000 should be publicly declared.
Thirdly, we were against foreign money. We thought that support for political parties in this country should come from people who have an interest and stake here, who are present in this country and entitled to vote here.
The fourth key provision or guiding principle was a limitation on the "arms race", which was referred to earlier. We saw that particularly well demonstrated in our visit to the United States, where we saw a great deal of evidence of that. In that context, perhaps I should mention the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, when he talked about the ban that we currently enjoy here on radio and television advertising. I am not sure that the House fully appreciates just how important and valuable that control is. The human rights convention has been mentioned today: supposing in some nightmare scenario a case was to go to the courts in this country, and ultimately to Strasbourg, in which it was ruled that it was contrary t o the freedom of speech principle in the convention for us to have that control. Enormous pressure would then build up for additional funds, way above the £20 million cap that we recommend. The evidence in America was that approximately 80 per cent of the money raised by political parties is spent on short bursts of television and radio advertising, mainly of the negative kind—that is, not advocating a policy but denigrating the particular individual on the other side. That is a route down which we do not wish to go.
My fifth point is that we thought it essential that there should be a body to supervise this new system—an electoral commission. There was some hostility initially in some quarters to that idea, but we did not see how the system could work without it. Having mentioned the electoral commission, perhaps I may add a footnote, again in line with the observation of my noble and learned friend. I am a little worried about overloading the electoral commission, particularly in the early days. There is a reference in Clause 12 to an educational role. In a perfect world, one might say that we should have a commission and that one of its duties should be to inculcate the sound principles of democracy. But that is not wholly compatible alongside the administrative duties, which should be its prime role, of ensuring that the system is up and running and that there is no cheating. That is quite different from going around schools, universities and debating societies and advocating the merits of the system we have in place. I have a concern that too much will be put on the commission—especially with boundary commission responsibilities thrust upon it as well—and that the hard core of what we wanted to do will, in a way, be diluted.
I shall not detain your Lordships' House much longer, but I want to make one or two other points. As regards referendums, interestingly, when we began our work we did not start out thinking that that was a topic that would concern us; but as we went around collecting evidence, it suddenly became apparent that
1126
we could not tackle the question of the funding of political parties without considering this new instrument of democratic decision making—the referendum—and so we were drawn into it. We had some particularly interesting evidence. We travelled around the country—to Cardiff, to Edinburgh and to Belfast—and we had very recent evidence of how the system had been working.
The most striking case, which has been most commonly cited—I mentioned it myself on the last occasion—was the experience in Wales which concerned the last minute actions of a couple of people. A lady had no money at all, but she borrowed £5,000 from her bank; she managed to get in touch with the son of a wealthy man, who himself had some money. Between them, they put together some £100,000—about 10 per cent of what the other side had—and they began to campaign about a fortnight before the vote. We all remember how close that vote was. It seemed to us self-evident that it is absurd to consult the general population and seek its views on an issue unless there is a machinery in place to ensure a clear statement of the arguments from each side.
They do it differently in Dublin. They have a rather ingenious way of doing it there. They have a body—a referendum commission—which issues a statement giving the best case on each side. We are not proposing to do that here. But one has to have fairness and one must make the playing field as level as possible.
We enunciated the principle that the Government should not spend state money on advocating a particular result in a referendum. In the end, although initially doubtful about it, the Government acceded to that proposition. There will be a period of one month, or 28 days, prior to the referendum when that principle will be observed. My committee thought about that and in the end accepted it as a reasonable "win" for our proposition, although of course it does not go quite the whole way.
Where we are, and remain, unhappy—I wrote to the Minister about it—is on the issue of tax relief, which has been mentioned today. We thought that there was a danger with our proposals in the sense that some large givers would be deterred; and that some people who for reasons good or bad—some possibly very good—would not want their names publicly to be attached to a large gift. Therefore, we thought that a policy of encouraging the maximum number of small gifts should actively by adopted. The proposal was that gifts up to £500 should carry tax relief in order to encourage small people who would like to support political parties to give. We were not intending any bonanza for the wealthy, whereby one could give £500,000 and the state would have to cough up the balance. The overall cost would be minuscule in the scale of what we are talking about. We recommended also some Short money increases and so on—£2 million or £3 million has gone in that direction. It would have been a good thing to encourage democratic support for the political parties by making that concession. I am sorry that it has not proved possible for that to be done.

1127
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has drawn attention to a large number of points of detail on the Bill. We did not draft the Bill. We drafted the ideas which lie behind it. I hope that I shall be forgiven for not following the noble Lord down his ingenious route in looking at possible defects in various clauses. I commend the Bill in principle to the House and hope that it will finally be enacted.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Neill. I particularly agreed with one of the final points he made about the attractions of tax relief. It is a great pity that the Government have not thought fit to include that kind of provision in the Bill.
I have always taken the greatest pride in the British electoral system as it stands today—principally when I visit the United States. I have had the great honour of being the secretary of the British-American Parliamentary Group for the past 13 years. Hence I go quite often to meet members of the House of Representatives or the Senate. I am always overwhelmed by their envy of two particular parts of the British electoral system. The first is that we have only a three week campaign and very tight spending limits. The length of time that potential United States politicians have to spend on the road trying to get elected is quite horrific. I remember going to West Virginia and spending a day with Senator, as he now is, J Rockefeller when he was trying in 1972 for the first time to become the Governor of West Virginia. I remember his wife saying rather despairingly that they had already been on the road for a year and there was still two months to go until the election. In fact, he failed to win that time and he did not become Governor of West Virginia until the next election four years later, so I suppose that they had to spend another 18 months on the road. That does not seem to be a good system.
The second great advantage we have—I come back now to points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Neill—is that it is in this country held to be illegal to buy air time on either television or radio. Again, so many politicians in the United States have told me how they would welcome with open arms, although I do not suppose that the owners of the media companies would welcome it, a change in the law to make it impossible for those in the United States to buy air time.
When we are changing our system of elections, as we are in the Bill, I judge it primarily in terms of whether we maintain fully those advantages with regard to a short campaign, tight spending limits and the fact that in this country we cannot buy air time on television or radio. Above all, we must ensure that there is no possibility that in an election or referendum in Britain either parties or individuals can hire air time. In the United States they would love to ban it. However, as I understand the position—the noble Lord, Lord Neill, skirted around this point—it is very likely that that
1128
would be held to be illegal under the constitution, which says that there should be freedom of speech. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be a tragedy if a human rights court somewhere, perhaps beyond these shores, ruled that in Britain we too must allow our politicians, in the interests of free speech, to be able to buy air time.
The allocation in our three-week campaign of free air time during elections is perfectly fair and adequate. Indeed, anyone who has fought an election would agree that, for the public, three weeks is already a good deal too much for very many of them. With a whole number of new radio and television channels and with international channels like CNN, some companies would undoubtedly be all too ready, given an opportunity, to take cash for selling air time to candidates in British elections. I should very much like to see written on the face of the Bill a clear statement that it is illegal for candidates in elections or those pushing a case in a referendum to be able to buy air time and that they must confine themselves to the free allocation that is agreed.
I say that principally because the new regulations in this huge Bill are much too complicated and go far too deeply into detail. I so agree with a previous speaker who referred to a step-by-step approach. The Bill as it stands will inevitably lead to a new science of keeping the campaign legal and within the law but at the same time taking advantage of all the loopholes in election law that appear as a result of the Bill. The complexity of the Bill and the raft of new offences, running into pages and pages, make it inevitable that not only will parties at local and national level need accountants to look after their finances, but those accountants and those organisers will need a lawyer at their elbow as well in order to ensure that they are kept within this new complexity of election law. The science, which I believe will grow, of finding loopholes in election law will be comparable to that of finding tax loopholes which has proved so profitable to so many professional people. Parties will be forced into trying to find such loopholes. I can hear them now saying, "If we don't take advantage of every loophole, the other parties will, and they will trample all over our backs".
I turn to the issue of foreign funding for political parties. Although I understand the purpose of the Bill's provisions, I do not really understand how one stops the funding of political campaigns from overseas sources during an election. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, asked a question about this matter during the Minister's introductory statement and we did not receive a satisfactory answer. I hope that we shall receive one. I speak of campaigns that would refer neither to the fact that an election was taking place nor to any election candidates or political parties; but the content of those campaigns would have a clear political message which would be very relevant to the issues surrounding the election or referendum. In the past, it could have been a campaign with regard to anti-nationalisation. Now, it could be a campaign that is either pro- or anti-Europe. It could be done by means of posters, by mass mailing or by the use of

1129
various IT techniques. This seems a wide open way in which the provisions that the Bill rather laboriously attempts to lay down could be circumvented.
I turn next to the issue of referendums, and begin by expressing a personal prejudice. I believe, as a matter of principle, that referendums are a negation of the parliamentary system. I irritated my constituents over 33 years when I was a Member of another place by always saying that I would never support a referendum for anything. I detest referendums and have always wanted to vote against them. Hence, I should much prefer that there were no referendums, and for us not to have to make rules for their conduct. But if we are to have the wretched things, the terms of the question are crucial. A question set by Parliament, backed by the steamroller effect of the Whips, is the wrong way to decide what the question should be. I hope that the electoral commission will play a bigger part than the Bill seems to suggest in deciding what the question should be. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, also referred to this matter.
Finally, the Bill is full of over-complications; and it contains too many anomalies and unfairnesses. It will need a long and detailed Committee stage because it needs a great deal of amendment. What is needed, and what we want, is a Minister who is properly briefed, one who is understanding not only of the Bill but of election law and practice, and who is sufficiently flexible to ensure that the finished product is fair and that it can achieve a consensus in this House.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life whose report underlies most of this legislation. My remarks need to be brief. I certainly do not disagree with what my most distinguished chairman had to say, and indeed said so well. He has been an excellent, and independent, chairman of our committee, unequalled except perhaps by his distinguished predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. We have been very fortunate.
I want to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lady Gould, who is no longer in her place. She went to the heart of the matter when she said that the concern is, above all, about doing something to prevent the purchase of political power. That is the underlying thought. It is certainly one that I have had—not necessarily at the top of my mind but it has always been there—since I became interested in politics. The irony is that, when I first entered politics, one of the thoughts that associated itself with the concern about the purchase of political power was the perceived imbalance in purchasing power as between the Conservative Party, our principal rival, and my own party, with its much more limited access to funds. Now, in the curious way that events have of standing everything on its head after 30 or 40 years, we find that disclosure—the naming of names, the identification of where money is coming from—no longer fits the old pattern of the corporate finance of Conservative power, but that New Labour has equal access to
1130
corporate power. Whether that will remain true in the future, as it undoubtedly has been in the recent past, I do not know; but in the past decade the old imbalance has virtually disappeared. That is healthy for British politics. I am all for a general balance.
What I particularly like about the Bill is that it does two things which we all agree are important and worth while. First, it insists that the parties disclose the sources of their funds. Anything over a small amount must be made clear. That must be healthy; it must be right. We know, in other words, who is contributing and whether the motives for the contribution are entirely above board, or whether they are suspect or open to criticism. We can then develop the case. That knowledge is a great advantage. Frankly, it was not something that we used to know about my old rivals in the Conservative Party, and I welcome the new provision.
Having provided for openness in regard to party finance, the Bill moves to the second stage: exercising some control over it. I am not yet entirely clear in my own mind precisely what the Bill is doing in terms of the regulation of party finance between elections, as it were. I shall need to think about that carefully when we come to the Committee stage. However, I am sure that during the crucial election period—the four weeks, or 33 days on average, which elapse between the Prime Minister announcing an election and polling day—moneys should be strictly controlled. If they can be equalled on one side and the other, that is wholly to our advantage. But the placing of a limit on what can be spent, and the requirement to declare on a weekly basis (if need be) during the election period what is flowing in, is important. It is an enormous advantage.
I could say a great deal more about the Bill's positive features; however, I shall content myself with reference to two matters of concern. The first is the idea of placing a limit on what people can contribute during an election campaign and then saying that it will apply retrospectively over the previous 365 days. That is nonsense, and we know it. I know that the Government will rethink that provision. I cannot believe for a moment that they would be satisfied with such obvious nonsense. So we have to get rid of that.
Another much more serious matter is that touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, who perhaps did not have sufficient time to develop the point. I refer to control over the foreign funding of British politics. I do not believe that any of us cavil with the general aim of the Bill in that regard. Page 2 of the Explanatory Notes states that,
"Part IV imposes restrictions on the sources of donations so as to prohibit foreign and anonymous donations".
I wish that it did—as I believe do the Government. However, when one turns to a later paragraph in the same paper one comes to "permitted participants"; that is, those who can spend money in British politics. One finds a reference to those individuals who are registered in an electoral register and to companies
"incorporated in the European Union",
not the UK. This may be a coach and horses to be driven right through the integrity of British politics. We must not imagine for a moment that vested

1131
interests on the other side of the Channel do not exist. Does one imagine that in something like a referendum on the single currency money will be withheld from European companies or the agencies of the European Union? This must be stopped. The only reason it has not been stopped so far is not that the Government do not want to do so, but because they fear that they are under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That must stop, and I shall be interested in all those who, like me, will want to table amendments to bring that about.
Having said that, I conclude on a more optimistic note. I wholly endorse the observations of my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, about the merits of the British electoral system compared with that of the United States. Gosh, we are lucky$ The noble Lord, Lord Neill, referred to the tremendous advantage in being able to control television and radio. That is a real boon. I do not know anyone engaged in American public life who is not in debt, at least to begin with, in order to finance his own political activity as a candidate or member. Just imagine a member of Congress facing an election every two years without any limit on campaigning and the need to raise money to reach his electors. Awful$
The other matter of which we can be proud is that there is a tradition of honesty and fair play in this country which extends to politics and political parties. The noble Lord, Lord Neill, mentioned en passant that it is one thing to have laws but another thing to obey the spirit of them and to wish to see them carried out. Frankly, the revelation about Kohl, Mitterrand and others and the way that they have manipulated and misapplied rules and transferred money across frontiers is something that we do not want to emulate. We have something of which we can be quite pleased and proud. Let us hold on to it and strengthen it, as I believe we can do if we get the Bill right.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shore, who is a man of passion. For a moment I thought that his passion would be uncharacteristically modified by the inhibition he felt by being part-author of the Bill. However, towards the end we saw the noble Lord's usual passion, and impressive it was, as always. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, I apologise to the Minister and my Front Bench that I cannot be present for the winding-up speeches tonight owing to a long-standing engagement. That is a practice to be deprecated and it is not one that I normally follow.
I accept the broad thrust of the Bill. When he introduced it the Minister referred, perhaps a trifle heavily, to sleaze. It is right that we should seek to improve and achieve the highest standards in public life in the world, but I wish that we would view the problems in perspective and see that often our so-called sleaze is, as the noble Lord, Lord Shore, said, very small beer compared with what is manifest on the Continent.
1132
This Bill is the product of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, to whom I pay tribute. The House is indebted to the noble Lord for his lucid and cogent speech today.
It is always good to be predictable and not to surprise anyone. I should like to concentrate on those aspects of the Bill which deal with referendums. I appreciate that this is not just a Bill about the forthcoming referendum on the single currency, but inevitably that is in many people's minds and we must judge the provisions in that light. It is right to achieve fairness to both sides in a referendum, and that is very important in a referendum on the single currency. That point is illustrated by what is going on at the moment in Denmark, which should be a warning to us. Denmark is holding a referendum on the single currency, and much more money has been spent on the side which favours joining the single currency.
This is a far-reaching Bill. As my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and my noble friend Lord Jopling have said, it is very intrusive, bureaucratic and probably unworkable. We must be careful that in seeking to address one problem we do not affect the rights of the individual to campaign and propagandise. I regard the phrase "permitted participant" as rather chilling. We have come a long way when we write into legislation such an expression as applying to politics.
The electoral commission is a very important body with huge responsibilities. I question the desirability of Clause 12 which enables the commission to carry out programmes of education, including programmes related to the institutions of the European Union. Do we really need this? A vast budget for informing people about the institutions of the European Union is already spent by the EU itself. Could this education programme include the European Central Bank, which is one of the institutions of the European Union that is central to the issue of the single currency yet to be decided in a referendum?
But the main objection is not a European one but the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Neill, said, the commission already has a vast range of responsibilities. It is too easy to say that if there is a problem it should be left to the commission. As the Neill Report itself said, the commission cannot solve all problems. If that body is to be involved in educative publicity about electoral reform, or becomes embroiled in the pros and cons of the additional vote versus the single transferable vote, not just proportional representation, it will undermine its authority as a regulator. I believe that the two roles are in conflict.
I turn to the issue of referendums. The report addressed itself manfully to the very difficult issue of trying to ensure fairness. It was not asked to go into that territory but did so. It referred to the experience of the Welsh referendum and expressed unease that the Government had been very active, and all the money had been spent on one side. The result was extremely close and might have been very different if the arrangements had been otherwise. As a consequence, we have the proposals in the Bill.

1133
Clauses 97 and 98 define the referendum period. That is particularly important because it is the period in which the umbrella organisations have their expenses calculated. The Bill tries to ensure fairness and prevent votes being bought. None the less, I suggest that it ends up giving an advantage to the organisation with the biggest pocket; namely, the Government.
Perhaps I may take as an example a theoretical referendum on the single currency. I accept that the Government cannot shut down for several months their activity on European matters. However, under the Bill any organisation campaigning to retain our national currency will have its affairs and expenses regulated for up to four months in the period between the Bill for the referendum being introduced and polling day. The period between the introduction of the Scottish devolution Bill and the vote on Scottish devolution was 119 days. The umbrella organisation is monitored and its expenses start to tick. But the Government are able, free of scrutiny, to carry on issuing press releases—let us say in favour of the single currency—until 28 days before polling day. That does not seem equitable.
It was argued in another place that that is no different from the practice in previous general elections. The Bill seeks to make different provisions. It seeks to provide that expenditure is controlled in the run-up to elections. But elections are different from referendums. Referendums are about single issues; elections are about many issues. One cannot expect the Government to close down for the whole period leading up to an election, but one could reasonably expect the Government to close down for a longer period than 28 days in the period leading up to a referendum on the single currency. Under the Bill, if the noble Lord, Lord Owen—he was present earlier—were part of an umbrella organisation, his press releases would be costed against his total permitted expenditure. However, there will be no restraint on Ministers until 28 days before polling day. I do not wish to over-emphasise the point, but it is important.
I turn to caps on permitted expenditure by political parties during referendums. The Neill Committee saw no objection to caps in principle but concluded that in practice they were impractical. None the less the Government have put forward Clauses 108 to 111. The key mistake the Government have made is to define the caps by reference to political parties. One reason that we have referendums—notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling—is to settle issues which cut across party lines. While parties are essential to general elections in order to simplify choice on many different issues, referendums are single issue campaigns. In some referendums in future parties may not even he the main movers in the campaign. By placing caps on the party's expenditure rather than on the umbrella organisation, and by placing caps calculated on the basis of votes cast at the last election, the Government have produced a situation which would be unfair in any referendum relating to the single currency. On the basis of the last election the pro-single currency parties—the Labour and Liberal
1134
parties—would be able to spend £8 million to £9 million while the anti-single currency campaign would be able to spend only £5 million.
When the Home Secretary was asked about the matter in another place he replied, "Well, of course, there is no way that the Liberals will ever be able to raise their £3.5 million, or anything like that". I do not know about that. But it seems bad law to put down on the statute book arrangements which are manifestly unfair and then say, "It doesn't matter because it won't work out like that in practice". How does he know that money cannot be transferred to the Liberal Party? From debates in another place there appears to be nothing to stop other organisations channelling their money to the Liberal Party. I refer to the European Union. The question was put to the Minister today about how caps affected the European Union and the Commission. I do not wish to be harsh but the Minister gave a somewhat lame answer. My noble friend Lord Jopling is right. We need an answer to the question of how the caps bite, if at all, on the European Union. How will its expenditure be controlled in a referendum on the single currency?
In the debate in another place, Ministers gave a rather pathetic impression of simply appealing to the European Union not to interfere in the single currency referendum because it might well boomerang and be counter-productive. That slight note of panic in their voices merely fuelled further suspicions.
Then there is the question of whether caps can work. There is a limit of £0.5 million for other organisations which are not the umbrella organisations referred to in Schedule 13. It was confirmed in debates in another place that organisations can split themselves into two, three, four or five bodies, all with different names. Each body will be entitled to spend £0.5 million if it can raise that sum. I do not see how the caps can work. The provision is futile and self-defeating.
The same argument applies to caps at the other end of the scale, to the individual. Clause 112 states that no individual can spend more than £10,000. But individuals can band together and create campaigns in specific areas. It would be next to impossible for the commission to stop that; and it would be questionable whether it would be right to do so.
I understand the Government's problem. They fear that if there are no limits money may dominate the campaign. On the other hand, it is important not to prevent individuals expressing themselves and communicating their views. Therefore they believe that they must strike a balance. However, I fear that in pursuing that elusive balance, they have merely produced bias. What they have produced is unlikely t o be effective. In their efforts to be effective, they have produced a system which in the single currency referendum will favour the Government.
The Government have one other overwhelming advantage. They can choose the date of the referendum. Any anti-single currency organisation may fritter away its money, not knowing whether or not the Bill to trigger the referendum is about to be introduced next week. The Government have a huge advantage through timing.

1135
In trying to control spending, the Government have made the wrong choice. There are three alternatives. To cap umbrella organisations is difficult. A cap on each participant is difficult. I am inclined to favour no cap on spending as the Neill Committee recommended. In pursuing perfection we are out of touch with reality. The reality is that the publicity on the matter will be huge and unlimited—in the newspapers and the media. The reality is that any money raised will be spent one way or another and no legislation will stop that.
It is all very well for Ministers in another place to say, "Something has to be done". That is always a poor recipe for policy; it invariably leads to trouble. It is all very well asking, "What is your alternative?" The alternative to jumping out of the window is not to jump out of the window. The Government have gone down the wrong road. I applaud much of the Bill. However, I fear that the proposals applying to referendums are unfair. I shall watch out eagerly for any opportunities to amend the Bill.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am very pleased to be speaking in the debate. I am particularly pleased because I, too, am a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I echo the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. I was going to say that I am delighted to follow the noble Lord in this debate. Unfortunately, that would not be true as the noble Lord has already said more or less everything I was going to say. Therefore, what I shall say will sound somewhat familiar.
It is gratifying to us on the committee that not only have the Government accepted almost all of our recommendations, but have proceeded to implement them quickly. It is still only 18 months since the publication of our report and this major piece of legislation has reached the half-way stage of its process through Parliament.
Before discussing the Bill in more detail, I should make my position clear. The recommendations in the report and the provisions of the Bill are not wholly consistent with the position of my party. The Liberal Democrats strongly welcome the Bill, but believe that in some respects it does not go far enough. In particular, as my noble friend Lord McNally pointed out, the Liberal Democrats would like a good deal more emphasis on state funding. No doubt my party will want to table amendments on those issues, but it would not be proper for me to move or support amendments which are inconsistent with a report which I signed. Therefore, I shall participate in debates on the Bill from the Back Benches.
There are four central proposals in the report. The first and foremost is transparency. The identity of donors of gifts above a minimum size and the amounts given by them must be disclosed. Money often buys influence and it can certainly buy access. Perhaps I may take a non-controversial and well-known
1136
example. The influence of the trade unions on the Labour Party, particularly in the past, has been due at least in part to their financial support of that party.
If we know where the money is coming from, we can scrutinise the behaviour of the party which receives it. Is the party going out of its way to take action, or to avoid taking action, in ways that will benefit the donor? Is there a quid pro quo for the donations? If the information about the donations is in the public domain, the press and the other political parties will be watching to see what the donor gets out of it. If the information is kept secret, the watchers do not know where to start.
Secondly, funding must come from those with a real interest in the outcome of the election—that is, from people who are on the electoral register or from companies carrying on business in the United Kingdom—not from long-term tax exiles. In that, I disagree with my colleague on the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Shore. Overseas companies usually carry on business in the United Kingdom through subsidiary companies incorporated in the United Kingdom. Under our original proposals, such companies would be permitted donors. The only extension made by the Bill is to a business carried on in the United Kingdom which is carried on by a branch rather than a subsidiary of a company incorporated elsewhere in the European Union. There must still be a business carried on in the United Kingdom. That seems to me to be a relatively minor extension and a perfectly acceptable one. In any event, wherever quoted companies are incorporated, their shareholdings are increasingly international.
The third central element is the limit on national campaign expenditure. The fund-raising "arms race" increased greatly at the previous election. Vast sums were spent on billboard advertising by both Labour and Conservative Parties. Those, as a member of the Conservative Party later admitted, were almost certainly wasted, but each party felt that it had to keep up with the other. An uncontrolled "arms race" means that parties become ever more willing to solicit and accept dodgy donations and ever more dependent on Finding and keeping supporters who can give them individually millions of pounds.
The fourth essential element is the electoral commission, whose role will be central to the enforcement of rules under the Bill. The commission will also enable existing rules on local spending limits to be enforced more effectively and will enable election rules to be updated much more regularly than at present. Indeed, it is necessary to say that the other reforms proposed in the Bill would not work without an electoral commission.
On all of those central issues, the Government have accepted the recommendations of our report more or less as they stand. Indeed, in one respect, I believe that the Government have improved on our proposals. We proposed an exemption of £50 for anonymous gifts. The Government propose to exempt from the reporting obligations, and therefore from a considerable amount of record keeping, donations whether anonymous or not up to £200. That will

1137
reduce the burden of record keeping for parties, particularly at constituency level, without opening a substantial loophole. There are anti-avoidance provisions to prevent people giving more than £5,000 by means of a large number of small donations. That change also remedies an unintended defect in our proposals. It was that those too young to be on an electoral register could not pay membership subscriptions to parties and therefore could not be party members.
I turn to other issues. The Government have dealt sensibly with the difficult issue of the political activities of third parties, in particular various single-issue pressure groups. The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Bowman case shows that denying such groups the right to intervene in elections or referendums is an unacceptable infringement of freedom of speech. I have to say that having read that judgment I am persuaded by it. However, experience in the USA shows that some limits on third-party spending are essential. The Bowman judgment makes it clear that the courts would be prepared to accept reasonable limits on third-party spending.
I do not want to discuss the special treatment of Northern Ireland parties in detail, but I believe that it is a regrettable necessity.
The treatment of referendums has been one of the more controversial issues in the Bill. The Neill committee did not recommend spending limits because we thought them impracticable. However, as we made clear in subsequent correspondence, we have no objection in principle. The Government differed from our view and decided to impose spending limits. On reflection, I believe that they were right to do so. The problem with the Government's original proposals was that the limits were entirely based on parties. The spending limit for each party represented in the House of Commons in a national referendum was to be £5 million. I believe—and slightly to my surprise I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—that the party-based ceiling produces unfair results where most parties are on the same side. That was the case in, for example, the Welsh referendum, in which Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru were on one side, and the Conservatives effectively played no part.
It is fair to say that the preference of the committee was to direct spending much more through umbrella groups, where it was possible to form them, than through the parties. In the Bill the Government have moved a little way towards that by scaling down spending limits for parties with less than 30 per cent of the national vote, but it is questionable whether they have gone far enough.
Finally, there is one major issue on which I believe the Government got it seriously wrong. I refer to the question of tax relief on political donations. There is a precedent for giving tax relief on political donations; there is, and ha; been for many years, relief from inheritance tax on donations to political parties, if those political parties either have two Members in the House of Commons or have one Member and the
1138
party received a total of at least 150,000 votes. The proposal of the Neill committee was modest and was targeted on smaller donations in order to avoid giving disproportionate advantages to parties with wealthy supporters.
We proposed a limit of £500 a year on donations on which relief can be claimed. To ensure that there was no extra benefit to wealthier donors, we proposed that relief should be given only at the basic rate of tax and not, as in the case of gifts to charities, at the higher rate of tax as well. I believe that it is in the interests of democracy that parties should be funded by a large number of small donations rather than by a small number of large donations. I believe that anything that increases the value to political parties of small donations is to be encouraged. Further, the giving of tax relief on small donations sends out the message that, for ordinary people, giving to political parties, like giving to charities, is good. It is to be encouraged because it contributes to the democratic process.
What, therefore, are the Government's objections? Originally, the Government objected on the ground of administrative burden. It seems that that objection has now been dropped. Of course, the administrative burden of dealing with claims for relief from a handful of political parties is as nothing compared with the administrative burden of dealing with claims for relief from literally thousands of charities. Charities are now able to claim relief on one-off gifts of any amount because the £250 floor on gifts that are eligible for gift-aid relief is no longer applicable.
However, the main argument, which we heard again in the Minister's opening speech, is that the giving of tax relief reduces tax receipts and therefore less money is available for schools and hospitals. That has been argued time and time again—and it remains totally absurd, as it always has been. Let us compare £4 million or £5 million with, say, the £92 million which, I believe, was the Government's advertising budget last year; the Government estimate the cost of tax relief to be only £4 million or £5 million a year. That amounts to 0.001 per cent of government revenues. In other words, tax relief on donations to political parties will reduce the revenue by approximately £1 in every £100,000. It seems to me to be a total absurdity to complain about that on the ground that it will make less money available for schools and hospitals. Plainly, it is a price that is worth paying for the protection of democracy.
Of course, tax relief is a matter for the Budget and would not in any event have been dealt with in this Bill. However, I hope that the Government will reconsider their objections and that there will be such tax relief in next year's Budget. With regard to what is in the Bill, I can welcome it virtually without reservation. Democracy is about the power of people, not about the power of money. The power of money thrives on secrecy and darkness. I believe that throwing light on the funding of political parties will weaken the power of money and thereby strengthen democracy.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I wish to make a general comment about the Bill and then to focus on its particular parts. There is much to welcome in the Bill. However, I believe that there is a problem in terms of what it does not do and what it seeks to do, and that there is a danger of missing the broader picture.
When he introduced the Bill at Second Reading in another place, the Home Secretary said that parties were vital to the functioning of any representative democracy. He was absolutely right and I can fault nothing in his comments about the role of parties. However, I am not sure that the Bill goes quite as far as he suggests in addressing the problem that now faces political parties and, indeed, the political system.
People are now less likely than they were 30 or 40 years ago to join a political party. Fewer people become involved in political activity. The MORI Omnibus polls show that young people between the ages of 16 and 24 are less politically active now than they were at the beginning of the 1970s. Voting among that group has fallen by almost one-third.
The Home Secretary said that we should celebrate the fact that so many supporters of political parties recognise their civic responsibilities by contributing to their party's financial well-being. I agree. However, the real issue that needs to be addressed is why so few people contribute to political parties and, indeed, why so few people join and are actively involved in political parties.
The Bill seeks to restore public confidence in the political process by providing for greater transparency and accountability in funding and for limited campaign spending. It is difficult to disagree with the aim of the Bill. However, I am not altogether certain that it is as well crafted as it might be for fulfilling that particular aim. Nor am I sure that it does a great deal to address the wider problem that I have identified. As some noble Lords have mentioned, some of the provisions may serve as a disincentive to political activity.
That is not to argue against the Bill but rather to call attention to the fact that we should be looking at the causes of political alienation and why people do not become involved in the political system. I believe that there is a danger of placing too much reliance on the Bill, and also the Representation of the People Bill, to improve the health of the political system. Such measures may help but, if they do so, it is likely to be at the margins. We need to devote more time and resources to addressing the more fundamental questions.
I turn to what is in the Bill. I welcome many of the provisions but I believe that it contains a number of problems. One concerns the remit of the electoral commission. It is given certain duties to fulfil which are not appropriate, while it is denied a role that I consider central to its existence. Under Clause 12, the commission is empowered to promote public awareness of electoral systems, systems of local and
1140
national government, and the institutions of the European Union. That takes the Bill beyond what the Neill Committee recommended.
I can see the case for the commission to promote awareness of electoral systems. That is perfectly sensible and proper. However, as do other noble Lords, I fail to see why promoting awareness of systems of government—be it local, national or the European Union—falls within the remit of an electoral commission. That is to confer an educative function that takes it beyond its obvious sphere of competence. Indeed, I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how he reconciles Clause 12(1)(b) and (c) with the Long Title of the Bill.
Therefore, the commission is given things to do that are not appropriate. At the same time, it is not given a role that I would consider fundamental to its existence; that is, to advise on the question to be asked in a referendum. I appreciate that the Neill Committee did not recommend explicitly that it should be given that role. However, I believe that it should be a central function of the commission. Although there is provision for the commission to review and report on the conduct of referendums and to offer advice to relevant bodies, there is nothing on the face of the Bill that requires it to be consulted on the wording of a referendum.
I suggest that the question in any referendum must fulfil two fundamental criteria. It must be unbiased and, equally important, it must be unambiguous. This second criterion has not received the attention that it deserves. If the meaning of a question is not clear, it is possible for voters to cast what, quite simply, are termed "mistaken" votes; that is, voting contrary to what they believed they were voting for. Research has shown that in some state referendums in the US, between 10 and 20 per cent of voters have cast "mistaken" votes.
Surely, the electoral commission has an obvious role in ensuring that both criteria are met. It will have the professional expertise, as well as the organisational capacity, to undertake pilot surveys. However, the fact that a question permits of ambiguity may not be apparent until it has been tried out in such a survey. One needs a body—a qualified body—to undertake such work. I believe that the case for conferring such a responsibility on the electoral commission is compelling. At a minimum, the Bill should embody the requirement that the commission be consulted on the wording of the question.
I turn to the provisions which govern the funding of political parties. I appreciate the argument that motivates this part of the Bill. In the other place, the Home Secretary stressed the need for funding to be transparent. In fact, the Minister said that it should be "open and transparent" and I look to him to explain later the difference between openness and transparency.
However, the Minister missed two other essential criteria. For the Bill to be effective, it has to provide for transparency, enforceability and equity. The regime created by the Bill is overly detailed and bureaucratic.

1141
It imposes a massive burden, arguably an intolerable burden, on party treasurers, not just nationally but also locally. I am not sure that the parties at local level have the capacity to meet the phenomenal compliance burden. I suspect that the Bill lays down rules that will be difficult to enforce and which, in some areas, can be circumvented. Any wealthy foreigner resident in the United Kingdom could acquire economic citizenship of one of a number of Commonwealth countries and then, by virtue of that status, register to vote in this country, thus becoming a "permissible" donor. There is a serious problem of equity in terms of donations made by companies. That point has already been made and I will not expand upon it.
The provisions governing Northern Ireland—again as we have heard—clearly create an inequitable situation. And what is the justification for a Swedish citizen resident in the United Kingdom being a permissible donor when a Norwegian citizen resident in the United Kingdom is not? There may be a case for re-casting the provisions of the Bill to provide for a much simpler regime. I should be inclined to slim down drastically the excessive degree of regulation, especially in distinguishing between types of donors. To be enforceable, the real need is to be simple and straightforward.
Finally, I turn to the provisions governing referendums. I have spoken already regarding the role of the electoral commission in respect of referendums. I believe that other changes are necessary. Like my noble friend Lord Jopling, I have a principled objection to referendums. I should prefer that we did not have them. However, if we are to have them, then they should be subject to rules that are clear and consistent. We should not have rules which are made up each time a referendum is held. There are two problems with referendums: first, ensuring a fair and unambiguous question; secondly, ensuring an adequate turn-out of electors. I have already addressed the first problem. What about the second problem? The excellent book, Referendums Around the World, edited by David Butler and Austin Ranney, embodies research that shows that turn-out in referendums tends to be lower than that in elections of candidates to public office. Indeed, we have experience of that in the United Kingdom.
A low turn-out in a referendum is not only more likely than in an election to public office, it is often a greater cause for concern. With elections to public office, the candidates who are elected can be removed in a subsequent election. In many cases, the outcomes of referendums are difficult to overturn. Once something has been approved by referendum, it may be set in stone for some time.
There is a powerful case to be made for introducing a threshold requirement, providing that a certain proportion of eligible voters vote yes in order for the vote to be valid. Various countries impose thresholds. Thresholds were of course, stipulated by statute for the referendums in Scotland and Wales in 1979. I do not think we can chop and change from one referendum to another. Either we have a threshold or we do not. The case for a threshold is compelling.
1142
Referendums tend to be held on important issues and there is the danger of some irrevocable step being taken on the basis of the votes of a minority of electors. Therefore, I believe that a threshold, including the precise percentage to be reached, should be written into the Bill.
This is something of an omnibus Bill. We must not lose sight of the wider problems that it does not address. In terms of what it does cover, it is clearly a substantial and important Bill. It deserves the most detailed scrutiny in Committee in order to ensure that the various criteria that I have outlined are met. If Government accept those criteria, then I hope that they will respond positively to the proposals that I have put forward.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, we have heard some good speeches. What interested me especially in the unusually cheerful speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, was his outspoken dismissal of seeking salvation through legislation. That encourages me to cast caution to the wind. It seems to me that the case for the Bill takes only a moment's thought. If we accept limits on spending for parliamentary elections, then why not have limits for referendums on an issue of exceptional significance, like the euro, that cuts across party lines? At first blush, equal spending by two sides seems the plainest of fair play. To use the over-worked European slogan, why should we not have a level playing field? A referendum offers two sides. It is either yes or no. I confess that "two sides, equal spend, fair's fair" was my initial reaction at first reading, after only a moment's thought.
Doubts on the application of the Bill to the referendum arise only on a second reading, following more mature thought. It is true that there may be only two sides, but as in geometry there could be three, four or more angles. On the euro, the "Yes" men would range from the European payroll vote—rather well-represented in this House—to the outright federalists who support anything labelled European whether from unfounded optimism about the Continent or equally unfounded pessimism about their own country. We are told that the "No" vote would range from the extreme xenophobic nationalists to the enlightened, internationally-minded, classical liberal economists, such as myself.
Let me come clean at the outset. Old hands in politics say one must never say "Never". Thank heavens I am not in politics—perhaps because no one will have me. But my considered formula, which differs from the Tories' compromise, is that I cannot visualise any circumstances in which I would wish Britain—or, if it comes to it, England—to sign away its economic freedom by submerging the pound into the euro, or, for that matter, into the dollar. Who will present that emphatic opinion?
Should there ever be a referendum on the euro between the baddies and us goodies, how should the permitted limit on spending be allocated between the

1143
rival factions on both sides? Even if some objective authority could be found to fix quotas for the three main parties, how would the noble Lords, Lord Shore and Lord Stoddart, be able to organise the pro-Labour, anti-euro group, or the noble Lord, Lord Owen, appeal to his distinctive constituency of sophisticates who appear enthusiastically to support all things from Brussels except the euro? Then, I am told, there is at least one discerning Liberal Democrat whose true liberal principles lead him to oppose this example of naked price-fixing of currencies. Is he to be prosecuted for campaigning among his confused colleagues? What is all this about "permitted participants", "responsible persons" and "designated organisations"? 4 agree with an earlier speaker who said there was some faintly anti-democratic, authoritarian ring about that.
We have heard about the one-sided propaganda from Brussels; we know of it from our own radio and television programmes. And, of course, we have had it for some years from Her Majesty's Government, not least in the schools. As for the British press, I can only say, thank heavens, that the majority, anti-euro voice predominates in the most successful newspapers. I would argue that they provide a better reflection of public opinion simply because they have to take account of their readers' preferences. But do our would-be controllers think that space devoted by newspapers to arguing the pros and cons of Europe should be controlled or influenced by such independent arbiters as, perhaps, Alastair Campbell or Peter Mandelson?
Whatever our first instinctive feelings on the merits of this Bill as it applies to referendums, I believe that more mature reflection leads to serious doubts that a simplistic rationing of the argument is either feasible or necessary. It is not feasible because strict quotas could not in practice be enforced nor arbitrary time limits imposed on campaigning.
How on earth could approved limits on spending be measured or fully monitored? What debit would be charged against a campaign for using up stocks of leaflets or promotional videos which had been deliberately piled up in advance? What is to happen in relation to the CBI or less easily organised small businesses or straightforward patriots spending their own money to air their anxieties? How is it possible to monitor badges or T-shirts with appropriate "Keep out" slogans? Are they chargeable? Do they become chargeable if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, buys thousands of them to distribute freely among his trade union supporters?
One noble Lord mentioned the Internet which will plainly play an increasing part in all future campaigns. Is the organisation of tens of thousands of messages to be tracked, counted and charged against the financial quotas of one side or the other?
Fixed budgets are neither feasible nor necessary. The only rough justice must be rigorously to check government spending to prevent the ruling party using
1144
voters' money to influence the voters' choice. As we have learned recently, that happened on a shameless scale under Ted Heath in the early 1970s.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shore, acknowledged, it is no longer true that the Tories can automatically outspend the rather more furtive moneybags of new Labour and the trade unions. So long as governments do not cheat, we must assume that the ability of both sides to raise campaign funds, not to mention recruit voluntary canvassers and other help in kind, is an approximate reflection of public support for their respective positions.
My conclusion is that we should stop searching in vain—like Tony Blair's army of advisers, dreamers and interfering nannies—for a new deal, a fair deal, an ideal world with a perfectly level playing field. Let us settle for the rough and tumble of the real and admittedly messy world of democratic politics.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and my noble friend Lady Gould about the difficulty of finding somebody suitable to be a commissioner who had no recorded views and had never taken a stance on any subject. Such paragons, if they could be found, would not really be suitable for the job. In fact, if someone reaches the age at which he is considered suitable to be a commissioner and it is not possible to detect anything on which he has taken a stance, everyone automatically thinks, "What is wrong with him? What has happened there?" So we really must try to keep in touch with reality in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Neill, mentioned the referendum in Wales and the disparity of funds on different sides. But he did not go on to mention that the Rowntree Trust gave money to the "Yes" campaign but not to the "No" campaign. When I asked it why it had not contributed to the "No" campaign, it said it believed in proper democratic debate. At that stage, I gave up.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised the question of state funding. It is not through lack of will by the previous Labour government that that was not introduced because, as Chief Whip, I was charged with implementing the Houghton report which recommended state funding. But I did the arithmetic and I simply could not get it through because several of my Members objected on conscientious grounds. They felt that they could not stomach making the general public pay for the political parties to indulge themselves. I tried to reason with them but I could not do it. That is why we did not get the Houghton report through. I must tell your Lordships in frankness, with my non-conformist background, that had I been a Back-Bencher being approached by the Chief Whip, I should have taken the same stance myself. But in no way did I ever give any idea to the victims that that was my feeling.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, was quite right when he talked about the plethora of advice which this will generate. We shall almost have a new

1145
profession of advisers. Those people will advise that in order to be completely free of any possible legal action, in every committee room and every room used by the volunteers, on the wall there should be a list of offences and the penalties so that everyone is clear about the matter. One look at that lot and you could shut up the shop because people simply will not want to be associated with it.
I support the Front Bench on the question of no tax relief on donations. The working classes are already paying for the luxuries and entertainments of the middle classes through the lottery. It is said that the lottery is a voluntary matter and that they do not have to buy tickets. That argument just about stands up but it is touch and go. Why a bus driver—I will not refer to somebody digging holes in the road out of deference to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—or a manual worker should pay tax in order that the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives or the Labour Party can thrive is absolutely beyond me. It is so basically inequitable that there would be a massive rebellion by taxpayers who would pay in their money and deduct that portion of it.
I regard this Bill as hybrid, not in the parliamentary sense but in the sense of its origin. I believe that its parents are, first the chattering classes and, secondly, the spin doctors. I have referred to the chattering classes before in this Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, put hip finger on the issue when he said that the Bill is part of a package. It is part of a plethora of reforms to our constitution which have been pushed by pressure groups, including Charter 88, to which I have alluded before in this Chamber, which has a minority of academics and lawyers as members. It is highly organised. According to its advertisements in the newspapers, it has 80,000 signatures. It was foolish enough on one occasion to reveal that 1.5 per cent of those signatures came from social groups four and five. So we are dealing with a highly organised body which bounced the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties into constitutional change. At the time, I warned that the result of that would be that we should have an increasing amount of litigation. I made that point in particular when the human rightslegislation was passing through the House.
In the Daily Telegraph of 30th March the headline was:
"Warning on Euro rights `panic'".
Jack Straw was addressing a meeting of the Institute of Public Policy Research. He said:
"There is no need to get panicked about this".
The article goes on to say that one of the people behind the scenes in Whitehall—we know that there are a few of those—said:
"It's a litigants' charter. The lawyers will make a fortune".
Private hospitals, schools and security companies are said to be panicking over the introduction of that legislation which will bring a flood of claims.
That is not the only area in which that could happen. In 1995, I spoke in your Lordships' House on the question of single-issue groups. I expressed my fear
1146
then that the constant working up of grievances in society, with the suggestion that legal action is the answer, will cause us all a great deal of anguish.
I gave the example of an appointments card which I had from the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. I turned it over and it said:
"Had an accident? Road accident, accident at work, tripped on the pavement? You may be entitled to compensation",
and it gave the name and address of the firm of solicitors. That was a hospital appointments card. No doubt the hospital had a vested interest in promoting that sort of thing.
But matters are growing worse. That was 1995. Noble Lords have probably watched commercial television and seen the advertisements by Claims Direct which say that if you have had an accident and so on, you may be entitled to get compensation. You telephone and are given examples of successful cases. The financial section of the Mail on Sunday has a "new issue alert", which I read religiously for purely academic interest. Recently, it featured the fact that one of the new issues coming to the market is Claims Direct, the estimated capital value of which was £150 million. That is a value of £150 million for that company whose adverts are seen on television. The figure has been increased over the past two issues to £200 million plus, which comes out of exploiting people's anxieties over such matters.
The other side of the coin is that if the litigation culture grows much worse no one will go into the caring professions. Yesterday's Sunday Telegraph carried the headlines,
"Old NHS wards used in nurses' homes crisis",
"Police shortages leave 999 calls unanswered",
and the Times Educational Supplement this week:
"Recruitment crisis spurs ministers to offer postgraduates up to £10,000 a year".
No one will go into the caring professions if we continue piling on legislation in all areas.
The spin doctors have placed an emphasis on donations, a topic that was all worked up before the last election. One of the subjects which has not been properly explored by the Neill Committee is the abuse of charitable funding for political purposes. I raised the issue in a Question in your Lordships' House about the Pilgrim Trust on 13th March 1997. I asked for an investigation to ascertain:
"whether the grant by the Pilgrim Trust towards the funding of the Constitution Unit is compatible with the trust's status as a registered charity".—[Official Report, 13/3/97; col. 425.]
The Minister said that he would pass the matter on to the Charity Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, then spoke, because he was a trustee. He said that,
"the implication of the noble Lord's Question that the Pilgrim Trust and the Constitution Unit are politically motivated bodies is an example of the extraordinary malign fantasies which occasionally seize the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks".
I put that unsolicited testimonial beside the two accusations of being like Senator Joe McCarthy which have come from the same Benches, but not from the same noble Lord.

1147
The Minister went on to say that he would pass the matter on, but I then asked him about my inquiry about the Charter 88 Trust. He replied,
"The inquiry is soon to be finalised. I understand that emerging findings are that the trust will be required to clarify and, where necessary, review and revise its relationship with other organisations".—[Official Report, 13/3/97; col. 426.]
In other words, to put it bluntly, the trust had been rumbled. It was abusing its position and the matter had to be put right.
A question has recently arisen over the matter. On 20th March this year I received a Written Answer from the Government. I had asked them to,
"publish in the Official Report a table stating which government departments have used Electoral Reform Ballot Services in each of the past six years".
The Answer I received from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer stated,
"Information in the form requested is not held centrally by departments and could only be obtained at significant cost".— [Official Report, 20/3/2000; col. WA10.]
There is the old chestnut about significant costs, but in that case I found it entirely unconvincing. When I was Chief Whip in government in another place, I knew that if I had asked my staff for that information I would have received it within hours. I was extremely concerned about the matter.
What have we found since? The Electoral Reform Ballot Services organisation boasts in its brochure that,
"The Society has an unrivalled reputation for independence, integrity and impartiality which has been built up over the past 100 years".
It goes on to state that it has won major contracts from the Government and that it has,
"successfully tendered for a major contract from the Department of Education and Employment to run ballots on the future of Britain's remaining 166 Grammar Schools".
Substantial amounts of money are paid by the balloting services into the Electoral Reform Society's coffers; well into six-figure sums in dividends. It receives also money from two other commercial units in the Electoral Reform Society's structure. That is taxpayers', the general public's and trade unions' money going into the Electoral Reform Society to propagate a massive programme of constitutional change. I feel that that is particularly pertinent because currently, as we know, in Scotland the businessman Souter wished to run a referendum and was in negotiation with the Electoral Reform Ballot Services, which has suddenly pulled out.
The editorial of Friday's Daily Record states,
"The name of the Electoral Reform Society has become a byword around the world for integrity, fair play and democracy.
But not any more".
It then goes on to criticise the way in which support for the ballot has been pulled out on grounds which it claims are extremely thin. I shall not weary the House with any more of it. But if a reputable organisation such as that suddenly caves in to what must be some kind of political pressure, it undermines the integrity
1148
of the entire political system. If we are talking about getting individuals interested in supporting and running our democratic system, that kind of example simply will not do. I hope that we shall keep the Bill as simple as possible and explain to people that it is meant to help them and not to hinder them and threaten them with a lot of penalties.
6.55 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, we have come quite a long way in this country since Lord Holland could, as Paymaster-General for Forces, take the army pay, put it on deposit for his own account and pay the army at the end of the Seven Years' War, having retained the interest to his own benefit. We have come a long way even from Clive of India, who, when surrounded by piles of gold moidores, pieces-of-eight, rubies and diamonds beyond price, lakhs of rupees beyond count and accused of helping himself from Mir Jaffier's treasury, said, "Gentlemen, I stand astonished at my own moderation".
We have even come a long way from, or never went near, Talleyrand who, when appointed French Foreign Secretary, is reputed to have rubbed his hands together and said, "Une fortune immense, une fortune immense". That story was possibly invented by Madame de Stal, who did not like him. We are not at all near to the shenanigans up to which Chancellor Kohl has been seen to be got.
That applies even to Mr Hamilton, who is reputed to have accepted 20 grand from our Egyptian friend. The reason our Egyptian friend got cross with him was not because he accepted the 20 grand, but because he refused to have anything to do with him after he became a Minister. The point I am trying to make is that actually we live in a fairly nice, non-corrupt society. We should always bear that in mind. We should bear it in mind too because we have an active media who keep us politicians more or less up to scratch—although they do not always tell the stories about how badly they behave at media award parties; or of how one member of the press is seen to get rather drunk, which I suppose is human nature. I believe that we can be thankful—I nearly said, "to ourselves", but that is too smug—that we have a rather nice and uncorrupt society.
I accept that the Bill is probably necessary because of the great cries of sleaze, and this and that, and the third thing which went on before. But when we compare that with what happened under Holland or Clive, we see that the element of sleaze was so small. When I was at Eton, there were two members of my house—one was David Sainsbury, the other was me—neither of whom were ever considered a possibility for government office. They were wrong about one and right about the other. But I do not have a supermarket chain behind me.
There have been other examples of people who have handed out money for the privilege of sitting on your Lordships' Benches. It almost always works out that they have spent their money quite well and they have made a contribution. But I am still sure that the Bill is needed because of the climate in which we live.

1149
I have but two points to make. One is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, and other noble Lords, about the commissioner having to be basically someone who cannot have thought anything at all. Three Speakers of the House of Commons were members of my family. They were all to begin with rather gutsy politicians. They then became impartial Speakers. One of them admittedly had to be stopped by the House of Commons for fighting a duel, but then he was made the first Baron Onslow and that is why I am here indirectly, so I thank him for that. Then there was Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, who was hated for his pay pause and for being Foreign Secretary at the time of Suez. Lord Tonypandy was fairly Left-wing in his youth, but he became an excellent Speaker. It is perfectly possible for party politicians to become impartial even when they have had jobs that have required them not to be. There are many examples of that.
I refer, with delicacy, to the fact that since November—when noble Lords were made newly legitimate by Mr Anthony Blair—your Lordships' House has been able to argue more strongly with the Government. I believe that it is right that the House should do that. On this Bill, we must be careful how we argue with the Government for the reasons to which I alluded earlier.
I was encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, which is a one-off if ever there was one! In his speech he indicated that he would listen to argument. That is vital if the House is not to be difficult over some of the amendments. I rope that we shall not have to argue seriously with the Commons over anything as it will be difficult for us to argue on this matter.
I have one major reservation. For the sake of argument, let us assume that Mr Reagan—unfortunately, he is not well—or conservative American friends give money to the Conservative Party, but that, however, would be illegal. It would be illegal for Mr Clinton's Labour friends to give money to the Labour Party. Those two parties, which are loyal subjects of the Crown, do not advocate bumping off soldiers or the forcible removal of a border. However, it will be perfectly possible for Noraid to give financial help to Sinn Fein, whose stated aim is to alter the boundaries of the United Kingdom and to force a change of sovereignty.
Are we to allow people who advocate such behaviour to accept foreign donations, when people like Mr Anthony Blair or Mr Hague, who are loyal subjects of the Crown and who wish to work within our system, will not be allowed to receive subsidies from their foreign friends? I have a major difficulty with the fact that those in Northern Ireland who advocate armed rebellion should receive foreign subsidies.
It is not quite within living memory—although nearly within the living memory of the Queen Mother—that an Irish Home-Ruler was elected in Liverpool. Sometimes Irish politics spills over into this country. However, I give this Bill my support. I hope
1150
that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will be as reactive and constructive in the light of criticism as he has been constructive in some of his remarks today.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am highly qualified to bore your Lordships into the ground on this Bill. I am an ex-major benefactor of a political party; an ex-treasurer; an ex-full-time organiser of a political party; and the man responsible for having unleashed the rampant national political party spending on election advertising when I sought counsel's opinion as to whether the law was as the other party believed it to be. In addition, like. I imagine, a number of people in your Lordships' House and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Rennard—if I libel him in his absence I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will advise him of it—I have cheated on returns of by-election expenses and thereby achieved getting people into Parliament who have served satisfactorily as Members of Parliament for a long time.
I expect that we shall have a long Committee stage and probably a long Report stage when all such matters will come out. I am afraid that we shall be kept very late at night for a long time. There is a great deal to be argued about, and I shall play my part.
Tonight I merely want to touch on a couple of matters which affect my present party. The Green Party welcomes this Bill as part of the loosening up of the constitution which we see as the most obvious benefit that we can acquire from this Government. We have possibly lived too long in,
"A land of settled government,
A land of just and old renown,
Where Freedom slowly broadens down
From precedent to precedent".
That is all very well in its way, but it is a recipe for the hardening of the arteries. If we want the blood of democracy to flow freely through the veins of the country, those arteries have to be softened.
To say that we give the Bill a general welcome is not to say that it is perfect. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I reflect for a moment on the two elements that my party finds particularly interesting and which it would like to amend. In Clause 11 a "registered political party" is regarded as,
"represented' if there are at least two Members of the House of Commons",
who satisfy the conditions. We would widen that to deem it as represented if there are at least two Members of the European or Scottish Parliaments or the Welsh or regional assemblies. If we can obtain the level of voting that we achieve in fairer systems than the "first past the post" system—two representatives of a very high calibre in the European Parliament—we believe that we should qualify for fair treatment under this Bill, even under the unfair electoral system in place at present. We intend to try to amend Clause 11 and possibly add a new clause after it to that effect.
My party is interested in the debate about donations from Europe. I do not yield even to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, in my opposition to the euro and the

1151
single currency. I believe that is an absolutely dreadful thing, and I hope that we shall succeed in resisting that for ever. However, while we are in the European Union, I believe that there is little moral reason why there should be a prohibition against various parties of the same persuasion helping each other across national boundaries. I do not understand such a prohibition. There are a large number of representatives of the Green Party in the European Parliament.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, are they gnomes or elves?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, did the noble Earl say, "name them"?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I said, "Gnomes or elves".
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Oh, my Lords, but not fairies$ I beg your pardon. That is politically incorrect and I hope that Hansard will remove it from the record. We have fellow representatives of the Green Party in Europe and I believe that it would be ethically and morally reasonable for there to be a right for parties to donate to each other. They have more representatives because they have in place a fairer electoral system. We have more votes, but fewer representatives. Such discrepancies occur across national boundaries and I look forward to a detailed discussion of this point in Committee. I am far from clear on which way to make a decision, but it is certainly a point that needs to be looked at carefully.
With those exceptions, I look forward to devoting the immense amount of time that will be required to improve the Bill in Committee. It is a good Bill and we are in favour of it, but undoubtedly it is far too complicated and needs amending in various ways. I hope that we shall be able to do so.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I was deeply impressed by the exposition of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, on the work of his committee. He set out the five key points with admirable clarity and simplicity. However, I wish that they had been more fully reflected in the Bill before us today, because there are certain policies which have not been adopted by the Government. Furthermore, the Government have put such detail and over-elaboration into the Bill that I fear that it may fail in its purpose, or at least not succeed to the extent that we would all wish for it.
For a politician, my noble and learned friend Lord Howe was extraordinarily frank in his contribution. He said that over-elaboration in some legislation for which he had been responsible, or at least partially responsible, had led to a certain amount of failure in the Acts concerned. I think he was absolutely right to make that point. From my own experience I can remember some of the Bills that he mentioned.
1152
We have a more recent example in the working of the Child Support Agency. No one could quarrel with the principle; namely, that absent parents should contribute to the upbringing of their children. However, in the end, over-elaboration of the requirements led to a bureaucratic nightmare. We saw chronic delays in the system and fathers wriggling out of their responsibilities. A simpler scheme might have dealt with the matter far better, even if it had been a little rough and ready. That is the kind of situation that I fear for this Bill.
I am appalled at the number of offences that are to be created, as well as the number of penalties that could be imposed. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, was absolutely right to point out that the average voluntary worker going into a committee room in an ordinary constituency will take fright and rush out again if he or she sees such rules and regulations. Instead of encouraging participation in the political process through political parties and enhancing democracy, I fear that the Bill will in fact have the opposite effect. This point worries me very much.
I think that many people will agree that the Bill attempts to tackle too many subjects all at once. In my view it would have been better to have addressed only the key matters such as the origin of donations and the amounts concerned. It could then have been left to the electoral commission—which I believe to be a good idea—to work out in easy stages what matters it felt were appropriate for further legislation. Indeed, that is provided for under Clause 5, where the commission is asked to keep under review a number of matters and to make reports to the Government. After that, presumably, further legislation could be enacted. In my view it would have been far more sensible to pay greater attention to that rather than attempt to deal with the whole gamut of subjects that are contained in this extremely long Bill.
Many noble Lords have discussed the matter of referenda this evening. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for using the old-fashioned term—I cannot get used to saying "referendums", any more than we might say, "agendums". Because the hour is late and others have dealt adequately with the matter, I shall not go into any detail, save to say that, like several other noble Lords, I dislike the system intensely. I believe that it is virtually impossible to formulate neutral questions that can be answered properly with a simple "yes" or "no". Even if it is possible to do that, I am distinctly disconcerted by the detailed administrative arrangements set out in the Bill. The situation seems to me to be far from satisfactory, especially as regards the issues of whether there should or should not be a limit on expenditure, the role of the Government in promoting their own case, and time limits. As I have said, others have dealt with these matters in some detail and I agree strongly with the points that have been made. I hope that we shall think long and hard before these provisions are allowed to go through unamended.

1153
I should like to make one final point which I believe may be the only one that has not already been touched upon in the debate today. Oddly enough, it relates to what is not in the Bill. I refer to a section in the Representation of the People Act 1983 which, in effect, allows a single candidate in an election to veto an appearance in a broadcast. All the candidates have to agree to the broadcast. I personally came across this as a candidate on more than one occasion. It irritated local broadcasters no end, with good reason. Even if a minor fringe candidate—only one candidate—said, "No, I do not wish to take part", lo and behold, the entire broadcast was cancelled. I cannot think that that is a democratic: way of proceeding. Since almost everything else has been touched on in the Bill, I was surprised to see that this relatively simple suggestion was not taken up and dealt with. I hope that, in Committee, we shall be able to look at this point.
In common with others, I believe that we shall need a long Committee stage because there is a great deal in the Bill that must be discussed. No one could object to the general spirit and principle of the Bill, but certain provisions go far beyond that and I believe that there are significant weaknesses that we shall need to address. However, given the lateness of the hour, I shall forbear to say more.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Stoddarl of Swindon: My Lords, I am a little sorry and indeed a little worried that the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has adopted such a pessimistic attitude towards the Bill. I wish to welcome it as a Bill that deals with some anomalies that have long been overdue for correction. However, now I am anxious about whether I have read the Bill correctly because I believe that it will help to increase public confidence in oar political institutions, rather than the reverse.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and others have pointed out, in many respects the Bill departs from the Neill report. One of those departures is the proposal to establish a Speaker's committee. This was certainly not envisaged by the report of the Neill Committee. I have some doubt about the desirability of establishing a committee of Parliament to oversee the work of what is meant to be an independent commission. On the one hand, it is stated that the electoral commission must be independent and that no politicians may serve on it—apparently politicians are pariahs these days, although it is they who engage in the rough and tumble of politics—but on the other hand, a committee is to be established that will provide for politicians to supervise the commission. That is quite ridiculous. We shall need to examine this provision, especially when it appears that, as envisaged, the Speaker's committee will be weighted in favour of the government of the day. I doubt whether any Member of this House would welcome such a move, except perhaps those on the government Front Bench.
I have a number of other questions that I shall raise later in my speech. One provision which I welcome limits expenditure by political parties on a national
1154
basis. That is something which I very much welcome, because expenditure at national level really is getting out of hand. I believe this provision will help to reverse this trend at general elections and indeed at some other elections to prevent them becoming just another media show which is played out by elite broadcasters and elite politicians.
There really is a need to get back to real electioneering at constituency level, face to face with the electors. That is what politicians should be doing, getting down to constituency levels—at public meetings, door-to-door canvassing, open air meetings—and we must get back to making MPs attend meetings at which they can tell their constituents what their policies are about and what they are going to do so that people can see what kind of persons they are. That will enable them to be questioned by those whom they are asking to represent. I believe it is about time that Members of Parliament became responsible once again and answerable to the electorate, rather than to the leader of their party.
Before passing on to referendums, I should like to ask for an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that the new arrangements for the registration of political parties cannot lead—I repeat, "cannot lead", not "may not lead"—to draconian conditions of legislation that would prevent new entrants coming into the political field. I really do hope that we can get that assurance.
I should now like to turn my attention to referendums, and I am particularly concerned that they should be made absolutely fair to the contenders in any referendum there may be. There certainly has been no fairness in many referendums that we have had so far, notably in the 1975 referendum as to whether Britain should remain in the Common Market. It was estimated in The Times that at least 20 times the money available to the Opposition, to the No vote, was available to be spent by the Pro campaign. That really cannot be right. I hope this Bill will prevent that sort of thing happening again. Furthermore, at that time the Government engaged themselves on one side of the argument—the Pro side that is—and used taxpayers' money to promote that argument. They also issued an official pamphlet supporting continued membership, which went out together with another pro-Common Market pamphlet, and only one "anti" pamphlet. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, remembers it well. Thus the Yes case was financed by millions from private sources and from the taxpayer's pocket. The media were one-sidedly "yes" and the government machine was also on the side of the pro-Common Market lobby.
Under this weight of one-sided advocacy it really was quite remarkable that 33 per cent of the British population still voted to come out. That is a lesson which some of us remember well and have learned well. It seems indeed that even the Government might have learned something from it as well: and so they should, because this sort of one-sided government intervention has occurred very recently, in the case of the Northern Ireland referendum on the Good Friday Agreement,

1155
where the civil servants certainly became involved and the Government became highly involved. They got the result they wanted.
They also got the result they wanted in the Welsh Assembly elections, where public money was used ad lib on the Yes side, whereas one individual had to finance the No campaign. It was quite outrageous: and even after all that the Welsh decided by only 6,000 votes that they wanted this awful assembly which they are now saddled with. If there had been a fair referendum there is no question that the Welsh, quite rightly, would have discarded the idea of an assembly which does them no good and which costs them a lot more. So the Yes case was financed by millions from public sources and the No campaign got nothing.
I hope that the provisions of this Bill will at least help to remedy the situation I have just described, but there are still some worries that must be addressed. The Government machine is to be partly restricted for only 28 days before the date of the referendum. That, as has already been pointed out, is too short a period. Even then, as I understand the Bill, they will be able to issue factual information—I put that in inverted commas: "factual information"—because if some of the "factual information" on the European Union being issued at the present time by the Government is anything to go by, then "factual" has taken on an entirely new meaning.
Then there is the question of spending during the period of the referendum campaign. Why did the Government ignore Neill's view that there should be no undue restriction? Another question is indeed the question itself, as has already been raised from the Benches opposite. Who is to decide the question and say whether it is a fair and balanced one which voters can understand and answer properly?
Finally, should all referendums be decided by simple majority or should constitutional matters have to be decided by, say, a 60 per cent majority or, as in the case of the 1979 Scottish referendum, by a 40 per cent vote of the total electorate rather than those who voted? There are some serious questions to be answered, and among them is the matter of whether Parliament should take a decision before a referendum rather than afterwards.
This is an important point, since a decision by Parliament in advance could, first of all, sway the result in many ways and not least by causing a feeling among the people who might be engaged in the election and could engender in them the view that "they up there—them, the parliamentarians—have decided the question anyway and so it really does not matter what we say". As I have said, there are still many matters to be discussed and resolved at Committee stage.
There is one final issue that I should like to raise, which is the question of television and radio coverage. Although equal broadcasting time will be given directly to the contenders in any national referendum to get over their message, outside that the broadcasters will be able to engage in the issues and the arguments at
1156
will. They are of course supposed to be impartial, but doubt is bound to arise in the light of some recent disclosures. First, there was the BBC radio programme on 3rd February this year which dealt with the turn-round of opinion about the Common Market in the early 1970s. I do not know whether any of your Lordships heard it, but there were a series of regular breakfasts and the sort of thing that went on there was quite amazing. I really must read one or two of the extracts from the summary of the broadcasts. The speaker was a Mr Tucker, who was the head of the Foreign Office Information Research Department. He said:
"We decided to pinpoint the "Today" programme on radio… So round the table came people like Marshall Stewart, who was the brilliant editor of the "Today" programme, which was a key programme, and they sat down with people who were actually negotiating in Brussels. During that time we achieved a thing we couldn't have achieved today, which is we got an extra five minutes on the ITN news in the evening added on which was purely informative."
The interviewer said:
"And that five minutes came out of a direct negotiation with Nigel Ryan who was the editor of ITN across one of those breakfast tables".
The answer from Mr Tucker came,
"Yes across one of those breakfast tables. It was a wonderful, wonderful news opportunity. Even Alistair Campbell could not have done better I feel".
That is what was happening at that time. Then we come to this gem:
"Tucker: Jack De Manio was a presenter who was terribly anti European and we protested privately about this and he was moved … Ian Trethowan listened and De Manio was replaced".
It was also disclosed that not only were the British Government involved, but also the CIA. Dr Richard Aldrich, who teaches in the Department of Politics at Nottingham University, was astonished to discover that,
"the [Washington] library had the entire archive of a CIA front organisation which documents from start to finish funnelling millions of dollars into Europe, into Britain, with all its accounts, with all its receipts with correspondence for example from British Labour MPs to individuals in American intelligence organizations".
We must ensure that that sort of thing does not happen at future referendums. The BBC and ITV are supposed to be impartial. But I understand that those breakfasts are still going on at the present time. We need to ask whether James Naughtie and John Humphreys attend those breakfasts. And we are entitled to an answer.
My last point concerns the behaviour of broadcasters during the recent European elections. Global Britain, of which I am chairman, commissioned a report from the Minotaur Monitoring organisation. It discovered that the broadcasters failed adequately to cover the Euro elections, and indeed played them down, which was certainly the policy of one political party. They gave inadequate coverage to parties of the sceptical tendency. They were boosting the campaign of the breakaway Tory candidates and emphasising the split in the Tory Party while at the same time ignoring the Euro-realists in the Labour Party.

1157
There ought to be a full inquiry into the role and behaviour of the BBC and ITN. If that is unlikely, perhaps when the freedom of information provisions come into force they will enable us to ask questions as to what is going on and how we can have much fairer coverage not only of the European Union issue, but also of other issues in the broadcast media.
As I said in the beginning, the Bill will be helpful and I shall certainly follow it closely through Committee.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I shall be mercifully brief and limit my remarks to that part of the Bill involving referendums, in particular the proposal to regulate third-party campaigning bodies and their spending limits.
Under Clause 111 and Schedule 13 the Bill will impose limits on what a designated campaign group may spend. That is currently set at £5 million. Schedule 9 specifies that the spending limits will apply for the year before an election. As noble Lords have said, those proposals are not entirely consistent with the Neill report recommendations, which specifically ruled out any time period and recognised the difficulties of imposing a spending cap. The proposals in the Bill, far from being fair, appear to be designed with the express purpose of tilting the balance in a referendum in favour of the euro.
We have been promised a referendum on the euro and, under the Bill as it now stands, any anti-euro campaign groups would be limited to spending £5 million in the year before a general election is announced. As my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said, that would be perfectly all right if Parliament had a fixed term; then everyone would know where they were. But Parliament does not have a fixed term. So how do third-party campaigners know when the button has been pressed and the year-clock starts ticking? The answer is that they will not know until the Government call an election.
In other words, the 365-day period during which expenditure will be controlled, as set out in the Bill, will be known retrospectively. That seems very unfair. Any organisation which spends more than £5 million during the year preceding an election will be liable to criminal proceedings under the proposals in the Bill when it could have no certainty as to when the period started during which it was spending money. That is retrospective legislation at work.
The noble Lord, Lord Shore—ever the optimist— said that that provision would be knocked out at Committee stage I trust he is right and I hope to be here to help knock it out. But the Government's answers in another place when this matter was raised were not wildly encouraging. Members of the other place were told that campaign groups could avoid committing an offence by operating to expenditure limits during any 365-day period. That effectively limits them to any 365-period whether it is one, two or three years before the election; in other words, they will have to limit their spending to £5 million during each 365-day period.
1158
Even less helpfully, the government spokesman in the other place at Report stage suggested that third party campaigners might like to make what he called an "educated guess" as to when a general election might be called. What is an "educated guess" as opposed to an uneducated guess? We do not know. But those who make educated guesses are probably the same people who suggested that the euro would be a stable and hard currency. They have not been awfully clever so far.
The third-party campaigners are being asked by the Government to guess whether or not they will be committing a criminal offence, for that is what the Bill will charge them with if they spend more than £5 million in any 365-day unspecified period. That is not good enough. I hope that amendments will be tabled to make this part of the Bill much fairer.
Another area of concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned, is the ban on central and local governments campaigning during the 28-day period prior to an election. The noble Lord, Lord Neill, mentioned that in his report, saying that the 28-day period did not go quite the whole way. From that I infer that he would have preferred a longer period of abstinence from government campaigning so close to a general election. But, as the Bill stands, the Government will be able to push the case for the euro virtually up to the election, while other organisations will be regulated for up to six months before an election.
All this looks as though the Government are trying to rig the rules governing a referendum in their favour. They have already spent some £29 million on the euro preparation programme. As my noble friend Lord Lamont pointed out, they can issue discussion papers and pro-European propaganda disguised as information; they can issue documents such as the national hand-over plan. If the Bill remains unamended, the Government will be allowed to spend whatever it takes, for as long as it takes, to push the case for the euro while organisations which campaign against the euro will be subject to legal spending limits, time limits, retrospective legislation and even imprisonment.
Many speakers have said how keenly they are looking forward to the Committee stage in spite of the threats of my noble friend Lord Mackay to read out numerous schedules. I hope that I shall be able to join the party. Although the Bill has its good parts, the part dealing with referendums needs to be improved radically before the measure is returned to another place.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, this has been a good debate about the health of our democracy. The measures proposed in this Bill are a prescription from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. They arise from a generally shared diagnosis that something is rotten in the state of our politics when it can be seriously suggested that money can buy undue influence in an otherwise democratic system.

1159
There appears to be widespread consensus that the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, prescribed the right kind of medicine. I refer to national limits on party spending; transparency and openness about where the money comes from to finance political parties; and an independent electoral commission to take much of the responsibility for initiating and overseeing changes to our electoral machinery out of the hands of the governing party and the parties themselves. There may, however, be some disagreement about the dosage of the medicine. Some of us may believe that a few extra drugs should be prescribed in addition.
It was the issue of funding, the constant scandals which surrounded the previous government and the addition of the word "sleaze" to our common political vocabulary which led to the formation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—initially under the guidance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan.
I do not believe, however, that the problem in this country is as bad as it is in, for example, the United States of America, to which many noble Lords have referred in this afternoon's debate. In America the huge costs of modern campaigning, especially through TV advertising, force candidates and legislators to devote more of their time to chasing money than to campaigning for the votes of the ordinary citizen or to doing their job of legislating. Indeed, it is estimated that a US Congressman will need to raise 12,000 dollars each day he is in office simply to stay in office. The need to raise such huge sums has a corrupting influence.
Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, argued in his report, and this afternoon, the time has come to call a halt to our own party political "arms race" before we all fall further into the trap into which politicians in the United States have already fallen, and where there is considerable disquiet but little action on the subject of campaign finance reform.
In this country, our laws to prevent the widespread buying of the ballot date back to 1883 when campaign expenditure was almost wholly at the constituency level with virtually no national expenditure by national party organisations. There were many scandals at the time with the purchase of constituencies. Some of your Lordships may remember the famous episode of "Blackadder" in which the late and much missed Vincent Hanna reported from the by-election in "Dunny on the Wold" where Lord Blackadder had bought the seat by purchasing the vote of the only person entitled to participate.
The political corruption scandals of the 18th and 19th centuries were largely ended—as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, pointed out earlier—with legislation against bribery, the introduction of the secret ballot and the introduction of constituency expenditure limits. But our electoral laws have scarcely changed in many ways since 1883, while the way in which elections are fought has
1160
changed considerably. For many years the constituency limit, together with rules making it illegal to hire canvassers or vehicles to convey voters to the poll, helped to prevent a rich candidate or party from effectively buying a seat.
However, elections are no longer fought primarily at the constituency level. If we look at the increase in spending at national level by the Conservative Party over the past 25 years, we see how things have changed and we can look ahead to the problems we may face in future unless we act now.
In each of the 1974 elections the Conservative Party was calculated to have spent less than £100,000 on its national campaigns. By 1979, with the services for the first time of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, in charge of advertising, the Conservative Party is estimated to have spent £2 million nationally. By 1983 the sum was £4 million; by 1987 it was £9 million; by 1992 it was £11 million; and by 1997 it was a staggering £28 million.
Of course, I have heard some politicians argue that this money simply does not buy votes. But why then would the parties seek to raise and spend such huge sums of money? I can tell your Lordships that it is not simply for fun. The requirement for political parties to raise funds on this scale encourages a most unhealthy syndrome of dependency on a few very wealthy individuals. It strikes at the core of the democratic principle of one person, one vote, if we reach the point at which £1 million brings about a change in policy which millions of votes have failed to achieve.
The dependency, for example, of the Conservative Party on the tobacco industry to provide advertising sites during the 1992 general election cannot have encouraged that government to tackle the problem of the 300 people who die every day from tobacco-related illnesses, or the burden which that habit places on the NHS. It was not without reason that the Labour Party was advised to return the £1 million donation from Mr Bernie Ecclestone, following its delay in banning tobacco advertising from Formula 1 events.
Parties should be free from pressures to seek contributions of this kind. Therefore, the core proposal of a maximum expenditure limit in general elections is a welcome one. However, the precise limit needs to be considered carefully.
The current proposal for a national limit is calculated on the basis that for every seat fought there should be £30,000 of allowable national expenditure. Therefore, for a party fighting virtually every constituency, the limit will be nearly £20 million. But the limit for constituency-based campaigning will remain at about £8,000 per seat or an aggregate for all constituencies across the country of about £5 million.
It seems to me that the balance is wrong when four times as much money can be spent on national campaigns as on the constituency campaigns. It cannot be fair that a candidate is effectively prohibited because of electoral expense limits from placing an advert in his local paper explaining why people should vote for him while candidates from richer parties are able to benefit from huge national advertising

1161
campaigns, full-page advertisements in national newspapers, and expensive bill-board advertising. Ideally, I should like to see a national limit which matches the aggregate of the constituency limits. I believe that there is a strong case for lowering the proposed national limits and for increasing the amounts which can legally be spent in constituencies.
Many of the reasons for which it is proposed to increase spending limits for parliamentary by-elections also apply to constituency campaigns in a general election. The same innovations in campaigning methods and technologies apply. It seems to me that the disparity between the constituency limit of about £8,000 and the proposed by-election limit of £100,000 is simply too great.
Too much emphasis is put on the national campaign if £20 million is the national limit and only £5 million is the aggregate constituency total. I ask the Minister to look carefully at these totals and at arguments advanced in another place. Both Mr Martin Linton and Mr Andrew Stunell argued that £75,000 should be the limit for parliamentary by-elections; I agree. Furthermore, I agree with them that a notional national limit based upon £30,000 per constituency fought is too high. I think that the figure of £22,500 which they suggested is quite high enough. But I would reduce this further and increase the constituency limits to, say, an average of between £12,000 and £16,000.
However, there is more to ensuring a level playing field in elections than introducing national expenditure limits. A system in which two parties can raise and spend £20 million each and their nearest rival—with more than half the support of one of them, and almost hall the support of the other—can raise and spend only £3 million hardly seems like a fair fight. My noble friend Lord McNally earlier made an eloquent case, as ever, for state funding.
I should perhaps declare an interest in this subject as the director of campaigns and elections for the Liberal Democrats. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, referred earlier to the previous Labour government's attempts to implement the Houghton commission report. I regret that they failed on that occasion.
I also remind the House that it was not long ago—in 1994—that the Labour Party, in opposition, argued in its evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs that there should be an element of state funding for political parries and that the public were prepared to pay for this. But even if, as I accept, the public are not delirious about the prospect of paying a small contribution to make democracy work, I believe that they would consider that more attractive than the alternative proposition of having our democracy depend on the favours of a few millionaires.
In evidence to the Neill committee, my party argued that £50,000 was quite enough for any one individual to donate to a political party. Maximum limits for donations apply in many countries. If they applied here, I believe that a number of noble Lords to my left would have bean spared their blushes last Friday morning. Only a sensible limit on donations will prevent the suspicion of money buying undue
1162
influence in the political process and thwarting the democratic principle that each vote has equal value. But sensible levels of campaigning will take place thereafter only if that funding is replaced to some extent by a modest element of state funding.
So far, I have addressed my remarks to the issues of fairness, democracy and a more level playing field between the political parties. But there is, I believe, a greater danger in the Bill that, despite the best of intentions, the Government may unwittingly permit the proverbial coach and horses to be driven through their intention to make the rules on election spending somewhat fairer. The proposals for expenditure by so-called "third parties"—I do not mean the Liberal Democrats—intend to allow those who are not standing in an election to express their views on issues, for and against particular candidates. That is right and proper; to prevent them doing so would be in breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but they should not be able to exercise disproportionate influence on a campaign through massive financial advantage over those who are standing for election.
The attempt to subvert the democratic choice of voters in the recent Scottish parliamentary by-election through massive and misleading advertising highlights the dangers we face if people with more money than sense are allowed to spend disproportionate sums of money on trying to influence electoral outcomes. I therefore welcome the Minister's statement today that there will be a £500 limit proposed for such constituency expenditure. But there must also be a much smaller national limit than that currently proposed for third party expenditure in national elections. This will also help to prevent the so-called "cheating" to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred.
There are a number of other issues in the Bill which will require further examination. I refer in particular to the practicalities for the parties of implementing the detailed requirements for disclosure of financial information. I think that all parties accept the principles in the Bill, but as largely voluntary organisations, with significantly fewer staff than many civil servants may believe, it will not be as easy as they think to fulfil the very detailed requirements. In particular, there needs to be more understanding of the different ways in which parties organise. My own party has a federal structure, which is quite distinctive. I thank the Minister for confirming in his opening remarks that he is considering how this can be taken into account.
As the Minister also indicated, we need to consider the genuine differences between sponsorship and advertising at conference events, and unconditional donations—up to a certain level of course. We need to define more carefully the differences between local and national expenditure so that it is clear who is responsible for what.
In relation to the difficulties faced by all parties, I concur entirely with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, on this

1163
subject, and with some of the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. I hope that in future the electoral commission will address some of these issues, but it may not have time to address them before the parties have to gear up for their new legal and financial responsibilities.
I hope that the electoral commission will be a great success. Indeed, I look forward to the day when it will be able to go further than its initial remit and ensure that in future general elections we will have proper televised debates between the three main party leaders and between the four main party leaders in Scotland and Wales.
The electoral commission will, I hope, ensure that our electoral laws never get so out of date again as lifestyles and technology move on. Civic education will be an important part of its remit. Impartial explanation of the political process is an essential prerequisite to encouraging participation and sustaining the health of our democracy.
Taken as a whole, this Bill will help to cure some of the ills in our failing democracy. Let us make sure that the treatment provided is as effective as possible.
7.54 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, said that this was a Bill derived from the chattering classes and spin doctors. That may be the case, but it is a Bill from his Government's Front Bench. I do not wish to draw analogies as to who on the Government Front Bench is the spin doctor and who is a member of the chattering classes. I shall leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks.
While we agree with many of the principles in the Bill, it is long, badly-drafted and will no doubt be subject to a whole raft of government amendments even before we get to the Committee stage and before we on this side of the House have tabled any of our own amendments. Almost every noble Lord followed my noble and learned friend Lord Howe in complaining about the complication and over-elaboration of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Fookes showed how the Bill could discourage rather than encourage local involvement in politics.
I am sure that there will be government amendments. We shall want to see them in good time. Perhaps I may plead with the Minister that the Committee stage will be after the Easter Recess so that there is ample time for debate. I hope that the Government will table the amendments in good time in order that we may consider them carefully. Indeed, that may give the Minister time to understand the complications of his own Bill. The number of days in Committee will be purely relative to the complication of the Bill brought forward by the Government.
The noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Goodhart, want state funding. I thought it was rather interesting how much they spent at the previous election. I think that they said they spent £3 million.
1164
Compared with the percentage of the vote that the Liberal Democrats received, that was rather good. They did better than we did; they got more bangs for their bucks. They probably did rather better than the Government. I am not sure that they made out a case at all for state funding; they should carry on as they are. We have always been against state funding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, said we should not get too bogged down in detail but should stick to the principles. We are not going to get bogged down in detail today, but I am afraid we shall get terribly bogged down in Committee and at Report stage. But that is why we are here; that is what this House is for.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I did not actually say that. I am sorry if I was not clear. I said that I hoped that when we discussed the detail we did not forget the principle.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I accept entirely what the noble Baroness has said. We shall try always to remember the principles as we wade through the detail of the Bill.
I turn now to some of the issues which derive from the Bill. The first issue is political party donations. We agree that blind trusts should not be used. They have been abused in the past; it is extraordinary how many prospective Cabinet Ministers suddenly turned out to have one. The two main points about donations amplified by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, are that there should be a disclosure of names and a limit on expenditure in elections. We agree with all of that.
Turning now to something more difficult—that is, the electoral commission. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, was concerned about membership. We agree. My noble friend Lord Norton is concerned about membership. It seems to us that membership should be open to include, for example, members of the judiciary. The idea that former politicians should be disbarred seems totally illogical. It is rather like asking Members of another place to come to this House, to forget that they are politicians and to sit on the Cross-Benches and have individual views. That does not make any sense. Many distinguished politicians and former politicians have been chosen by this Government and the previous Government to sit on commissions; they have carried out their roles with great impartiality and have done extremely good jobs. To disbar a whole number of people who have a wealth of experience is utterly illogical.
My second point about the commission concerns the extraordinary power it will have under Clause 12. Clause 12 is extraordinarily wide-ranging. Under Clause 12 the commission can promote EU institutions. How can that be justified? After all, these institutions have their own vastly expensive PR machines and are quite happy to promote themselves. They certainly do not need our help.

1165
The commission is to have an educational role. The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, was concerned about overloading the commission with an educational role. Clause 12 does that. Indeed, subsection (4)(b) even gives it the power to make,
"grants to other persons or bodies for the purpose of enabling them to carry out such programmes".
What kind of "other bodies" could these be that the commission will substitute for its own role in education?
That brings me to another point regarding the commission and the proposal in the Bill that we should suddenly be within or without 365 days of a general election. That proposal puts the Government in a totally privileged position. The noble Lord, Lord Shore, said that this was obvious nonsense. We agree. We shall certainly wish to return to this point at the Committee stage.
Perhaps I may leave general elections and turn to referendums. My noble friend Lord Lamont, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, and my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke were concerned about the clauses in the Bill on referendums. The central issue about a referendum is who decides the question and whether the question is fair. My noble friend Lord Norton said that the commission should have a central function. The Bill as currently drafted will allow the Government to gerrymander any referendum in favour of, for example, the euro. At the very least the commission should have to be consulted and perhaps should even have to approve or frame the question. It must be for Parliament to decide what the final question is, but surely the commission should have a role in that. The same applies to determining thresholds, turn-out and period issues. Surely the commission should play a part in determining that policy.
The whole point of a referendum is that a party does not necessarily have a view and questions cross party lines. With regard to the previous referendum on Europe, parties were split in ways that were perhaps surprising when we look back to those days. The idea that there should be arbitrary limits, as set out in Schedule 15, is unfair. It should come under umbrella organisations. We shall have to look closely at whether EU organisations should be able to play a part and become permitted participants, as the Bill currently allows.
Perhaps I may say a few words about broadcasters. It is surprising that the commission should not play a greater role in party political broadcasts and determining how many there should be. I understand that that has been resisted by both the ITC and the BBC. We know that in the past there have always been arguments about how long they should be and how many there should be. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat Party felt on one occasion that it had been left out of that process and complained bitterly. It would seem sensible to look at whether the commission should have a greater role in deciding what is fair. Very often the ITC and the BBC do not necessarily agree. We shall therefore want to look closely at Clause 10. We shall also want to look at advertising and poster
1166
advertising in general elections. Control of advertising has concerned many of those who have spoken in the debate.
We shall want to look at other issues—for example, bequests, the definition of campaign expenditure, compliance costs, and Clause 94 and the order allowing the Secretary of State to make changes regarding referendums. My noble friend Lord Lamont is concerned about referendums and defining caps by political parties. We agree that it should be for umbrella organisations with regard to referendums. The Bill needs to be amended in that area.
Perhaps I may now turn to trade unions. Trade unions are generally affiliated to the Labour Party—the Bill should recognise that fact but it does not—as are often co-operative societies, which, like trade unions, are major funders of the Labour Party. The Bill gives the Labour Party a way round the limits on campaign expenditure. Unions pay political levies. Unions are part of the Labour Party's nomination process. They have a vote in who is to he chosen as, for example, a mayoral candidate. Indeed, they have a vote in who is to be chosen to be the leader of the Labour Party. How can they be separate bodies as defined under the Bill? That cannot be right.
My noble friend Lord Onslow is concerned about Northern Ireland. So are we. We believe that if Sinn Fein wants to be a credible political party it, too, should not rely on overseas donations when other parties cannot receive them. We know that in reality the Bill could be a cover for the funding of terrorist acts against our own people. We know that that could happen and we must guard against it. We shall want to look closely at this issue. The way that the Bill is presently drafted cannot be right.
Perhaps I may come back to political funding and local treasurers. It seems to us that weekly donation reports are unnecessary and are far too burdensome. With the chaos of party machines, as it often is, during general elections, how can local treasurers manage to take control of this issue? Under Clause 62 the Secretary of State—I am reading from page 13 of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee's report—may,
"after consulting the Commission, by order, extend the provisions on weekly donation reports in relation to the specified election period in relation to one or more relevant elections".
That means that the Secretary of State, by order, will be able to expand the provision. The point I am making is not a particularly Conservative Party one. It is the same for any local party. If we are going to encourage democracy, if we are to encourage people to come forward and play a part in local elections and if we are to encourage donations, we must have sensible rules. They must be enforceable, so they must be simple and straightforward. The rules in the Bill are not.
That brings me to tax relief. All noble Lords were in favour of it, except possibly the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. Tax relief was recommended in the report. It would cost between £4 million and £5 million a year. That is what the Government spend on spin doctors.

1167
As we have heard, they spend £92 million on their advertising budget. There would be no great administrative burden. Tax relief would prevent state aid and not encourage it or be a substitute for state aid. The costs are so small in comparison with what has been raised by the Government's stealth taxes that the Government's reason has to be political and not fiscal. There can be no argument that it is a fiscal reason. It cannot be argued on budgetary grounds. In his report, the noble Lord, Lord Neill, encouraged the giving of small amounts. All noble Lords on this side of the House agreed with that. The Government are going to have to reconsider the matter.
I turn now to company donations. There seems to be a loophole here, left by the Government for some reason, I know not why. European companies will be able to give money without restrictions. I hate to sound harsh to the Minister, but we all know how the socialist parties in Germany and elsewhere in Europe have benefited from company funding. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but they will have to tighten up that clause of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Shore, described the provision as driving a coach and horses through British politics. We agree.
We have always wished to see the Neill recommendations implemented in full, not with parts missing. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, described the Government's thinking behind the Bill as, "It's now our turn to draw up the rules". I am afraid that that is only too true. The Bill has in part been written by a responsible Government; but in part, I am afraid, it shows too much influence of the party chairman and the Labour Party machine.
I warn the Minister that if a clause is too complicated, if it is not understandable, and if the Minister cannot explain it, we shall have to look closely at amending it in Committee.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I spent Saturday evening—I cannot resist saying this because the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is present—in the company of a body of citizens who come under the heading, the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors. I held out great hopes for the society's annual banquet. I was given a very entertaining time. I wagered that this evening would not be so interesting or entertaining, but I have to tell noble Lords that they have matched the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors in every respect.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the last time the Minister addressed the House he had spent his evening reading the local government journal. Last Saturday, it was the funeral directors. For his own good, the Minister really has to give up life in the fast lane.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, at least I have succeeded in one respect: I have brought some added levity to the proceedings.
1168
I take great encouragement from the debate. I enjoyed all the contributions in their different way. I enjoyed particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It was witty and ingenious and up to his usual standard. We heard many important comments from the noble Lord, Lord Neill, who made a telling contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, displayed his command of the issues. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, helped greatly to advance the debate as a result of his work on the Neill committee, as did the noble Lords, Lord Rennard, Lord McNally and Lord Norton of Louth. I enjoyed also the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton. It is invidious to single people out, and wrong to do so, but all noble Lords made separate points and I shall try to deal with them as best I can.
The debate was positive and constructive, reflecting what happened in another place. With some notable exceptions, particularly on tax relief, there was a large measure of support on all sides of the House. I stopped writing down the number of welcomes given to the broad swathe of measures set out in the Bill. That is as it should be for a Bill dealing with the regulation of political parties and with electoral matters. One consistent criticism, essentially from the Benches opposite but reflected in comments from other parts of the House, was that the Bill is elaborate. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, said that it was too much at once and other noble Lords said it was very detailed.
There has been a failure to regulate in this area over many years. That is why we have a long, detailed, and, in some regards, complex piece of legislation to consider. No doubt the House, with its reputation for giving matters very close inspection and scrutiny, particularly in Committee and on Report, will seek to sort out many of the problems that we have perhaps imagined at this early stage in our discussions.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, described the Bill as too bureaucratic. We recognise that there is a lot of detail in the Bill. It is an inevitable consequence of the Neill scheme. I remind the House of 'what the Neill committee said in response to our initial White Paper. It said:
"We congratulate you. Home Secretary, on its clarity and conciseness. We appreciate the effort required to translate recommendations into legislative form and are impressed by your success in doing so".
That is a tribute to our efforts to reflect the majority of the 100 recommendations set out by the committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, raised a number of other important questions and political points. He asked how we can expect political parties, and third parties, to comply with controls on expenditure in the 12 months' run-up to an election, the date of which cannot possibly be known in advance. It was claimed that this was in some sense skewing the way in which politics would go. We believe that the provision ought to be on the face of the Bill in the interests of clarity and effective enforcement. It is important that political parties should know the period during which controls on campaign expenditure are to apply. In the case of parliamentary general elections, recent experience

1169
suggests that the main political parties begin campaigning in earnest about a year in advance of the expected date of the election. In spite of the fact that the precise state of a general election is not known well in advance, there is no hindrance to the operation of the scheme set out in the Bill. In practice, a political party can ensure that its campaign expenditure remains within the prescribed limits by adhering to those limits during any 365-day period. Parties will, in any event—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? If that is the case, why do the Government not come clean and write into the Bill a provision to control the expenditure of political parties every month of every year? If they are always having to look over their shoulder, as it were, in an attempt to work out their expenditure in relation to a date in the future, surely it would be far better just to impose that limit on them. Secondly, will the limits apply to the expenditure of constituency parties as well?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall reflect on the second point. On the noble Lord's first point, it is inevitable in a scheme of regulation such as is envisaged and described in the Bill that there will be increased regulation of the day-to-day expenditure of political parties. It is an implication that follows as a consequence—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, this point is important. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, perfectly reasonably, that the Government say, "We are doing so well, we want another big bite of the cherry. We love being in government and bossing people about, and we therefore want to go to the country in October of this year", which is well within the year in which the expenditure of political parties should be controlled. How on earth is anyone to know whether the Government are likely to call a snap election, say, three and a half years into a Parliament? It is a perfectly legal thing to do, and it has been done many times. It presents terrible complications.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for Lis point. Clearly, it is a matter that political parties will have to consider seriously in planning their expenditure over the years which—
The Earl of Onslow: They cannot.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: With respect, it is a matter to which political parties will have to give more thought. That will apply to all of us.
Parties will, in any event, want to keep in reserve a significant proportion of their expenditure allowance for the formal campaign period during and following the announcement of the date of the poll.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made the point: why not apply expenditure controls just over the period when the election is called? The Neill committee's objective was to reduce significantly the level of campaign expenditure that was evident at the
1170
last election. It seemed to me that there was a consensus on the issue. The figures quoted were £28 million for the Conservative Party, £26 million for Labour, and £3 million for our colleagues in the Liberal Democrat Party. The figures were for expenditure over a 12 to 16-month period. If we want to end the arms race in election spending we must control expenditure over a period of about 12 months. To control spending only during the four or five weeks before the date of the poll would leave the parties free to spend millions in the run-up to the final election period.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, quite rightly, questioned the effect of the Bill on foreign funding because EU and Commonwealth nationals are permissible donors. In the Bill we have linked the definition of a permissible donor to those cases in which individuals are entitled to vote. We believe that this is a simple test which will be relatively easy for parties to follow. Our electoral law allows for Commonwealth citizens to register and vote in all elections and for EU citizens to vote in local and European parliamentary elections, as we have debated in the past. If a person is entitled to vote it must be right that he or she is also allowed to donate to a political party.
The noble Lord also raised the question of third party expenditure in elections. The provisions in Part VI of the Bill reflect the recommendations of the Neill committee in this respect. The committee proposed that third parties should be allowed to spend up to 5 per cent of the limit for political parties, and the Bill makes clear provision for that. We cannot prevent third parties spending money in an election campaign or impose unrealistic limits. We are already aware, from the judgment in Bowman, of the view that the European Court of Human Rights would take of such restrictions. While we must allow third parties to have their say, nevertheless we recognise that the political parties are the main players.
The noble Lords, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Marsh, referred to the position of third parties in referendums. The spending controls in Part VII will apply to all organisations, not just political parties, that campaign in a referendum. The Bill provides that an organisation registered with the electoral commission may spend up to £500,000 in a UK-wide referendum. That trade unions and others should be allowed to campaign is simply a matter of free speech, which many Members of your Lordships' House have defended over the years. To prevent them spending money in a campaign would be contrary to Article 10 of the ECHR in the same way as the £5 limit on third parties under the 1983 Act has been held by the European Court to be contrary to convention rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred to shareholder approval of donations by EU companies. The provisions of Part IX reflect the relevant recommendations of the Neill committee. The requirement to obtain the prior consent of shareholders for political donations will, and can, apply only to companies incorporated in Great Britain

1171
and registered under the Companies Act. The fact is that we cannot legislate here in respect of companies incorporated in another member state of the European Union. I am afraid that, imperfect as it is, this is a situation with which we must live.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, dealt with an issue which I always expect noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches to raise: state funding of political parties in this country. That issue is related to the question of tax relief, which was also raised in the debate. We believe that that is a form of state aid by the back door. Although we are always open to argument, it is our consistent view that it is wrong to use that form of subsidy for major political parties, particularly when there are many other calls for the funding of important public services. That is a well-rehearsed and understood argument.
My noble friend Lady Gould asked a number of important questions, not least whether it was realistic to expect central party organisations to supervise and account for the expenditure of each and every constituent branch or association. That matter was also touched upon by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. That must be done if the controls set out in Part V are to apply to all campaign expenditure incurred by a political party. Expenditure incurred on behalf of individual candidates will continue to be regulated by the 1983 Act, and the party centrally will need to concern itself with that issue. My noble friend Lady Gould also asked about the list of items to be counted against expenditure limits. The Neill committee suggested that any list of items to be set against expenditure limits needed to be comprehensive. For that reason the list has been placed on the face of the legislation.
The Bill also provides for the electoral commission to produce a code of practice to give guidance as to what kinds of expenses are to be covered by the list and the allocation of overall costs. If we adopted a less comprehensive approach by setting aside the costs of staff and premises a reassessment in general terms of the appropriate limits of expenditure might be required.
A number of noble Lords focused on trade unions. In particular, my noble friend Lady Gould asked about their role and status. It is our understanding that they are incorporated associations and, therefore, are capable of becoming recognised third parties under the terms of Part VI of the Bill. However, I undertake to investigate the matter further since it has importance and will no doubt be reflected in our further deliberations.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, he may ponder the fact that there are various professional groups within political parties. For example, if the Society of Conservative Lawyers decides to register as a third party, can it spend up to the half a million pound limit?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall ponder that point with my usual eye to detail and return to it when I have the opportunity. No doubt I shall not be allowed to forget it.
The noble Lord, Lord Neill, was, quite understandably, concerned, as was the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, about overloading the work of the electoral commission. We agree that the first priority for that commission is to put in place the controls over parties' income and expenditure. Other functions of the electoral commission will not be brought into force until some time after that body has been established. We are rather more optimistic than the noble Lord about the ability of the electoral commission to take on its broader non-regulatory, and perhaps educational, functions.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, spoke about the need for a clear statement on the face of the Bill to make the buying of air time illegal. I have a great deal of sympathy with that point. However, the ban is set out in a longstanding code of practice which covers the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority. There is absolutely no doubt about the operation of that code, and we are not immediately persuaded that the prohibition on political advertising needs to be given any further statutory force. That is something which the electoral commission will regard as an important part of its regulatory function, and no doubt it is an issue to which we can return. We are at one on that point, which was well made by a number of noble Lords.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, although it may be made clear in one place, what harm would it do to say it again clearly a second time in this Bill?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, when we return to debate the matter at a later stage perhaps that is something to which we can give further thought.
I should like to focus on one or two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. The noble Lord asked whether consideration should be given to giving the electoral commission the job of setting referendum questions. We believe that separate legislation is required in order for any particular referendum to be held, and the questions to be asked will need to be considered in that context. It is right that the wording should be a matter for Parliament to decide. Surely, that is part of our primary purpose. It has been suggested, however, that the electoral commission should have an advisory role in setting the wording of a referendum question. That may well be an appropriate role for it to undertake. It is a suggestion to which the Government are prepared to give further consideration, although the Neill committee did not envisage that as one of the roles of the commission.
I was interested in the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, about the commission's neutrality and independence. In another place Members of the noble Lord's party moved amendments which explicitly sought to have on the face of the Bill that no serving or former Member of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the

1173
National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the European Parliament shall be eligible for appointment as an electoral commissioner. Do I now understand that the noble Viscount argues against that point?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, has the Minister not heard of probing amendments? They are tabled in this House and another place.
Before the Minister leaves the issue of the commission, why does it need to promote public awareness of the institutions of the European Union?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall turn to that point, but I had hoped for some consistency across both Houses on the need for the independence of the electoral commission. When we return to the point at a later stage, I hope that that wish will be fulfilled.
It is clearly important that the commission has the broader, educational role of explaining and underpinning governments' civic responsibility in promoting greater awareness of all our important political institutions. Some Members of your Lordships' House—the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, made this point—took a rather sinister view of the role. I have a more generous view. There is an important educative role for the commission to fulfil. However, we shall undoubtedly return to that issue.
I said that I would pick up the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about funding of parties from the US. An order made under Clause 65 will disapply the previsions of Part IV of the Bill in respect of Northern Ireland parties. Such an order will apply for four years in the first instance. The effect of such an order will be that parties operating in Northern Ireland will, as now, be able to accept donations from the Irish Republic and elsewhere, including the United States. The Neill committee recognised that as an inescapable consequence of its proposals. We agree that it would be preferable not to make any distinct provision for Northern Ireland parties.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, this seems so fundamentally true. Why is it morally wrong for a Chinese supporter of the Conservative Party to send a cheque to the Conservatives, or a Clinton supporter of the Labour Party to give the Labour Party a cheque, but not for No raid to send a cheque to Sinn Fein? I cannot see the moral difference, except political cowardice. That is the only reason for it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Earl is entitled to his opinion. We have set out our stall on the issue of transparency. We believe that to be right. But we have to be realistic about what can be achieved. It was in that spirit that the Neill committee recommended that in the light of the Good Friday agreement it would be wrong to place barriers in the way of parties operating on an all-Ireland basis. That was essentially the range of its argument.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, I am trying to follow his
1174
argument. The noble Lord cannot pray the Neill committee in aid when it comes to taking money from the United States. Recommendation 29 states:
"In relation to donations to political parties in Northern Ireland, the definition of a 'permissible source' should also include a citizen of the Republic of Ireland resident in the Republic subject to compliance with the Republic's Electoral Act 1997".
I do not know what the Electoral Act does, but if it does not include American citizens I do not understand how the Government can pray in aid the Neil committee.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point on which we shall undoubtedly have some vigorous discussion. I do not have the report before me. However, I shall study carefully those points when I read Hansard.
The hour is getting late. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, raised the issue of expenditure limits. The limits of £100,000 for by-elections and £20 million for national expenditure by parties were clearly recommendations of the Neill committee. We feel bound by those. We believe that they are right and proportionate.
In conclusion, political parties have a vital role to play in our representative democracy. Parties provide the link between the citizen and the government of the day. It is the political parties which formulate and articulate the clear choice between competing values and their practical manifestation in a coherent set of policies as set out in a manifesto. By presenting these competing choices at elections, political parties offer the people that fundamental right in a democratic society to determine for themselves how they are governed.
These are onerous responsibilities. People place their trust in politicians and political parties and it is incumbent on them not to abuse that trust. The secretive funding of political parties, including by foreign donors with no direct stake in how we run our national affairs, has served, we believe, to undermine that trust and weaken the compact between the citizen and the state. It is vital to the health of our democracy that the funding of political parties is open and transparent.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a small point. As did the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, the Minister refers to an open and transparent system. I am still unclear as to the difference between openness and transparency.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I enjoyed the observation. The noble Lord is being precise; and that is fine. But I believe that openness and transparency go to the heart of the issue. I am sure that noble Lords opposite understand and appreciate that.
The Bill will ensure that openness and transparency and it will strengthen the accountability of parties not just to their members but to the wider electorate. I should have thought that that is the biggest benefit of this legislation. In short, the Bill will strengthen the

1175
very fabric of our democracy. For too long the closed door approach has obstructed that process. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CJD
8.36 p.m.
Lord Lucasrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what preventive measures they are taking and what preparations they are making to deal with the possibility of a sizeable epidemic of new-variant CJD.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I seek to persuade the Government to prepare for the worst. I can do no better than refer the Minister to the paper published by Professor Collinge in July 1999 setting out his views on the likely course of new-variant CJD in Britain. The conclusions he reached were that in all likelihood what we are seeing at present are not individuals who caught the disease at the time we knew that BSE existed but those who had caught the disease before that; and, taking a line from other TSEs in humans, we were likely to see the peak of this epidemic in 15 or 20 years' time. Therefore, considering the level of cases occurring now, we may be looking at a disease which will kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of us.
Should we ever reach that horrific moment when we have to admit that an epidemic will kill enormous numbers, I want the Government to be able to look back at what they did with pride and to say, "We did the best we could. We took all the measures we reasonably could take at the time". I want the rest of us to be able to agree with the Government on that.
I was a fly on the wall, as a very junior member of the Government in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when the BSE crisis boiled over. I look back at that period as a time of panic and a lack of preparedness. I look back at 1,001 things that we could have done better in the years running up to that point. But I also look back at a government composed of people who had the best of motives, took the best of advice, and did what they thought was best at the time.
There are two main reasons why the road to hell was paved with our good intentions. First, we were optimistic. Of course we were. Before knowing to the contrary, who would not wish that BSE could not transmit to humans? However, we allowed that optimism to cloud the need for pessimism. We concentrated on giving the public a reassuring message and we believed that doing so precluded us from taking precautions, openly and in public, to deal with the situation should our optimism turn out to be unjustified.
The second reason for getting things wrong was that we were secretive. There is, and always has been, a strong culture of secrecy in MAFF, but we allowed it to take over. All the research data, conclusions and direction were confined within MAFF. There was little
1176
public knowledge outside of what was happening. All the decisions were taken internally. Such a closed attitude leads to bad, slow, misdirected research.
The other aspect of secrecy was that we took our decisions in private. We did not publicly share them or the reasons for taking them. That meant that if later the decision turned out to be wrong or questionable, it was hard to go back on it. As it had not been accepted by the public when it was taken, to go back on it (having asked them to believe in it) risked precipitating a crisis which might not be justified. Sadly, that was not borne out by experience.
Optimism and secrecy meant that we could not obtain proper funding from the Treasury for preventive measures and for research. The Treasury was not told the full extent of the fears about what might be going wrong. We could not prepare our European and other colleagues for the worst and we could not prepare our citizens for what might happen. Therefore, when the crisis broke, it was devastating.
The reason I have asked for tonight's debate is that when I look at what the Government are doing about new-variant CJD I recognise the same symptoms in what we did during the run-up to the BSE crisis. I see the same optimism and secrecy.
If we were making preparations for the worst, we would expect to see a large, open, public research programme. We would expect to see scientists all over the world swapping information openly and freely. In the best and most open scientific areas there is real work to be done at the fundamentals of science. That is certainly true in respect of new-variant CJD when we do not even know the basic disease mechanism.
The best examples publish their laboratory workbooks daily on the Internet. We have to wait a year, or a year and a half, for results on new-variant CJD to be published in a review paper. Asking the Government for information can be like drawing teeth. I asked the Minister a Question about the ages of people who have died of new-variant CJD and was told to the nearest 10 years. How can one use such data to draw a graph and see what is happening, given the number of people who have died of the disease? Even the basic, most simple, least important data is being held back and delayed by the Government. That is entirely familiar to me as we did exactly the same thing.
We ought to be looking at a research programme which will clearly and to everyone's knowledge provide a good picture of what is happening. The foundation of that must be prospective studies. It must be gathering data on a large group of us, testing us, seeing what is happening to us and then waiting to see how many of us die of the disease. Unless that is done, we shall lack the basic predictive data which enables us to work on the disease if and when it becomes relevant.
There is only one sizeable prospective study. It is a tonsil test covering 1,000 people, but it has been delayed for more than a year by a hospital ethics committee. The sense of urgency does not exist. I ask the Minister what progress has been made in evaluating the capillary electrophoresis test developed by Mary Jo Schmerr. He may remember that the

1177
Answer he gave was that the test had undergone some preliminary evaluation and that an application for full evaluation is being considered.
However, The Times of 3rd October—six months ago—reported a MAFF spokesman as saying that a team had been set up to evaluate the test and then begin a screening programme. In six months we have gone backwards We are not looking at a government with a sense of commitment or urgency to analyse what is going on with the disease.
If we arrive at a point of crisis, we must have diagnostics, cures and prospective studies well under way and co-ordinated; and we, the public, must know what is going ort. If not, we shall risk a catastrophe of confidence in the institutions of this country and in our future as individuals.
Another symptom of optimism and secrecy is things left undone. The noble Lord will have seen the article in the Sunday Times picking up the fact that we in this country are still feeding calves with blood, gelatin and tallow. We now know—we might not have known at the time the regulations were promulgated by the EU—that all those substances carry infection when the original animal is carrying BSE. How can we be feeding such substances to calves, which is the most vulnerable stage of a cow's life? How can we continue to do so when we have taken expensive precautions to try to reduce the risk of humans transmitting new-variant CJD in their blood, a course which has not been proven? We have ignored the certainty and alighted on the great uncertainty.
When dealing with BSE and new-variant CJD, we have always had a problem as regards the lack of coordination between MAFF and the Department of Health. Having responsibility for the one disease sited in two ministries was always a questionable decision, but this Government have gone further and sited it in three departments. The Food Standards Agency is to have its own axe to grind on the subject. The possibilities of co-ordination have been immensely reduced.
One of the basic things we need to know about TSEs is the strain of disease we are facing. The strain of TSE makes an enormous difference to the symptoms and to the progress of the disease. Presuming that the disease has come from cattle, which is almost certain, we need data about the strains of BSE in cattle. We have always been told that there is only one, but that assertion has been based on strain-typing nine cows—nine out of the hundreds of thousands which have died of the disease. There could be a significant level of infection from a different strain attacking the human population. We would not know about it because we have not done the basic research into the strains which exist in cattle.
One of the key actions to take at this stage in the BSE epidemic is to examine what is happening to the tail in order to make sure that there are no transmission mechanisms in cattle that we should be dealing with, thereby ensuring that the original source is gone for ever. But MAFF will no longer make predictions for the BSE epidemic beyond 2001; it is not even looking at the question of what will happen
1178
beyond that. When the Sunday Times asked it about those cattle born in 1996 which had contracted the disease—that is supposed to be at the end of the epidemic—MAFF refused to say in which month those cattle had been born.
That is symptomatic of a determination not to pick up the details in the hope and pervading optimism that we shall not need to know them because everything will turn out all right. We are not properly testing cattle at slaughter to discover whether they are carrying BSE. We are not running trials in sheep to discover whether they can catch BSE, what the symptoms are, and how we can pick them up in the national herd.
We are not looking at the brains of other species of food animals to see whether they, too, have TSEs or have been exposed to TSEs or whether, through our practice of feeding cows to them, they have picked up BSE in their turn. All those little things are being left undone because there is no stream of pessimism in the Government's thinking, any more than there was in ours.
Another symptom is evasive answers. I asked about blood donations. The noble Lord replied that there is strong epidemiological evidence that classic CJD is not transmitted through blood. That is not true. There is no evidence one way or the other, but there is certainly no evidence that it is transmitted through blood. However, even a combination of all available studies is not statistically significant. In many of them there are severe problems with the selection of controls, and some studies show that receiving blood from a person who has CJD protects that person against CJD. The selection of controls has been bad enough to allow that result through. The answer given by the noble Lord—in the best of faith, I am sure—does not accord with the evidence. It is a distortion of the evidence. We got away from that for a year or two after the break of the BSE crisis when there was a pathological attachment to openness and honesty. That seems to have gone, but it needs to be recreated.
Again, I asked about transmission from mother to child in utero of new-variant CJD in humans. The noble Lord replied that no confirmed or probable ca se had been reported. I read the newspapers. I know about this child, who appeared to have neurological symptoms after his mother had been diagnosed with new-variant CJD. I know that their symptoms are different from classic new-variant CJD. However, perhaps the noble Lord can tell me—I am sure that the Box could tell him—whether that child is met/met at codon 129 or whether that child is met/val? If that child is met/val, one would expect different symptoms and a different disease. Those data, which I am sure the Government have, have not been released.
What do I want the Government to do? I want the Government to be open. I want to make sure that all the Government's data are available to all and any researchers. I want people who research with government money to be open on a daily basis about what they are doing. I want the Government to take their decisions in public so that their errors may be

1179
exposed quickly and so that what, at the time, are reasonable decisions gain public support at the time so that they are not blamed if those decisions turn out to have been wrong. I want the Government to prepare for the worst. I want them to think through what it would be like if we had a major epidemic of new-variant CJD in this country.
Then I want the Government to talk that through with the Treasury so that proper funding is in place for preventive measures; with the European Union so that we do not have the "kick Britain" attitude that we had at the time that the BSE crisis broke; with the United States, whose attitude to trade and passage of peoples between the UK and America will be enormously important; and with life insurers, who will have a great deal to say if people start dying in large numbers from this disease.
I want the Government to be able to look back and say that everything that they have done is all that it should have been. I believe that if they follow the route of openness and preparedness, they will be able to do that and that we shall have a research programme that we all believe to be right and adequate and of which we can be proud. I believe that we would then have good decisions in place of the frightened and bad decisions that we seem to get at the moment. Above all, I believe that if the crisis breaks with this Government in charge, rightly or wrongly they will be able to blame us for BSE and get away with it. If this Government, with our example in front of them and in the clear knowledge of all that we did wrong, make the same mistakes, we shall suffer enormously as a country and this Government will be damned and doubly damned in the eyes of their people for ever.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on securing this debate tonight. I pay tribute to him in his tenacious pursuit of the truth and proper action regarding new-variant CJD. He has raised a number of very important questions. Clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has engraved on his heart the experience of the former government. However, I do not intend to go over some of that rather well-trodden ground and I do not believe that I wish to anticipate the results of the BSE inquiry, which we all await eagerly. I am sure that we shall debate it in this House in due course, and that will no doubt take us back to 1986 and probably beyond.
I believe that the real story started in 1996 when new-variant CJD was first recognised and described, whatever the rights and wrongs of the background to it. We now see that new-variant CJD is a disease that has terrible consequences. Slowly and surely, it destroys a patient's mental and physical control and leads to an early death. The recent Sunday Times article on 5th March, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to in his speech, described harrowingly how Janet and her child, Amanda, also with new-variant CJD, were slowly dying before the eyes of Sarah, who was both mother and grandmother
1180
in those circumstances. I must admit that that article made a considerable impact on me and I have no doubt that it did on many thousands of others.
Already, some 52 people have died from new-variant CJD. Tragically, those people were predominantly in their twenties and thirties. There is no doubt that the risks are taken seriously by this country and other countries. Indeed, the US Food and Drugs Administration has banned blood products from those who have merely visited the UK for more than six months after 1980. Certainly, that can be described as the "ultra-precautionary" approach.
However, the debate this evening mainly provides an opportunity to question this Government's approach to prevention and treatment of new-variant CJD. On these Benches we welcome a number of the steps already taken by the Government, such as the setting up of the BSE inquiry in the first place. However, I believe that the results of the inquiry are now nine months overdue. Can the Minister indicate when it will report?
Another matter that we welcome is the guidance issued in June 1999 on the danger of cross-infection from contact lenses. We also welcome the announcement of improvements to the care of new-variant CJD patients announced in December by the Minister of State responsible for Health, John Denham. However, will he follow up those February 1999 recommendations on the care and information needs of new-variant CJD patients? The Minister will recall that there is a strong recommendation for a key worker to be appointed at a very early stage as soon as new-variant CJD is diagnosed. I believe that those care and information recommendations should be a strong part of the new procedures that the Minister announced in December.
We also welcome the reissuing of guidance to coroners and others regarding the treatment of those who have died from new-variant CJD in the face of evidence of distress caused to families by inappropriate restrictions placed on funeral arrangements. That was a matter raised recently in the other place by my honourable friend Nick Harvey. We also welcome the agreement of the CMOs reached last December to monitor closely the incidence of new-variant CJD, as we do the new system of reporting by SEAC announced this March which will track the incidence of possible new-variant CJD among living patients, not only the deaths arising from CJD. I welcome the fact that the research appears to show that the tracking system is watertight.
Finally, we welcome the setting up of the Food Standards Agency today. I take the opportunity to welcome Sir John Krebs and his colleagues to their important task. I believe that they will play a very important role in relation to the food safety aspects of BSE/CJD.
However, there is still much uncertainty surrounding new-variant CJD. We are still at the foothills of knowledge in relation to CJD. I very much support the call by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the

1181
maximum amount of openness in this respect. New research will no doubt end some of it, but there are still major questions to be asked of the Government.
What are the Government's most recent thoughts on the nature of the CJD infection? Does Professor Donaldson still stick by his view expressed last July and published last September that millions could still be at risk? Can we read anything into the fact that deaths from CJD went down from 17 in 1998 to 11 in 1999? Have we actually reached the peak? What is the best estimate from the Government and their advisors of the incubation period? Are the Government now convinced that the key cause of new-variant CJD was exposure to BSE? Do they consider that the research by the University of California and the Edinburgh Western General Hospital is conclusive on this matter? Is there a risk of vaccines causing new-variant CJD? That is tipped as something which the BSE inquiry may wish to discuss.
Furthermore, what about blood products, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas? Not just blood products of animals but the general ban on the use of UK plasma in 1997 for haemophiliacs was welcomed. But what of fresh frozen plasma which is used? What other risks are there in relation to other blood products? Is the process of leucodepletion safe?
We need to answer all those questions. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised a further question which needs to be answered. Is it now accepted that new-variant CJD can be transmitted from mother to child? If so, what preventive steps can be taken? I mentioned the case written up in the Sunday Times of 5th March. That did seem to indicate transmission of new-variant CJD from mother to child. It certainly behoves the Government to be taking active steps to ensure that prevention is strongly on the agenda.
What tests are available for use in the NHS? The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also asked what tests are available to detect CJD. Is the tonsil test generally available in the NHS? Is there urgent evaluation of any other tests? How is the research which is being carried on by Imperial College and St Mary's Hospital proceeding on the matter of testing? How watertight is the current system of tracking cattle and their offspring? Is it really correct that some 90,000 cattle have simply "gone missing"? Are reports elicited by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that cattle are still being fed cattle products made of tallow, blood and gelatine actually correct? Does the Minister agree with Professor Collinge, who wrote in The Lancet last July:
"that the risks of blood and blood products cannot be quantified".
If so, how can the Government claim that they are taking a precautionary approach? What guarantee do we have that the events of the past few years will not happen again?
There are many unknown aspects of BSE and CJD and there have been for many years. The public need to have a considerable degree of trust in politicians and scientists that the right course of action is actually being taken. To date, to be quite frank, that trust has not always been justified. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
9.3 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the whole House should be indebted to my noble friend Lord Lucas for having secured a debate today on the subject which he has made it his business to research in depth. It is a deeply troubling subject, and if there is a single message that my noble friend would wish distilled from his admirable opening speech, it is—at the risk of misrepresenting him—that if ever there was an issue on which there is absolutely no room for complacency whatever, this is it. I hope and believe that the Minister's speech will reassure us that no such complacency exists, politically, scientifically or medically. But the issue of new-variant CJD does not stand still. As my noble friend has emphasised, we must constantly examine all new data and constantly look ahead.
The Question on the Order Paper urges us to look ahead to the possibility of a major epidemic of new-variant CJD at some point in the future. Our difficulty is getting our bearings on the likely scale of such an epidemic or indeed on whether any sort of epidemic will occur at all. At this stage we simply do not know what will happen. It is not even possible to make an educated guess, despite the theory of a causal link between BSE and CJD being now a virtual certainty. Shortly after the last election I attended a presentation given by senior statisticians from City University. Their research indicated that the total number of variant CJD cases was likely to be fewer than 100. That conclusion was based on an analysis of new-variant CJD cases to date and on a number of assumptions, the most significant being that the incubation period for new-variant CJD was relatively short.
However, that conclusion is by no means universally accepted. It is clear from published data that we cannot be at all certain that the incubation period for the disease is a short one. On an analogy with kuru, it may extend over a period of 20 or 30 years. While we can estimate the number of BSE-infected cattle that may have entered the human food chain in the early to mid-1980s, we do not know how much infected meat was consumed, nor the extent to which the species barrier between cattle and people has inhibited such infection. Similarly, there is some evidence that genetic susceptibility plays a part in the onset of CJD, but that does not mean that people with a different genetic make-up may not be infected with the disease and incubate it for longer. The fact that there have to date been only 52 deaths positively attributable to new-variant CJD is no indication at all that the optimists are right and the pessimists wrong. The Chief Medical Officer has warned that we could still be facing a large number of cases over several decades.
Therefore, predicting the course of the disease must be a priority. Currently there are programmes in train to devise a non-invasive test for BSE infection in live cattle and for pre-clinical new-variant CJD in the human population. I hope that the Minister can tell us something about these. We can also look forward to the results of biopsies of tonsils and appendices. Some 18,000 such samples taken from patients in the south west of England and the Lothian regions are being

1183
examined for the presence of abnormal prion protein. I was pleased to see a few days ago that ethical approval had been given to begin a further study of 2,000 tonsils. Will the Minister tell us about the timescale of this work and when the results are likely to be published?
Meanwhile, the paramount duty of government is to protect human health from the risk of infection. There are perhaps two principal spheres of action. The first is to ensure that food is safe. The measures that are in place relating to cattle are well known: the ban on animal protein in ruminant feed; the rule that cattle over 30 months cannot enter the human food chain; the cull of offspring of BSE-affected cows; the removal of specified risk material from all cattle at slaughter. Those measures are only as good as the rigour with which they are enforced.
I understand that the Meat Hygiene Service is confident that procedures at slaughter to ensure that banned meat and offal does not slip through the net are being observed conscientiously. However, will the Minister confirm that the checks on cattle at slaughter still include an inspection of teeth? Irrespective of the ear-tag and the date on the cattle passport, there is a need for a belt-and-braces approach to prevent overage animals from entering the food chain. What level of error or deliberate non-compliance on the part of farmers has been uncovered by the Meat Hygiene Service in recent months? What procedures are in force to check the safety of imported meat?
However, there are some worrying areas of uncertainty. It is still possible that BSE may have been transmitted to other agricultural species; notably, sheep. The symptoms of scrapie and BSE are indistinguishable. If BSE were to be found in the sheep population, the consequences would be extremely serious, not least because, unlike its occurrence in cattle, BSE infects almost the whole animal and not just certain organs. Is the Minister in a position to say whether large-scale tests are now under way; whether there are any plans to tag sheep; and whether, if BSE were to be found in sheep, consideration would be given to a cull? If he cannot comment in any detail now, will the Minister undertake to keep the House closely informed of developments under that heading?
I mentioned action in two spheres. The second sphere is to eliminate, as far as possible, the risk of transmitting new-variant CJD from person to person by medical means. Much has been done to forestall what is still only a hypothetical possibility. Procedures are in place to remove white cells from blood intended for transfusions and to source blood plasma from abroad. There are strict rules to prevent blood entering the blood supply from donors who themselves received blood from people who later developed new-variant CJD.
On a less theoretical level, there are strict precautions for the sterilisation or disposal of surgical instruments and for dealing with waste, spillages and accidents involving potentially infectious material in hospitals and other clinical settings.
1184
None of those precautions is failsafe but they are important safeguards nevertheless. Can the Minister say whether the guidance on safe working practices published in April 1998 is due to be updated and if so, when?
My noble friend laid great stress on the need for openness by government. I endorse that view without hesitation. His opinion of the culture within MAFF as one which inhibits such openness is perhaps, with all deference to him, somewhat jaundiced. I should not go that far. I believe that in MAFF there exists a desire to ensure that whatever information reaches the public domain is both robust and fully considered. MAFF has had a lot of experience of trying to rebut inaccurate scare stories and it has not always been successful in that. While it may not have appeared that way to some, I can say from my own experience that Ministers in the last government were insistent on the need for full disclosure of all findings on BSE as they emerged, whether good or bad news. Despite the worrying examples of evasiveness quoted by my noble friend, I hope that the present Government work to the same principle.
On a small but significant level, it is reassuring to see that the monthly statistics published by the Department of Health now include probable as well as confirmed CJD cases.
The real difficulty about disclosure is one which my noble friend tended to gloss over somewhat. It is extremely difficult to give the public a balanced picture of what the risk is when it is innately suspicious of government and fearful of what they think may happen. Presentation of statistics is the easy bit. But what we have not always got right is the language which accompanies such statistics to ensure that people have a proper understanding of what the figures are saying. Scientists are not necessarily the best people to articulate such language, even if the public tends to trust them more than it does politicians.
If I have a criticism of the last government, it is that they were not as aware as they should have been that their attempts to communicate the extent of the risk to human health posed by BSE were largely unsuccessful. The announcement in March 1996 that there was a prima facie link between BSE and new-variant CJD should not have come as such a shock when, for the previous 10 years, the precautionary measures put in place by government had been designed to anticipate that very finding.
That argues for the more effective dissemination of the results of government research, as my noble friend emphasised. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how that task is being tackled.
It is perhaps a tall order to ask government to prepare in detail for a set of events whose likelihood no one can predict. But my noble friend has made some very powerful points. One of the things that Ministers can do is to reassure us that should a sizeable epidemic of new variant CJD occur, resources will be found in both money and people for the proper care of patients.

1185
A paper by Dr Margaret Douglas and others published just over a year ago makes salutary reading. They found that the needs of CJD patients and their carers are usually not clearly defined; that there was poor co-ordination between professionals and a lack of essential information for families. One recommendation was that every patient with suspected CJD should have a key worker allocated to co-ordinate his or her care and especially to reassess the patient's needs as his condition develops, as it often does so extremely rapidly. It was suggested that the key worker should be a professional, such as a nurse or social worker with a good knowledge of local health and social services. I ask the Government whether those conclusions have been taken on board and whether they share my view that the availability of good palliative and hospice care for such patients should not be overlooked.
I do not doubt that much more could be said on this important topic. It is one to which we should return at appropriate intervals. For now, I hope that the Minister can provide us with a clear exposition of government policy.
9.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for having raised the issue of new variant CJD. He has spoken in a sense from experience, as well as from a great deal of knowledge. The friendly warning which he has given to the Government in relation to the dangers of complacency, optimism and secrecy is one which I well take. I hope that I shall be able to indicate to noble Lords that the Government take those matters with a great deal of seriousness. We are ever mindful of the need for rigour in terms of monitoring what is happening and planning for the future.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, put his finger on the matter; that, in discussing these issues, we must bear in mind public confidence in all that we do, enabling us to give the public a balanced picture of risk in these important areas. I certainly hope that the approach we are taking and the openness that we are adopting to public debate in those areas, alongside the introduction just three days ago of the Food Standards Agency will enable an informed public debate about many of those difficult issues. None of us can be complacent in assuming that it is easy to enable an informed public debate on areas about which there is both understandable concern and, in some cases, susceptibility to rumours and to allegations which are often not proven but which nevertheless give rise to a great deal of public concern. That serves only to indicate the difficult balance in deciding on a sensible way of approaching the issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, reminded us that it was in March 1996—only four years ago—that the first cases were confirmed. Since then, we understand that 53 people are known to have died of the disease. We are aware of a further 12 people still alive who are probably suffering from the disease. There are also two other probable cases where the
1186
sufferers have since died but pathological confirmation is still awaited. That adds up to a total of 67 known cases to date. But statistics alone can in no way describe a disease which is always fatal and which has caused and causes untold suffering both for the patients and for their families.
One of the particularly distressing features of variant CJD is the number of young people who have suffered terribly. Since May 1997 the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has been working with the CJD Surveillance Unit and Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge to try to identify any possible variant CJD cases at the first possible moment. Each month, a survey is carried out of all 2,000 consultant paediatricians, to ask if they have come across any cases of progressive intellectual or neurological deterioration in under 16 year-olds. There is currently a 90 per cent response rate, including some nil returns.
Of the 602 cases investigated to date, only three definite or probable cases of variant CJD have been found. Results are published in the annual report of the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit. I should not pretend from that that we know the whole story. In helping to address our knowledge gap, I pay particular tribute to the work carried out by the government-funded National CJD Surveillance Unit in Edinburgh—the scientists who first discovered variant CJD. We work closely with them as they undertake their work of monitoring the incidence of the disease and looking for any trends which may be emerging.
The unit maintains close links with neurologists across the UK in their tracking of cases and reports findings regularly to the Government. In 1998, 17 confirmed deaths were reported from the disease. My understanding is that 1999 is likely to show a drop, with only 12 cases having been confirmed so far, although there may be one or two more in the pipeline. We can only cautiously welcome the news about last year's decline. However, in using the word "cautious", I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, because the disease can have a long incubation period of 20 years or even more, so we certainly cannot relax. The statistical modellers tell us that it may be at least a year or two yet before we shall be able to rule out significant numbers of people eventually succumbing to the disease.
There is the related question of diagnostic tests. There has been recent scientific progress in this area, in particular with the use of magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, and with tonsil biopsy performed at St Mary's, London. Those developments have enabled clinicians to be able to examine those clinically ill but still alive and provide a "probable" diagnosis of variant CJD. The CJD Surveillance Unit is then able to pass on statistics of such cases to the Government to enable figures to be published. We did that for the first time on 16th March, and we shall incorporate such information within our regular monthly press statements, the first of which is published today. That

1187
information provides a more current picture than hitherto, and helps us to get a better handle on what is happening with this disease.
I was asked about those who may be incubating the disease but have yet to show any clinical symptoms. How many are there and who are they? With variant CJD we are much hampered by the lack of a simple diagnostic test. Last September the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, or SEAC, identified the development of such a test as a priority. Although no imminent results are in prospect, studies are under way as part of the £26 million-worth of government-funded research to look into CJD and BSE issues during the coming year.
Meanwhile, and in answer to the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, analyses are taking place retrospectively of some 18,000 tonsil and appendix samples taken from routine surgical operations in the South West and Scotland. In that study, scientists are looking for the presence of abnormal prion protein, as there is some evidence that that may be detectable at the pre-clinical stage, although we do not know when. Results from the first 2,000 samples will be presented to a meeting of medical and scientific experts under the auspices of the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health later this month. An announcement about the findings will be made shortly thereafter.
Turning to the preventive measures that the Government are taking, we have to rely on the scientific advice that we are given, even when, in some instances, that has to be taken on a precautionary basis. Of course, the Government rely on SEAC in its provision of independent scientific advice. Given the theoretical possibility of some pre-clinical infection being present in the population, the possibility of person to person transmission of that infection cannot be ruled out. We have taken action on a precautionary basis to deal with that. All blood destined for transfusion from 1st November 1999 has had its white cells removed and all blood products are now sourced from non-UK plasma. SEAC has endorsed those measures. The Government have also taken steps with the optical profession to implement SEAC advice that, among other things, the single patient use of trial contact lenses should be adopted.
In addition, SEAC has recommended rigorous implementation of washing, decontamination and general hygiene procedures to be key preventive measures when dealing with surgical instruments. Again, we have issued a comprehensive package of guidance to the healthcare sector to underscore this message. I can tell noble Lords that we regard this as forming a part of infection control procedures within hospitals which we are determined to performance manage rigorously.
SEAC has highlighted that the theoretical risk of person-to-person transmission could be greatest from operations involving central nervous system and ophthalmic tissue, followed by lymphoid tissue. SEAC has also advised that, wherever practical, the use of disposable surgical instruments for such surgery is to
1188
be encouraged. We have met with surgeons and others to look at the practicalities of developing and implementing a single-use policy wherever this is seen as being realistic and we are taking this forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked what progress had been made on evaluating the test developed by Mary Jo Schmerr of the National Animal Disease Center of the US Department of Agriculture. I regret that I am not in a position to provide any further information beyond that I gave in my Written Answer. It is clear that before such a diagnostic test is put into use, we must be sure that it provides accurate and reliable results without giving what might be described as false positives. I am not able to predict when any of the blood tests currently being developed will be completed, although I am happy to ensure that the noble Lord is provided with as much information on progress as possible.
The noble Lord asked about information relating to the ages of new-variant CJD cases. I have to tell the noble Lord that one of the issues in relation to this information is that because of clinical confidentiality such information cannot be released in a form which could be linked to particular individuals. Furthermore, in response to the noble Lord's comments on the secrecy surrounding research in this area, I have to tell the noble Lord that, while I fully accept the need for openness, it is important to note that all TSE research projects currently completed and funded by public moneys are already listed on the MRC website. The site provides a breakdown of areas of research being covered, including those identified with the issues before us tonight, as well as issues concerning the annual costs of such research projects.
The noble Lord also raised the question of whether research ethics committees were inhibiting the development of such research. He mentioned in particular the research proposed by Professor Collinge. In this area it is important to ensure that all ethical considerations are taken into account with the utmost care. I believe that it would be wrong to ride roughshod over the normal processes of establishing a science-based ethical opinion on how such matters should be addressed. If, for instance, inappropriate short cuts were taken, the fall-out could be considerable, in particular if—as I have already suggested—an unreliable test produced false positives and thus caused unnecessary alarm.
However, I agree that we need constantly to review the performance of research ethics committees. Only two weeks ago I attended the annual conference of the Association of Research and Ethics Committees. The department provides some resources to support the work of those committees. I can assure the noble Lord that I shall continue to keep under review their work and progress because I accept the point about striking a balance between the need to ensure that necessary research is undertaken as quickly as possible and the need to ensure that a proper review of the ethics takes place.

1189
The noble Lord asked about a case reported about the possibility that TSE had been transmitted by a mother to a child in utero. I cannot report on individual cases. The case in question is a confidential matter between clinicians, patients and families. However, my understanding is that no child under the age of 13 has been reported as a probable or definite case of new-variant CJD.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the feeding of gelatin and blood products to calves. I understand that United Kingdom rules on feeding stuffs are much tighter than those elsewhere in the EU. We ban the feeding of mammalian meat and bonemeal to all farm animals whereas the EU rules only prevent the feeding of MBM to a selected area. Certainly in accordance with EU rules, we allow the feeding of milk, allow, gelatin and blood products to ruminants and we believe that is in line with SEAC's advice.
I have dealt with the issue of blood transmissions. The noble Lord asked me about genetic testing. All probable and definite cases of new-variant CJD so far have been found to have been from methionine/methionine homozygous genotype and of the same genetic sub-type as the population. However, I cannot divulge the details of individual cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also asked me about the testing of other animals for BSE. Of course, extensive research has been undertaken into the issue of sheep and BSE. My understanding is that BSE has not been confirmed as occurring in animals from the national flock. The possibility of BSE occurring in sheep has been recognised for some time, and for that reason precautionary controls on a number of specified risk materials from sheep carcasses have been recommended by SEAC and introduced over the past few years; SEAC keeps under review the research that could distinguish between BSE and scrapie infection in sheep. However, that work will take several years, and preliminary and interim findings will be coming along, as they do now, at intervals.
I was asked a number of questions about the issue of service provision. We are talking about a rare disease and our hope is that it will remain a rare disease, although we cannot be complacent, as the noble Lord said. We also know that this disease can be extremely
1190
distressing. We would all feel enormous sympathy for all the people who have suffered from the disease and for the families who have been affected. It is very important that we ensure that the National Health Service in particular is able to provide appropriate care and support.
The CJD Support Network, with government funding, provides support to families affected by CJD. The network issued guidance in 1998 to help to inform social service professionals. The need constantly to reappraise care needs in the light of families' wishes is one key message. The St. Mary's Prion Unit in London offers information, advice and support for patients, families and professionals. The Human BSE Foundation, with a grant from the Government, plays an active role in providing emotional and practical support to the families of patients. The CJD Surveillance Unit works very closely with the voluntary CJD Support Network. Earlier this year the unit appointed a care co-ordinator to provide a central source of advice for professionals and carers. This will help the unit further in carrying out its important role in providing expert advice on healthcare for all CJD victims.
The Government will very shortly be publishing some new guidelines, which are expressly intended for those healthcare professionals who are caring for CJD victims. I can say to your Lordships that it will mention the importance of having a named key worker in place as soon as possible.
I think it follows from all that I have said that this terrible disease is by no means an easy one to deal with. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has done a considerable service to the House in bringing to our attention many of the factors that need to be considered. His overwhelming message is to avoid complacency and over-optimism. I hope he will accept from me that I understand that we need to be careful in monitoring what is happening and in ensuring that we have the mechanisms in place to deal with problems that may arise.
I hope I have reassured the noble Lord. I am happy to engage in further discussions with him and thank the House for its tolerance in listening to my creaky voice for 20 minutes.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.

  NHS Trusts: Composition
  NHS Trusts: Composition
  London Postal Districts: Industrial Disputes
  London Postal Districts: Industrial Disputes
  Prion Research
  Prion Research
  Moldova: OSCE Declaration
  Moldova: OSCE Declaration
  Self-Employed National Insurance Contributions
  Self-Employed National Insurance Contributions
  The Euro and British Businesses
  The Euro and British Businesses
  Football Foundation
  Football Foundation
  Public Trust Office
  Public Trust Office
  Rural Social Exclusion
  Rural Social Exclusion
  Press Coverage of Government Policy
  Press Coverage of Government Policy
  10 Downing Street Website
  10 Downing Street Website
  Green Ministers' Meeting
  Green Ministers' Meeting
  Gypsy Sites
  Gypsy Sites
  Portland Young Offenders' Institution
  Portland Young Offenders' Institution
  Absent Votes for Disabled People
  Absent Votes for Disabled People
  Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, Recommendations 222 and 223
  Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, Recommendations 222 and 223
  Casino Opening Hours
  Casino Opening Hours
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 27 March
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 27 March
  The Services: Values and Standards
  The Services: Values and Standards
  Marne Barracks, Catterick
  Marne Barracks, Catterick
  SA80 Rifle
  SA80 Rifle
  MoD and British Produce: EU Law
  MoD and British Produce: EU Law