Sitting of 11 January 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT
Ordered,
That Madam Speaker do issue her Warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Ceredigion in the room of Cynog Glyndwr Dafis, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency has accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.—[Mr. Llwyd.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Tuesday 18 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Buses (Yorkshire and Humberside)
    Ms Rosie Winterton: What steps he is taking to improve the quality of bus services in Yorkshire and Humberside area. [103251]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The Yorkshire and Humberside area will benefit from the measures in the Transport Bill. The Bill provides for a statutory form of bus quality partnership schemes and quality contracts in certain circumstances. That is in the interests of promoting high-quality public transport and a better environment.
    Ms Winterton: I welcome the Bill, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that people in rural areas can feel physically isolated and socially excluded without access to good-quality bus services. The 1,800 new rural services have provided a lifeline to many of those people, but how many of those services are in the Yorkshire and Humberside area? What further action might be taken to improve rural bus services?
    Mr. Prescott: The rural bus scheme is highly successful. Of the 1,800 services, about 134 are in the
    128
    Yorkshire and Humberside area. Some authorities have not done so well, though. North Yorkshire, for example, has spent only about 25 per cent. of the money that was available, but I am pleased to announce 50 new projects in the rural bus challenge fund scheme, five of which will be in Yorkshire and Humberside. Many more people will have the choice of public transport in rural areas.
    Mr. James Gray: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government raise more from the fuel duty on community bus services than they pay every year in lottery grants. Will he therefore improve bus services in Humberside, Yorkshire and elsewhere by offering a fuel duty rebate to community bus services as well?
    Mr. Prescott: We will take no lectures from Opposition Members on fuel duty. We are providing a rural bus service that is welcomed in rural areas, despite Opposition Members' protests. This morning, I received a letter from a pensioner in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). It says:
    "I am writing to tell you the Government's rural bus service initiative has produced two new bus services in my area. Not only that, they actually connect with the trains."
    It is called integration. A better public transport system is being provided by the Government.
    Mr. John Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when, next year, as a result of legislation that is going through the House, pensioners in Selby, Yorkshire become entitled for the first time to half-fare bus passes, it would be advantageous if a reciprocal agreement could be reached between West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority, the Selby district and all the other districts in Yorkshire, so that pensioners could use their half-fare bus passes throughout the county—as they can already be used between West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester?
    Mr. Prescott: We seek to achieve that. Indeed, the legislation that is before the House will achieve it: a statutory minimum half-fare system for pensioners. Two million pensioners will benefit. It is another example of a good transport system.

    Central Railway
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the latest proposals from Central Railway plc. [103252]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I am aware that Central Railway plc has been consulting about its proposal for a freight and passenger railway between Liverpool and Lille. I have received copies of the company's consultation documents, but have not taken a view on the scheme.
    Mr. Robathan: I well recall that, before he was elevated to his current position, the Minister was concerned about the Central Railway scheme and its effect on his constituency. My constituents remain deeply concerned about several routes that are blighting houses not only in Leicestershire but throughout the rest of the

    129
    country, from Kent all the way to Liverpool. Will he state categorically whether any public money will be devoted to that grandiose scheme, which, although superficially attractive, seems unviable to most people? Are the Government minded to give it their support, which will be critical in bringing the scheme to the House? The company wishes to have parliamentary approval by the end of the year.
    Mr. Hill: I recognise the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expresses on behalf of his constituents. He is right to observe that I have a certain hinterland on the issue. I understand that the company intends to submit a new application for an order before the summer, after which it will be obliged to consult on any applications and affected parties will have the right to put forward their views. No public money will be entailed in the scheme. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, that the Secretary of State will have a quasi-judicial role in considering the application.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply—he will know of my interest in and support for the scheme. Does he agree that such a scheme could fit in very well with the Government's transport policy, by transferring large amounts of road freight to rail; that it would save public money by reducing roads expenditure; and that it could contribute significantly to the financial viability of the channel tunnel?
    Mr. Hill: I am certainly aware of the outspoken support that my hon. Friend has offered to the scheme, and recognise the passenger and freight implications of the proposal. I should, however, remind him that the Government are already taking effective action to secure the transfer of freight from road to rail.
    In conjunction with the British Railways Board, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority has recently announced a competition for a model project for transferring freight from road to rail. Moreover, the new Strategic Rail Authority, to be set up by the Transport Bill, will—unlike Opraf—have a new and specific duty to develop a rail freight strategy. Finally, Government grants for rail freight facilities are at record levels. Expenditure on grants, in the three years since 1997, will soon top £80 million. It is also estimated that, in that time, grants will have diverted close to 30 million tonnes of freight from Britain's roads.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: If the Minister is not to support large projects for transferring freight from road to rail, as the Central project would do, which projects will he support? Does he agree that that project is one of many to increase capacity on the rail network but demanding billions of pounds—more than the £27 billion that Railtrack has identified, and possibly even more than the £40 billion said in one survey to be necessary? Where will the money come from? Will the Minister confirm that the much vaunted so-called relaunch of the Government's 10-year plan and £80 billion investment programme is nothing more than the repackaging of money that has already been committed by the private sector and the Government?
    Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Railtrack itself has committed to a massive programme of new investment—amounting to £27 billion—in rail infrastructure across the country. Extra rail services are in place, 44 new rail freight terminals have been established since the Government came to power, and, in this period, rail freight movements are up by 15 per cent.

    Best Value
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: If he will make a statement about the progress being made by local authorities in developing best value. [103253]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Good progress is being made to meet the target date of 1 April 2000. The statutory framework for best value, including guidance and the new national performance indicators, is almost complete, and we are working closely with the Audit Commission and the Local Government Association to ensure that all authorities are up to date in their preparations.
    Mr. Jenkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, will she join me in congratulating many of the smaller local authorities—such as Tamworth borough council—which have for years delivered excellent and improving services while increasing council tax by less than the rate of inflation? Tamworth has been able to do that by stripping out layers of management. Will my hon. Friend not only give a guarantee that small authorities will not be encumbered by any more bureaucracy, but consider using a light touch in administering the policy? May I also have an assurance that small authorities—which, unlike large authorities, are not able to take advantage of economies of scale—will not be faced with a financial burden that they will have to pass on to local council tax payers?
    Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the work that he did as leader of Tamworth council, to ensure that that council was efficient and worked effectively for local people—which, he will appreciate, is the main task of local authorities. Local authorities have not only to work effectively, but to meet local people's aspirations and demands, and the reality is that best value gives local authorities much more flexibility. As the pilots have demonstrated, the best value regime brings palpable improvements.
    Several of the pilot authorities are small authorities. I assure my hon. Friend that they are not complaining about bureaucracy, but are saying that best value gives them new opportunities. However, they are also saying that best value requires the involvement of everyone—members and officers—in ensuring that the new approach delivers the very best value to citizens.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: The Minister will know that last March the Prime Minister indicated that too many Labour councils were failing to deliver good value services to their citizens. Why is it that, under the

    131
    Government's proposals for the best value programme, councils do not have a general requirement to consider tendering?
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. and learned Gentleman has perhaps been asleep during our discussions in the House. The legislation made it absolutely clear that the Government—and now the House—do not take an ideological approach. We say that councils have to find the best way forward, whether that involves using an in-house service, a partnership, the voluntary sector or a private sector company. We are looking for the best for the citizen and no single organisation necessarily produces that. So far from Whitehall saying, "We know best," we are saying, "You have a duty locally to deliver the best."
    Mr. Barry Jones: Why is best value better than compulsory competitive tendering?
    Ms Armstrong: It is better precisely because, as has been demonstrated already by the pilot studies, it responds effectively to the aims and aspirations of local people and seeks to get the best quality at the most efficient price. It does not represent an ideological approach, which was all that CCT was about.

    Waste Incineration
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: What assessment the Government have made of possible health risks arising from waste incineration. [103254]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Emissions from incinerators are strictly regulated under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We are fully alert to health worries relating to incinerators and are confident that the high environmental protection standards set for them mean they do not pose unacceptable risks to health or the environment.
    Mr. Stunell: The Minister will be aware that the waste disposal authority in Greater Manchester has the worst record in the country for re-use and recycling, yet it has made proposals for five waste incinerators. Will the Minister tell that authority to put recycling and re-use ahead of incineration in its strategy, and will he enable that to happen by changing the basis of charging to tonnages in Greater Manchester?
    Mr. Meacher: The Government will publish their waste management strategy in the next few months. We shall make it very clear that our priority is to shift away from landfill to the maximum feasible increase in recycling. There may be occasions when the best practicable environmental option is incineration rather than recycling, but we look to a role for incineration only where recycling is not appropriate.
    I take note of the hon. Gentleman's second point. He should await our paper on that.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the target for recycling in Greater Manchester must increase dramatically? If the
    132
    authority is looking for an incinerator, it must be combined heat and power, not simply a way of disposing of waste.
    Mr. Meacher: I entirely support my hon. Friend on both counts. If we are looking to any increase in incineration, or energy from waste, as it is now more politely called, we certainly expect it to be related to good quality combined heat and power. I also agree with my hon. Friend that the level of recycling—not just in Manchester or indeed my constituency of Oldham, but throughout the country—is pathetically low. Let me make that clear: it is 8 per cent. Our target is to reach 30 per cent. by 2010—that is a fourfold increase. There need to be dramatic increases right across the country and our waste management strategy is intended to provide the drivers to achieve that aim.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Is the Minister aware that in Marchwood in my constituency a large incineration plant was closed down some months ago because of the unacceptably high emissions? Is he further aware that a state of the art, modern incineration plant is planned to replace the old one; and can he guarantee to me and my constituents that the emissions from the new plant will give no reason for concern?
    Mr. Meacher: I understand the concern about the local siting of incinerators, which relates mostly to the old generation of incinerators that were phased out as a result of a EU directive in November 1996. We now have much tighter standards. Most concern is caused by dioxins; the current standard is no more than 1 nanogram per cubic metre, which means no more than 1 part in 1 billion. We know from studies by the Environment Agency that incinerators now give rise to no more than 4 per cent. of total dioxins, whereas 10 years ago that figure was 63 per cent. We also support tightening those standards even further and we shall support an EU directive on waste incineration that will raise the dioxin standard tenfold.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: As landfill opportunities diminish throughout the United Kingdom and in spite of best efforts to recycle as much waste as possible, there will always be a need for incineration. What steps will the Minister take to reassure the public and avoid campaigns of opposition to the modern, highly technical and scientifically developed incineration plants?
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that incineration will continue to have a place. The simple reason for that is that in this country we currently landfill between 80 to 85 per cent. of municipal waste. Under the landfill directive passed last year, that has to be reduced to no more than 35 per cent. of 1995 levels by 2016. We have to make a massive shift away from landfill. I support the maximum feasible increase in recycling, and that is Government policy, but incineration is bound to have a role.
    The question of reassuring the public is a difficult one, because there is great public concern about incinerators. Planning inquiries will continue to be held on the siting of any future incinerators and local communities will have to be persuaded that the plants are safe and will not cause health problems.

    133
    We believe that the evidence exists. In 1996, a health study was undertaken by the previous Government of the incidence of cancers near municipal waste incinerators, and it found no increase in cancers in the local population. The study did find some small increase in primary liver cancers, but it is not clear whether that is related to incinerators. Further research is being carried out. We will examine the issue more fully and we intend, as always on environmental issues, to be transparent and publish all the evidence.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: The Minister may be aware that Carlisle city council recently gave permission for a large plant that will burn waste wood. My constituents in the north of the city are deeply concerned about the pollution that will be created by the plant and by the hundreds of heavy goods vehicles that will bring the waste wood to the plant every day. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Environment Agency will examine the proposals thoroughly before any operating licence is issued to the plant?
    Mr. Meacher: There is no question but that the Environment Agency, in which I have confidence, undertakes rigorous inquiries before it grants consents. I have no reason to doubt that that is what will happen in my hon. Friend's case, and I shall support that. If there are objections, an open planning inquiry must be held before an inspector and his report must be made public. All objectors have a chance to make their points and they are taken into account. I assure my hon. Friend that that procedure will be thoroughly followed in his case.

    Acid Rain
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What recent appraisal he has made of ways of limiting the harm done to fish stocks by acid rain. [103255]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): Following the UK signature of the recent UN/ECE protocol, I expect UK emissions of sulphur dioxide, the main cause of acid rain, to fall by 83 per cent. between 1990 and 2010, and the area of ecosystem above the critical load for acidification to decrease by 79 per cent. This action should lead to significant improvements in the condition and numbers of fish stocks.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply, which is not very satisfactory. I should declare an interest: I am a fisherman, albeit not a very good one.
    The serious point is that the native species of upland brown trout is being decimated. The fish cannot breed because of the acidity of the water. Should not the remit and budget of the Environment Agency be extended to cover immediate and proper research into acidity and restocking?
    Mr. Mullin: A great deal of work is being done, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that some progress has been made. One problem is that, although the chemical components involved have shown some recovery, the biological ones have not done so yet. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the Environment Agency, the Welsh Executive and the
    134
    Countryside Commission for Wales initiated an investigation into acid water in Wales. An initial report was published in November. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to see it, but those bodies tell me that they would be happy to make it available to him, even though it was not written for publication. They would also be happy to discuss the matter with him.
    Mr. John Smith: Has my hon. Friend been made aware of any connection between acid rain and climatic changes in general? In particular, has any connection been established with the increase in rainfall? There is considerable concern in Wales about the amount of flooding in the past 18 months, which has been greater than at any time in the previous 50 years. My constituents experienced flooding on Christmas Eve, in an area where they would not normally expect it.
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is a long way from the original question.
    Mr. Smith: I thank you for bearing with me, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I think that I have done very well by the hon. Gentleman. I have extended the good will associated with the time of year, but I am going to move on to another question.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Minister knows that one of the leading fish farms in the country is situated in the Wey valley in my constituency. The farm suffers greatly from the pollution coming from the Dorchester road, where traffic jams occur all year round. Will he have words with his colleagues to ensure—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Come on, we must move on. I am being taken advantage of this afternoon.

    Roads Congestion
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: By how much he estimates road traffic growth will fall as a result of the Government's decision to reduce expenditure on improving the roads network. [103257]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): This year, the Government are spending £765 million on road maintenance—40 per cent. more than in the last year of Tory rule. Meanwhile, provisional figures show a growth in total road traffic of 3 per cent. between the third quarter of 1997 and 1999. That is a far slower rate of growth than in previous periods of sustained economic expansion: in the mid and late 1980s, annual traffic growth peaked at 5 per cent. and 8 per cent. respectively.
    Miss Kirkbride: The Minister's waffling and inaccurate answer clearly demonstrates—[Interruption.] The previous Conservative Government spent a great deal more money on roads than this Government would ever dream of spending. However, the Minister's answer shows that yet another Labour promise has been broken. The Government said that they would reduce the rate of

    135
    traffic growth simply by not building any more roads. I am pleased that the Minister is telling us that the Government are now prepared to build more roads and bypasses in those parts of the country where they are needed to improve the quality of life and safety of local people. Will he therefore say when the Bordesley bypass in my constituency will be built?
    Mr. Hill: I think that the hon. Lady is taking advantage of me. I believe that I heard her accuse the Government of cutting road spending. She has some nerve: in their final four years of power, the previous Conservative Government cut road maintenance by 9 per cent. That left Britain's motorway and trunk road network in the worst condition since records began.
    Trunk road maintenance has increased by more than one third in the past three years. This year we are spending £400 million more than in the last year of Tory rule, and next year it will be £530 million more. We are firmly on track to achieving our objective of reversing the decline in motorway and trunk road conditions by 2002. Meanwhile, we are encouraged by the present indications of a slowdown in road traffic growth despite the success of the economy, which is good news for our environment and our communities.
    Mr. David Lepper: Has my hon. Friend noted the repeated comments made in the letter from the Government office of the south-east to my local authority, Brighton and Hove council, about that council's success in holding car traffic growth in central Brighton? The letter states that this has no doubt contributed to
    "an improved environment for business, shoppers and visitors to Brighton".
    Will he join me in congratulating my local authority and its partners—particularly the bus company—on their achievement? Does he agree that sensible strategies to encourage bus use and on parking, agreed through local consultation, are essential to good local transport plans?
    Mr. Hill: I am delighted to congratulate Brighton and Hove on its outstanding record in terms of new bus schemes, which have led to a significant increase in bus patronage in recent years—roughly 20 per cent. in the past 12 months alone. Brighton, like many Labour authorities, is leading the way in terms of the development of bus quality partnerships. I had the great pleasure and privilege yesterday of turning the first sod at the excellent new bus quality partnership in the town of South Shields. I congratulate South Shields, Brighton and many other Labour authorities.
    Mr. Robert Syms: Not only has the long-suffering motorist suffered from the cuts in the Government's roads programme—we now have bad news on the local transport settlement. Last year, 74.5 per cent. of the settlement was in supplementary credit approval and 25.5 per cent. was in transport supplementary grant. This year, we have had the announcement of a higher figure, and we have of course had the hype. However, when we look at the figures in detail, we see that 98.2 per cent. is in supplementary credit approval and only 1.8 per cent. is in transport supplementary grant. That is called moving the burden from Whitehall to the town hall, and
    136
    it is bad news for local authorities and motorists. Will the Minister explain why we have had the worst transport supplementary grant settlement in history?
    Mr. Hill: Well, it is the season of goodwill, and the hon. Gentleman is something of a novice on the Front Bench. Nevertheless, I find his observations on local transport settlements outrageous. In December, we announced the Government's decisions on local transport, which represented an increase across the board of 27 per cent. in terms of road maintenance provision and an increase in terms of public transport provision of 24 per cent. That was an outstanding settlement, and it was the beginning of an additional £700 million that will go to local authorities and local transport plans over the next three years.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: Is it not just excellent that Labour-controlled Lancashire council embarked yesterday on another phase of the reconstruction of the rural moss roads network in my constituency? Is it not just marvellous that local communities and councils coming together will be able to use their new designation of objective 2—hopefully, some will use their designation under single regeneration budget 6 and 7—to reconstruct entirely that network, which was so grievously neglected by the previous Conservative Government? Will my hon. Friend join me in the hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement at 3.30 pm will give some funding to the excellent Garstang super-8 minibus project to revitalise public transport in that rural area?
    Mr. Hill: I find myself in considerable agreement with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Mark Oaten: What immediate plans he has to reduce congestion levels on roads. [103258]
    Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will make a statement on the level of traffic congestion in (a) 1997 and (b) 1999. [103263]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): As I have already said in a previous answer, provisional traffic data suggest that total road traffic in Great Britain grew by nearly 3 per cent. between the third quarters of 1997 and 1999—a slower rate of growth than in previous peaks of the economic cycle.
    Our strategy and measures for reducing congestion are set out in our integrated transport White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", published in 1998. These are already delivering results, and the proposals in the Transport Bill currently before the House are designed to strengthen the powers available to local authorities to tackle congestion.
    Mr. Oaten: Is it Government policy to achieve a decrease in the number of cars using the roads, or have they now accepted that there will be an increase, and is their policy to try and slow it down?
    Mr. Hill: The real issue is tackling congestion. Various studies have shown that there is no necessary or direct correlation between congestion and road traffic growth, and also that a more targeted approach may be more effective in dealing with congestion and its effects in specific locations.
    The Government believe that congestion is best tackled by a package of measures, including new and additional investment in public transport as well as road improvements, many of which we have already implemented. We also believe that congestion charging is likely to prove among the most effective of those measures. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman's own city of Winchester is actively considering a workplace parking levy. I am also pleased that Hampshire has joined the Government's charging development partnership, which is the right way to tackle congestion in our urban areas.
    Mr. Leigh: Will the Minister now do me the courtesy of answering my Question 12, which he grouped with Question 8, because he does not want to answer it? I remind him that it asks:
    "If he will make a statement on the level of traffic congestion in (a) 1997 and (b) 1999."
    I asked about congestion; I did not ask for vague words about growth. The truth is that the Government are not prepared to own up, so they want to make us motorists pay up.
    Mr. Hill: It was the previous Government who invented road congestion. They started out with 70 cars per mile, spent £70 billion on new roads, and ended up with 100 cars per mile. The Tories are the last people from whom this Government need lessons on tackling road congestion. We have set out clear plans in our integrated transport White Paper for dealing with congestion and we are pursuing them with vigour and determination. In the mean time, we are putting an extra £1.8 billion into improving local and public transport over the next three years and are increasing expenditure on road maintenance by 10 per cent. this year. Instead of the Tory wish list of road schemes, we have a targeted programme of 37 trunk road improvements, 19 of them bypasses which will relieve the pressure on local communities. In addition, we are spending an extra £170 million on rural bus services. That has resulted in an extra 1,800 new and enhanced bus services so far—a commitment to rural transport that the hon. Gentleman's Government never contemplated making.
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Will the Minister tell me what efforts he is making in bringing forward the construction of the new Tyne crossing in Jarrow? It will have a significant impact on traffic congestion as well as enhancing employment prospects.
    Mr. Hill: I understand the problems to which my hon. Friend alludes—indeed, I was in his constituency only yesterday. We are considering the matter with the utmost urgency and seriousness.
    Ms Margaret Moran: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the efforts that he and his colleagues are making to reduce traffic congestion, in sharp contrast to the legacy of 100 cars per mile that we
    138
    inherited from the previous Tory Government? Will he look further at ways of reducing traffic congestion, particularly on our residential roads, by, for example, increasing funding to schemes such as home zones? We in Luton believe that we have the first one in the United Kingdom. Will my hon. Friend consider increasing funding so that we may reduce congestion in residential areas and increase safety?
    Mr. Hill: I am delighted to learn that Luton is in the vanguard of the home zone strategy. The Government are very committed to proposals for home zones; we have already provided for eight pilot schemes, one of which is in my hon. Friend's constituency. We have great confidence that they are an important development in the creation of a safe environment for pedestrians in urban areas. We anticipate the success of the current pilot projects, and hope to see the development of many more in due course.
    Mr. John Redwood: What lessons have the Government learned on tackling congestion from the ban on cars to the dome and the ban on cars in central London on new year's eve? Is not it a great Labour lie that their public transport can handle all the travellers that such bans and Labour's general anti-car policies produce? Does the Minister realise that more stations need to be open, more train services need to be running and more ticket offices need to be open so that travellers are able to buy tickets—as Mrs. Blair found out? Does he agree that difficulty in getting to the dome is one of the main reasons that the big top is being written off as the big flop?
    Mr. Hill: More, more.
    I know how authoritative the right hon. Gentleman is on these public transport matters. Indeed, shortly before Christmas, I had the great pleasure of reading an article that he had written in Sunday Business, entitled "How I would make the trains run on time". It was a fascinating piece of work from our own home-grown Mussolini—the II Duce of the home counties. The article contained 14 proposals, all of which involved additional Government expenditure—from a member of the Conservative party, which is committed to reducing Government expenditure. It included a proposal for a car park at the right hon. Gentleman's station of Wokingham, but I noticed that, subsequently, the station-master wrote back to say that a car park already existed.
    As for the arrangements in central London and around the dome, there had to be a traffic limitation zone, simply to accommodate the vast number of people who were coming into central London that day. The central London event—like the dome—was a fabulous success. Three million Londoners thoroughly enjoyed themselves. If the right hon. Gentleman had any capacity for enjoyment, which I seriously doubt, and had been there, I think that he would have enjoyed it as well.
    Mr. Redwood rose—
    Hon. Members: More. More.
    Mr. Redwood: Perhaps the Minister would like to explain to all those people who spent three, four or five hours stumbling home in the dark, trying to avoid the crush, how one could possibly say that that was a triumph.

    139
    If that is new Labour's idea of a triumph, they will not be in government for long. The Deputy Prime Minister himself said that if the Government could not run a successful millennium show at the dome, they deserved to be cast into darkness. That is exactly what they deserve. People had a dreadful time trying to get home on new year's eve and on new year's night. I hope that Ministers will hold a proper inquiry, and that they will apologise to all those people whose trains broke down, who were thrust against crush barriers at closed stations and who had to walk miles to try to find an open station, while Ministers were nowhere to be seen to explain to them how they could get home.
    Mr. Hill: Frankly, that is the height of opportunism and irresponsibility. The truth is that an enormous number of people were in the centre of London—nearly half the population of the city. Simply for safety reasons, some tube station closures were necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman is advocating that those stations should have stayed open, he would have endangered the lives of many people who were there to enjoy themselves. I repeat that, if the right hon. Gentleman had attended the events and had spoken seriously to many of the people who were there, he would have known that they all had a fabulous night out. London can be proud of itself for the wonderful, world-class show that it mounted on millennium eve.

    Housing
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What measures his Department proposes to take to help those local authorities with large numbers of empty houses in the (a) private and (b) public sector. [103260]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): My Department is supporting the work of the Empty Homes Agency. We are also considering the recommendations of the report of the unpopular housing policy action team into the causes and consequences of low demand for housing in some areas.
    Mr. Pike: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure that he will know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning wrote to me last week suggesting his willingness to come to Burnley to examine the problem of empty houses. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend was taken into hospital on Friday, but I am glad to hear that he is now at home. I am sure that we all want to extend our good wishes for his speedy recovery.
    I thank the Government for their help with the residual debt problem with public sector housing. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that Burnley has 3,000 empty houses in the private sector. The cost of demolishing them is large and there is no site value afterwards. That is causing major ripple effects throughout the whole housing sector in Burnley. I know that that problem is not unique, but councils, such as Burnley, need Government help to try to solve it.
    Mr. Mullin: I am glad to report to the House that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is now well on the way to recovery.
    I have the greatest sympathy for the situation in which councils, such as Burnley, find themselves, Sunderland, the city that I partly represent, has a similar problem. There is no single answer. Each local authority has to devise its own strategy, but some selective demolition is inevitable. That nettle must be grasped. When doing that, it is important to consult residents and all those whose interests are directly affected.
    A big reduction in greenfield planning permissions and a better use of brownfield sites is another thing that would help. It never ceases to amaze me that many authorities—I shall name no names—that have serious problems with derelict housing in the inner cities are still granting greenfield planning permissions simultaneously. That only exacerbates the problem.
    On the promise of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to visit Burnley, I am sure that he will do so at the first available opportunity.
    Mr. David Curry: The whole House will wish to join in sending best wishes to the Minister for Housing and Planning.
    Is it not clear that the simplest and most direct measure to deal with the problem of empty homes is to reduce the level of VAT on home refurbishments and repair, as has been sought by Lord Rogers of Riverside, the Empty Homes Agency, housing associations and local authorities? Will the Minister note that, last September, the French Government reduced their VAT on such refurbishment and repair to 5 per cent., with full European Union consent? Is not that an excellent example of the downward harmonisation of taxes that the Government could adopt rapidly?
    Mr. Mullin: It was of course a measure that the right hon. Gentleman's Government could have adopted at any time over the past few years. We are well aware of the recommendation made by the Rogers committee, but it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is being considered.
    Mr. Tom Cox: Will my hon. Friend consider another aspect of the problem of empty local authorities properties? In the London borough of Wandsworth, countless properties throughout the borough are empty and boarded up solely to be sold. An enormous number of people live and have roots in the borough, but they have no opportunity to obtain local authority housing because it is sold to people who have no links whatever with the borough.
    Mr. Mullin: The practice that my hon. Friend describes only exacerbates the serious problems of housing shortage in London and especially for those on low incomes. The quicker that such housing is brought back into use—and preferably for those on lower incomes who cannot afford the huge prices that are being paid for property in London—the better.

    Vehicle Emissions
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: By how much he estimates transport-related emissions of greenhouse gases will fall as a result of the Government's policies towards motorists. [103261]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The growth in greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector will be reduced as a result of the fiscal policies, technology and the measures that we announced in the transport White Paper. Our 1998 climate change consultation paper suggested that those measures could save about 6 million tonnes of carbon in 2010. We are currently updating those estimates and will publish revised figures in our draft climate change programme shortly.
    Mr. O'Brien: Although I welcome any improvements in climate change problems, that answer demonstrates just how much the Government's policies for cars and the hard-pressed British motorist is informed by concern about vehicle emissions that lead to global warming. That source makes up only a fraction of the sources of global warming that emanate from this country. Will the Secretary of State tell us what steps the Government are now taking to reduce emissions from dirty, coal fired power stations?
    Mr. Prescott: I do not think that the amount of greenhouse gases and CO2 emitted by cars is insignificant; it is approximately 25 per cent. of all emissions, and it is the fastest-growing sector. That is why we have identified the package of measures to which I have referred, and we shall be discussing other areas of contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gases, such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the climate change levy in our proposals, which we will bring to the House shortly.
    Mr. Fabian Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from vehicles is further to encourage the development of alternative fuels? He mentioned new technologies in an earlier reply, but what plans does his Department have to promote the infrastructure development for those alternative fuels which is so essential to developing more vehicles that use those fuels?
    Mr. Prescott: Such proposals are among the group of measures that we are considering at the moment, and we have been actively consulting on those. We shall produce those measures in our document shortly.
    Mr. Tom Brake: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that unless the Government set a national target for road traffic reduction, transport-related emissions of CO2 will continue to rise? Does he agree that the Government need to lead by example and scrap free car parking spaces at the House of Commons for Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman's last point is a typical Liberal point, and it can be left to the House to make a judgment on that at the appropriate time. We have
    142
    made it clear that we do not accept the argument that we can set the national targets to reduce emissions from cars, as he mentioned, and the Commission for Integrated Transport has supported that view. We are concerned to deal with congestion and pollution, and the package of measures that we are putting forward will do that.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if people purchase a new vehicle that runs on alternative fuel, it will not be more expensive than other cars? Such cars ought to be cheaper. The complicated system in which people claim back money when they buy a vehicle that runs on alternative fuel ought to be made easier or disposed of.
    Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend, and we are looking at procedures by which we can achieve that.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I seek the Deputy Prime Minister's advice and help. Does he not accept that transport-related emissions of greenhouse gases will increase in north-east Cheshire unless he grants money for the Poynton bypass and the Manchester airport eastern link road, because inevitably the second runway will, despite the increase in public transport, cause a huge increase in car transport requiring access to the airport?
    Mr. Prescott: I thought for a moment that we were going to have another Member crossing the Chamber. [Hon. Members: "No, no."] That was a joke, in case anybody thought I was trying to be serious.
    The hon. Gentleman has always found rather ingenious ways of bringing up the road programme that he is concerned about. Our measures relate to congestion and pollution, and the package that we are putting forward will help to reduce those problems. As I have announced today, in Cheshire some £640,000 has been given to improve the public transport system.
    Mr. Damian Green: I am afraid that, as ever, the Secretary of State is providing aspirations but no effective action to help the environment. I urge him to take a positive view not only of the suggestions from a couple of his hon. Friends but of our common-sense proposals to cut the tax on fuels that produce low or no emissions of greenhouse gases and to cut the duty on the cars that use them. Conservative Members want to use lower taxes to help motorists and the environment. Why does he persist in clobbering the motorist with high-tax policies that have done nothing to improve air quality in this country?
    Mr. Prescott: It is a bit much to hear that from someone on the Opposition Front Bench when we scrapped the fuel duty escalator that the Conservatives brought in. That is certainly one major change that has taken place. As for the proposals by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about making greener cars, I have to say that some of them are ideas that we have already implemented, some are clearly contradictory and some are not even consistent with the facts. We have a package of measures that are putting us on the road to achieving the Kyoto targets that we have set ourselves for 2010.

    West Midlands (Economic Strategy)
    Mr. Richard Burden: If he will make a statement on progress with the implementation of the economic strategy document for the west midlands submitted by Advantage West Midlands. [103262]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have been considering the west midlands regional economic strategy alongside those of the other seven English regional development authorities, and we will be writing to each of the RDAs later this week outlining our formal response. Ministers will also be meeting the RDA chairmen this week to discuss implementing the strategies.
    Mr. Burden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree with me that regional development authorities have a tremendously important role to play both in combating social exclusion and in wealth creation? That is particularly the case in the west midlands, which has not always fitted easily into traditional conceptions of north-south divides but where there are significant areas of deprivation and the need for industrial transformation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if RDAs are to fulfil their role, they need sufficient resources and the maximum flexibility to employ resources according to locally determined needs and priorities?
    Ms Armstrong: The Government's responses to the RDAs this week will demonstrate that in each region there has been a serious attempt to consider the issues of wealth creation and of regeneration that are necessary to tackle both the imbalances within regions—that applies to every region—and between regions. We are determined that we will work with RDAs to enable them to develop strategies and to implement them, working with the range of partners that it is essential that they bring in to ensure that in each region there is a recognised real way forward that will make a significant difference.

    Road Safety
    Mrs. Helen Brinton: What measures he is taking to increase safety on the roads. [103264]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I acknowledge my hon. Friend's work in promoting home zones and other general road safety measures. Of course we want to see significant reductions in the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on our roads. We shall shortly be publishing a new road safety strategy, which will include new casualty reduction targets for 2010.
    Mrs. Brinton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that reducing speed limits would considerably improve road safety, especially on rural roads? Is she aware of a recent MORI poll that showed that the majority of Great British motorists support the reduction of speed limits, especially on country lanes?
    144
    Does she conclude with me that by reducing speed limits we shall improve safety not only for cyclists and pedestrians but for the British motorist?
    Ms Hughes: We recognise that speed is a major road safety and environmental issue in rural areas. It is perhaps the most crucial determinant of overall levels of road safety. In addition to a range of road safety measures that we have instituted since the general election, at the end of 1998 we introduced a major 12 months' review of speed policy. A report will be published shortly, which will include specific proposals for speed limits in rural areas.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Minister recognise that newer drivers are involved in a greater percentage of accidents than other motorists? Will she consider the use of green probation plates on cars and perhaps differential speed limits for newer drivers, to ascertain what impact that that could have in reducing road accidents?
    Ms Hughes: Certainly. Issues relating to improving the safety performance of drivers will be included in the road safety review. They will arise also from the speed review. We have already introduced a number of measures, including improving the practical driving test, the theory part of that test, implementing the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 and revising the highway code. Those measures acknowledge that drivers have a role to play in improving road safety, and especially in reducing speed.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Unlike the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I do not want another inch of road to be built in my constituency at present. However, I want maximum priority to be given to investment in road safety improvements. That issue should be the top priority of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions when determining whether roads should be built. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give an assurance that that will be the case and ensure that local authorities are given all possible support in promoting investment in road safety?
    Ms Hughes: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In addition to identifying new targets for reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries, the road safety strategy that we shall soon publish will address child safety, safety of other vulnerable road users and motorcycle safety—the whole range of road safety issues. As for his final point, we have already given local authorities considerable additional powers, including the ability to reduce speed limits to 20 mph without Government consent. We shall encourage local authorities to integrate safety policy in their local transport plans.

    Stamp Duty
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: What assessment he has made of the effect of stamp duty on large-scale voluntary housing transfers. [103265]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): Local authorities have to pay stamp duty when they transfer their housing stock to a non-charitable housing association. I am not aware that that has caused significant problems for those authorities on the transfer programme.
    Mr. Sanders: Will the Minister take a look at that issue? It seems nonsense that there is a tax take from a system that is supposed to put more money into repair and
    146
    renovation. That is the whole purpose of transfer, yet there is a clawback to the Treasury in the form of stamp duty, and there have been mutterings from potential transfer authorities that it is a disincentive to their taking that action.
    Mr. Mullin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, transfer is bringing in large sums of money to local authorities for investment in housing, and it will do so in Torbay. If Torbay wants to avoid paying stamp duty, it has the option of transferring to a charitable housing association.

Community Finance Tax Credit
3.32 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a tax credit to encourage investment in community finance institutions to enable development of social enterprise in areas of deprivation.
I dedicate the Bill to the memory of my mother, Beattie Colman, who died last Thursday and who inspired me.
I believe that, over the past two years, there has been growing recognition of the fact that our markets are not serving the most deprived communities in this country by providing the access to credit that they need. That has meant that not enough capital flows into projects that can offer the greatest social return.
Several initiatives are working to address the problem by being lenders where it matters, in areas suffering a capital famine. Community reinvestment—the subject of my previous 10-minute Bill—is one such initiative, and community finance institutions lend to enterprises that are regarded as being unbankable. Borrowers frequently graduate from community finance initiatives to mainstream lenders: community finance initiatives serve as a vital stepping stone. However, current needs outstrip both projects and the financing for those projects. There is a clear need for far greater investment in the initiatives, to enable them to achieve true potential.
The problem was highlighted by the report of the social exclusion unit's policy action team on enterprise and social exclusion, which makes excellent recommendations, some of which have been speedily acted on. In his pre-Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a £30 million programme to promote better access to finance and business support, so as to stimulate enterprise in deprived areas. I warmly welcome that programme, which is now being developed by the Department of Trade and Industry, as it has the potential to kick start the growth of the community finance sector. However, a community finance tax credit will help to build a community finance sector that is sustainable in the long term.
The Bill acts on another recommendation of the enterprise and social exclusion report, which argued that the Treasury and the Inland Revenue should examine a tax relief for individual investors in community finance. Such a tax relief would encourage people to invest in addressing the needs of deprived communities. Gaining the support of private investors will be critical to building a sustainable funding base for community finance projects, so that they are not dependent on Government funding rounds. In addition, attracting individual investors brings people involvement, which is a vital ingredient in community initiatives.
The establishment of a thriving community finance sector would be a major step toward creating an enterprise society for all. By establishing a tax credit, the Bill would encourage investment in community finance by giving it recognition. We currently offer tax relief to those who invest in enterprise for personal profit and enable tax-efficient giving to charitable causes; but, as yet, we give no tax relief to investors for social purposes. That may be because the thinking on lending to help others is less well understood, but by encouraging such investing we can potentially free up large volumes of new money for our deprived communities.
148
In seeking support for the Bill, I have spoken to the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and members of the Social Investment Forum of the UK—banks and community finance institutions working to promote new lending in the community.
For example, CityLife, an industrial and provident society, has pioneered the concept of social investment bonds. Its first bond was issued last year to address unemployment in Sheffield. Investors lent their money for five years at zero interest. The bond issue raised £787,000, primarily from the Sheffield public and leading Sheffield figures, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. With matching funds from various sources, that releases a total of almost £2 million to the city.
By asking people to lend rather than to give money, the bond released more money over a shorter time for an unpopular cause—the unemployed. Investors said that they had lent 10 times more than they would have donated. CityLife believes that that is new money, which is drawn from people's savings rather than from their income. Most of the investors in the Sheffield bond are drawn from the wealthier areas of the city. CityLife is planning community bonds in 30 more cities across the UK, but it and others believe that the impact of such work could increase with the recognition and incentive of a tax credit.
Investors in community finance are giving up the use of their capital for spending or for more lucrative investing. They are forgoing the interest of the capital and in many cases are seeing their capital depreciate. Market research commissioned by NatWest showed that 18 per cent. of the general public would be interested in investing in a product such as the bank's community bond, but that figure would rise to 31 per cent. if a tax incentive were involved. Investors in the NatWest community bond save between £500 and £250,000 for one or three years.
There are cases abroad of tax relief levering in considerable funds to particular types of investment vehicles. In the Netherlands, a new tax relief for green funds was introduced in January 1995, following campaigning by the Triodos bank. Since then, six banks have introduced green funds, with a combined fund volume adding up to about 1 billion euros. The funds offer tax exemption for private investors on interest or dividends from green investment funds. That enables the funds to offer loans to green projects at favourable rates. The Dutch Government view the initiative as a great success, as it fulfils its objective by reducing the financial burden for green projects, while attracting a large public to the field of green investment.
However, the Dutch initiative cannot be directly translated to the UK context of community finance. Community finance initiatives are at an early stage in their development, and a tax credit must recognise that. Following my discussions with the Inland Revenue and the Treasury, I believe that at this stage we need a tax relief that goes direct to the community finance institutions.
I therefore propose a model suggested to me by the Charities Aid Foundation, which runs a loan fund called Investors in Society. That was launched in 1996 with £500,000 seed capital. The fund has now grown to £4.5 million. It has approved loans or credit facilities for 85 initiatives.

149
The model that I propose would give tax credit to the CFI on money invested by private individuals, companies or other tax-paying bodies. To be eligible for the tax credit, the money would be lent at below market or zero interest to a community finance initiative registered with the Inland Revenue. The tax credit would be available to the CFI if it used the money for on-lending or for investing in micro-enterprise or small business for the relief of poverty or unemployment; community-based regeneration where the ultimate benefit was not personal profit; organisations or activities whose purposes were recognised as charitable by the Charity Commission or the Inland Revenue; the issue of charity or community bonds such as the Sheffield employment bond; and any of these purposes for overseas beneficiaries, as well as in the UK.
By targeting the tax credit at the CFI, it is hoped that the model would give maximum benefit to the community finance sector. It is arguable that a tax relief to corporate or individual taxpayers would free up greater volumes, but from my discussions with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue, I believe that at this stage we are looking for a simple mechanism to boost the development of community finance. However, over time it would be worth examining the potential impact of other tax relief for community finance.
The Government are showing their commitment to community finance. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is launching a new fund at the Aston Reinvestment Trust tomorrow. Aston Reinvestment Trust is piloting a new £400,000 fund with the support of the European Union. It will make loans of between £2,000 and £40,000 to community enterprises and voluntary organisations unable to access finance from conventional sources.
The Department of Trade and Industry with the Phoenix fund now offers challenge fund and guarantee fund money to community finance initiatives. However, as yet we do not have an additional incentive to get individuals and corporate investment to make the significant impact that is possible through investing in our deprived communities. The Bill offers the opportunity to make that impact by tackling tax relief for investors in community finance, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Gareth R. Thomas, and Mr. Tom Brake.

Community Finance Tax Credit
  COMMUNITY FINANCE TAX CREDIT
  Mr. Tony Colman accordingly presented a Bill to introduce a tax credit to encourage investment in community finance institutions to enable development of social enterprise in areas of deprivation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March, and to be printed [Bill 44].
Orders of the Day

  Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
  [Relevant documents: The Tenth Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1998–99 on The 1999 Child Support White Paper (HC 798) and the Government's Response thereto (Cm 4536).]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the House—I am sorry, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I regret to say that Back-Bench speeches are limited to 15 minutes today, as demand to speak is so great.
  3.41 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It gives me great comfort to know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has not tabled an amendment to the Bill.
  The Bill takes welfare reform a stage further by introducing reforms in three key areas. First, it tackles the inherited mess of child support and will help more than 1 million children who miss out on the help that they should get. Secondly, the Bill strengthens the links between the benefits that people receive and their debts to society, and provides for new action to reinforce community sentences. Thirdly, it introduces the second stage of our pension reforms, which will help more than 14 million people—the low paid, carers and others who have lost out in the past.
  The Bill contains several other measures, including changes that will bring the war pensions appeals system up to date and toughen fraud inspectors' powers. They all build on reforms that have been made since the election, and promote opportunity, reduce dependency and provide greater security—in short, everything that a modern welfare state should do.
  We are determined to ensure that children get the best possible start in life. We are the first Government to be committed to eradicating child poverty in a generation and to halving it in 10 years. We are determined to end the scandal of child poverty, which wrote off a whole generation of children who were born at the wrong time in the wrong place under a Tory Government. Reforming the Child Support Agency will help to achieve that.
  We are also committed to making work pay, getting more than 125,000 young people off dependency and into work through the new deal and tightening the benefit system to stop abuse. The Bill takes that a step further. We are also tackling another Tory legacy—pensioner poverty—today and in future with long-term reforms to the pension system.
  I want to focus on the three main reforms: child support, community punishments and pensions. However, I shall, of course, be happy to answer questions on other measure in the Bill. First I shall speak about our reforms in part I of the Bill to sort out the CSA. Our starting point is that the primary responsibility for looking after children

  151
  lies squarely with both parents, whether they live together or apart. The Government have to ensure that, when parents live apart there is an effective system of child support in place. That is not the case at the moment. We must ensure that the child support system makes sure that children get the support to which they are entitled and on which they depend.
  The current system has failed children. The agency spends 90 per cent. of its time chasing information and only 10 per cent. ensuring that money gets through. Consequently, only 300,000 of the 1.5 million children on the agency's books gain from maintenance paid; only 100,000 receive all the money that is due to them. It is worth bearing in mind that by 2004 we reckon that 2 million children will be on the CSA books.
  Under the new system that we propose, mothers and their children—it is usually mothers, though not exclusively so—will get what they are due, and quickly. The system that we inherited is also failing those parents who live apart from their children but want to support them. As hon. Members will know, the agency often needs so much information to work out how much is due that it can take months before a decision is made. As a result, parents can face huge debts through no fault of their own. Our reforms will change all that and, as a result, more than 1 million children who miss out today will receive help.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. During consideration of the Bill, and particularly in Committee, will he look at perhaps giving the CSA powers to investigate fraud, which could improve its decision-making process? As I understand it, the agency has no such powers and investigations have to be passed to the Benefits Agency, which leads to breakdowns in communication and certain delays. I am sure that the agency's situation would improve if it were given those powers.
  Mr. Darling: I am well aware of that problem and we shall introduce through the Bill the power to appoint inspectors to investigate cases in general. Under the present system, if there are complaints about a case, uncertainties or suspected wrongdoing we have to appoint an inspector who is designated to a particular case. That takes time. We propose to designate inspectors who shall have general powers to investigate suspected wrongdoing and see whether anything needs to be done. With regard to fraud, it should be borne in mind that the Department of Social Security and its agencies ought to operate far more closely together, which I have been encouraging. I want to avoid having several different fraud arms, because fraud is a specialist field, but I am mindful of the point made by my hon. Friend. The whole system will depend on us being able to fix and pay the right amount quickly, so we do not want delays involving papers being passed from office to office. The new powers to appoint inspectors to look at individual cases will go some way to dealing with that.
  Before I deal with our proposals, I want to deal with the Liberals and the lawyers, if I may put it that way, who want us to go back to the courts. I speak as someone who practised in the courts and has some experience in this area. It is important to dispose of this matter once and for all. Those of us who have worked in the divorce courts
  152
  know that going back to the courts is not the answer. It is worth bearing in mind that in 1979—to take a date at random—slightly more than half lone parents on income support received maintenance. The rest did not. By 1990, the courts were getting money to less than half that figure. Those of us who have worked in the courts will know that decisions are often unpredictable, unreliable and unfair.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: They still are.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman says that they still are, but it is Liberal policy to go back to the courts, which is absolute nonsense. Certainly in my experience, income support, like rock bands, was something that judges did not know much about. The result was that those who were arguing on behalf of a client on income support were frequently met with a completely blank expression from the person on the Bench, who had not a clue what they were talking about because the numbers were so small. He did not recognise that such numbers could possibly exist.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: My right hon. Friend is looking for a temporary sheriff's job.
  Mr. Darling: I do not think that I want to be a temporary sheriff. The important point is that going back to the courts would not only resurrect unfairness and all those uncertainties, but would cost £800 million a year—a fourfold increase in the cost of running the CSA. I do not know whether the Liberals have thought about that policy, but I should point out to them that the cost of going back to the courts would eat up almost half the extra penny on income tax that they want to raise, allegedly for improving education. I understand the lawyers' interest in the point, but if the Liberals seriously want to go back to the courts they have to reflect on the fact that putting 1 million cases into the court system would not only involve a cost, but would completely jam the system. That would prejudice the interests of not only children, but the whole civil and criminal justice system. I do not believe that their policy has any credibility whatever.
  Dr. Godman rose—
  Miss Anne McIntosh rose—
  Mr. Darling: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and then to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).
  Dr. Godman: I welcome the provisions of clause 10, but may I ask whether the Government intend to extend legal aid to child support appeal tribunals? What is the point of an appeals system if adequate representation is not possible?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that the Government do not intend to extend legal aid to the tribunals. The tribunal system is there, and it works. When it was established, the idea was to try to keep lawyers out of it. We hope that, by simplifying the

  153
  system, we can substantially reduce the number of people who want to go to tribunals, and thus make the system fairer.
  I shall stop knocking lawyers now, as one day I may wish to practise in the courts again.
  Miss McIntosh: I come from the same legal system as the Secretary of State, although I may not have the same breadth of experience. Does he agree that, before 1979, the courts often found solutions to the problems involved in further settlements following divorce faster than the CSA, and that, moreover, the CSA has failed in its first duty to find lost parents who are not known to it?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady has raised a number of points. I do not agree that the courts always found a solution faster; it is true that an interim solution could be found, but it was not always satisfactory.
  The hon. Lady is right—and this lies at the heart of what is currently wrong with the CSA—in saying that, in too many instances, it takes months to calculate the money that is due. That causes arrears to build up—often through no fault of their own—for parents living away from home, and meanwhile the children do not receive any money. The problem of absent parents can be a problem in the courts as well as the CSA, although I hope that the additional powers that we are giving the CSA will help.
  The hon. Lady brings me to the central point of the Bill. It will abolish the existing complex formula, and introduce a much simpler rate and far more predictable decisions. There is already a reckoner on the back of the White Paper enabling people to calculate easily how much will be due to them. Decisions will be made within days rather than months of an application. The idea is that, once the amount has been fixed, the absent parent can be told how much is due. The money will start flowing faster, and everyone will know where they stand.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I favour the prescribing of a fixed amount, but is not the Secretary of State misdirecting himself? The current problem with the CSA is not the arithmetic, but establishing an individual's income, along with that individual's willingness to be constantly reassessed and his unwillingness to pay what strikes him as an unreasonable amount.
  Mr. Darling: The arithmetic is certainly part of the problem. At present, it is necessary to take into account not just income but a number of allowances and disregards, and several other factors, before deciding on a figure. Because about 100 items of information are needed, two things can happen. Even in the case of the most willing parent, circumstances can change before the calculation is made. Moreover, a parent who is simply stringing the agency—and, more important, the child—along can delay, or refuse to hand over certain bits of information.
  I do not know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is proposing with regard to fixed charges. If I misunderstood him, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with his point when he winds up the debate; but I think that a fixed amount would be grossly unfair. Children are entitled to share in their parents' income, and it would be
  154
  wrong to allow those who are earning a good deal of money to pay a flat rate when they could well afford to pay more.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd rose—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
  Mr. Darling: I seem to have got one or two hon. Members excited. I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).
  Mr. Llwyd: I have no brief to defend the lawyers, although I am a lawyer myself, but may I ask a simple question? What measures does the Bill contain to tie down the unscrupulous absent parent who is self-employed and does not want to play ball?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are taking powers to get access to the Inland Revenue records of a self-employed person who refuses to tell us how much he is earning. Clearly, we will not want to do that routinely, but we all have constituents who tell us that they are getting absolutely nothing while the self-employed absent parent can be seen driving around the town and living an opulent life. That will stop under the new system.
  As the House is more than just a gathering of lawyers, I give way to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am not a lawyer, but I want to ask a straightforward question. The Secretary of State has talked about most parents being interested in their children. How many parents who divorce or separate are not prepared to work out together what is in the best interests of their child by way of maintenance? We are setting up a new panoply of bureaucracy when quite a large percentage of people would be prepared to enter into an arrangement to support their children.
  Mr. Darling: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's straight question is that just under one third of absent parents refuse to co-operate with the agency; usually, they are fathers. In an ideal world, all separating couples would come to an agreement because that is in the best interests of their children. With regard to the rest of the case load, Members will be familiar with the phenomenon where people, because of other things that are going on, will not co-operate at the start, but gradually co-operate later.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield on one point: far from creating a great bureaucracy, we are simplifying the present bureaucracy, so that the agency will need to know only who is the absent parent and how much that person earns. It will do the calculation—the amount will be 15, 20 or 25 per cent. of income, depending on the number of children and whether those children are in a second family. Then it can say that that is the amount that the absent parent is due to pay. Absent parents should enter into the agreement immediately. If they do not stick to it, one strike and they are out. We will deduct the money from their wages.
  The system will be much simpler. If we can get rid of all the hassle and opportunities for ducking and dodging, many people who are fighting a completely different fight

  155
  with their former husband or wife will have their minds concentrated on the fact that the CSA can now fix the amount due quickly and get that money paid.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: That is good news to many people who are concerned, but one thing still concerns me. Will the agency have powers physically to trace someone who is consciously trying to evade being found? I know that the Department says frequently that that is not the agency's function, but there is nothing worse than one parent spending a lot of time finding out where the ex-partner is, only to be told that the agency does not have the power to follow that up. It happens far too often.
  Mr. Darling: I am aware of the problems. I have a constituency case where that has happened. I am not sure that the agency needs additional powers to find someone. In that case and others that have been raised in right hon. and hon. Members' correspondence with me, the mother has said where the absent father lives and where the bank account is. Several months elapse before anything happens, by which time he has cleaned out the bank account or pushed off.
  The key is to get things moving quickly. If a bank is after someone because that person owes it money, it does not hang about. One of the things that we have done with the CSA is to bring in the private sector to give it far more experience in debt management and collection of money. The CSA was bad at collecting debts.
  If in Committee—I make the point generally; it is important that we as a whole House get it right—right hon. and hon. Members have suggestions, or amendments that would make things better, and if there is a gap in the CSA's powers, we will be prepared to look at the matter. The problem with the CSA has been that, from the start, it was swamped with a work load that it could not deal with and a system that was pretty unworkable. It is a great tribute to the CSA chief executive and the staff that, over the past few years, they have made improvements despite the odds, but the key is to work quickly with a simple formula.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Currently, the CSA often says to the parent with care, "If you think that there is fraud, prove it", and asks that parent to produce evidence. Will the system be changed so that, when there is an allegation of fraud and some evidence is produced, the CSA will follow up the matter, find the necessary evidence and ensure that the correct money goes to the child, who is the one who deserves it?
  Mr. Darling: All I shall say about fraud—this applies right across the system—is that the CSA and other agencies have to have some prima facie evidence of it. In the Department of Social Security generally, we are also aware that accusations of fraud are often made as part of wider disputes. We therefore have to be careful that the agency has some credible information before it proceeds. My hon. Friend's point is that we must end the days when the agency is given information, but, months later, although it is common ground that it had that information, it has done nothing about it. We are taking action to ensure that such delays are being cut out. In the new system, it will also be very much easier to pursue such cases than it was in the past.
  156
  The second important change that we are making is to ensure that people on income support realise the benefit of the maintenance that they receive. Consequently, we have introduced the £10 disregard. It is important not only that people should have an incentive to co-operate with the agency, but that they should realise some benefit for it.
  If the mother goes into work, she will not only receive working families tax credit, but keep every penny of it as well as the maintenance disregard. A typical person on working families tax credit should therefore receive about £24 a week extra, plus their £10 disregard, so that they will be considerably better off. It is all part of the Government's twin strategy of not only tackling child poverty, but ensuring that work pays, to encourage people to get into work.
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed across the country, and by all hon. Members, who constantly deal with the type of cases that he has been describing. Occasionally, however, we introduce disregards that have unforeseen impacts. Will he therefore examine possible interactions between maintenance payments and housing benefit, council tax benefit and all the other benefits?
  Mr. Darling: As my hon. Friend knows, we are on the case. The working families tax credit went a long way towards reducing the tapers and disincentives that we inherited. We have already announced that we are examining the way in which housing benefit operates; it is a separate matter in itself, and affects not only maintenance but other benefits and many incentives.
  A few moments ago, hon. Members were asking about parents who do not pay. In reply to the hon. Member for Macclesfield, I noted that 30 per cent. of parents on the CSA's books pay nothing at all. I should take this opportunity to outline some of the actions that we are proposing and that I believe will help.
  First, when parents wilfully withhold information or lie to the CSA, they will face fines of up to £1,000. That is not a first resort, and they will be given a chance to co-operate. However, we cannot put up with a situation in which people are withholding information and we cannot process their claims. We should remember that, ultimately, the children—not the mother or the father—are the ones who are losing out. We shall therefore take those new powers.
  As I said earlier, we shall also take new powers to appoint new specialist inspectors, not only to obtain information from individuals, but—if necessary, when we cannot obtain information voluntarily—to obtain information from employers and the self-employed. As I said, we shall also take powers to gain access to the Inland Revenue.
  We can introduce those powers before the establishment of the new system, about which I shall say something shortly. The Government believe that if Parliament gives us those powers, we should take them now to tackle some of the problems that we are all too familiar with.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: Yesterday, I spoke with a constituent who is owed £28,000 by her former husband, who is almost certainly a millionaire, but who has absconded to America. She has been told by the

  157
  CSA that she cannot claim that money against any assets—which she believes are still in his name—that he might hold in the United Kingdom. Will the Government consider ensuring that, once they have been established, the debts of those who have left the country are chargeable against assets that they hold in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Darling: If the hon. Lady writes to me with the details of the case, I shall be happy to reply. Clearly, the points of principle that she raised can be explored in Committee, although we would not divulge the name of her constituent. The rules on recovering someone's assets are part of the general law on the recovery of debts. Nothing in the Bill directly impacts on that. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I am prepared to look at any suggestions that would tighten things up. However, we need to be realistic. Changing the CSA will not resolve all the problems, although I hope that we can address a substantial number of them.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: I suppose so.
  Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way in his characteristically gracious manner. Does he recall that I raised previously with the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), in the context of a constituent, the important issue of establishing parentage? I have perused clauses 14 and 61. Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that from now on, in every case where an individual is willing to have a DNA test to prove parentage—or more particularly to prove non-parentage—he will be able to do so? It is a matter of the utmost importance to a constituent of mine.
  Mr. Darling: I do not see why anyone who is willing to undergo a DNA test should have any difficulty in doing so, as that would put beyond doubt whether or not he was the father of a particular child. Another change in the Bill is that if two people were married to each other when a child was born, the husband is presumed to be the father of that child. That simply extends the provision that applies to Scotland, but for some reason did not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. Where there is any doubt—
  Mr. Bercow: Can such people insist on a DNA test?
  Mr. Darling: Yes. The whole point of DNA testing is to put the matter beyond doubt once and for all.
  We are taking powers that can be applied earlier to ensure that we can deal with people who insist on being difficult. When someone deliberately delays paying money to their children, we will impose a new penalty of up to 25 per cent. of the money due until they pay. We are also taking powers to make a temporary arrangement when there is difficulty in getting information from people. As a last resort, if someone will not co-operate, the courts will be given the power to imprison them and, at the court's discretion, to remove their driving licences.
  158
  The measures that we are proposing will double the number of families on income support getting maintenance. As a result, some 600,000 children in the poorest families will benefit from maintenance for the first time.
  Sir Robert Smith: Will the powers in relation to establishing parentage be used by the CSA even if there is no money to be collected? One obvious concern is to make it quite clear for future planning who the two parents responsible are, but the CSA seems to be saying that if there is no likelihood of gaining money from the suspected father, it is not interested in making the case a priority.
  Mr. Darling: There will be money to collect unless the father is a student or a prisoner. Under the new system, everyone has to pay something to their children, so it will be worthwhile on a point of principle for the CSA to pursue these people.
  Let me say a brief word about timing, which is a matter of concern to all hon. Members. We all agree that the need for reform is urgent. The CSA is already making progress within the constraints of the present system, but there is also widespread agreement across the House that we do not want to repeat the mistakes that were made in the 1990s. When the CSA was set up, it took on the entire case load and collapsed under the weight. To do that again would be absolutely disastrous. It is worth bearing in mind that the CSA has nearly 1 million cases on its books and deals with some 400,000 new cases a year. We are determined not to introduce the reforms before everything is in place. It is a large task. It is not just about new legislation but involves new information technology and significant changes to the way in which the agency works.
  The agency's case load increased by some 80 per cent. over the past few years, so I want to ensure that we get the reforms right. I want them in place as quickly as possible, but no one would want us to introduce the new system if we were not satisfied that it would work from the start. If we did, we would revisit all the problems that arose in the past.
  In the meantime, we have invested an additional £28 million in the system. As I said, we brought in the private sector to help to improve debt recovery, we are making more use of the telephone, the CSA is open longer, including at the weekends and in the evenings, and staff will meet people in the privacy of their own homes. We are now providing a nationwide framework of nearly 500 staff who can see people in face-to-face interviews. Shortly, the agency will also introduce statements that set out what has been paid and what is still due, which many people will find useful—not least hon. Members.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: One of the more chilling aspects of the explanatory notes to the Bill is the information that the CSA will shortly have a new computer system. I sat on the Public Accounts Committee long enough to understand that the installation of new computer systems in Departments has been an almost unmitigated disaster. May we have the Secretary of State's absolute assurance that he will ensure that the new computer system improves matters rather than making them worse?
  Mr. Darling: I certainly did not regard the information that we will have a new computer system as chilling, because I was more optimistic about it. Having been Secretary of State for Social Security for some 18 months, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I regard computers in much the same way as he does. Given the experience of Government procurement of computers, in my Department and elsewhere, I am determined that we should replace the entire Department computing system—it is antiquated and, in the middle of the next decade, spare parts for it will no longer be available—in manageable bits and so that one part of the system does not depend on another part to work. The problem with the plans that we inherited was that if one part of the system collapsed, it would bring down the rest. Such attitudes led to all the problems with NIRS2 and the benefit payment card.
  We are negotiating with EDS and the consortium that it leads to procure a new computer system for the CSA. We have spent some time doing so, because we want to ensure that the contract is right. It is due to be delivered towards the end of 2001, but I want to ensure that it actually works before we switch it on and transfer the new cases, let alone the old ones, to it. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) can take it from me that I have had enough experience of NIRS2 and the failed benefit payment card to be very wary of the procurement of computers.
  Mr. David Chaytor: My predecessor as Member for Bury, North was the Minister in the former regime who was responsible for implementing the CSA, so I have followed the issue carefully over the past three or four years. Under the new system, will my right hon. Friend be able to ensure that people who approach the CSA are given a named official who will progress their cases? We all know of the terrible bureaucracy that dogged the agency under the old regime, but one of the most frequent complaints from constituents is that they never know to whom they are talking. Can a named official be guaranteed under the new system? It is not a point that can be easily pursued through primary legislation, but I hope that he can ensure that the CSA will give the highest priority to projecting a human face to those who contact them. Many improvements have been made in the past two years, but there is still some way to go.
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point and we wish to encourage such an approach now, as well as in the future. It is much better for everyone concerned if people can speak to someone who knows their case and they do not have to go over old ground time and again. When we have the new computer system, it will be much easier because staff will be able to call up on screen everything that they need to know about an individual. Anyone who has ever inspected bank or building society computer systems will know how a good system can work. Everything about a customer is on the screen and it is much easier to give advice. If a member of staff goes on holiday, his or her replacement knows to whom the caller spoke the previous week, and what the position is with the case. I do not want to be too optimistic about the time scale, but we are trying to start the process now, even within the constraints of the present system.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: Yes, but then I must make some progress. I am conscious that Madam Speaker is frowning even now. This is the last intervention that I shall take for 15 minutes.
  Mr. Boswell: I am very grateful, but my question follows on from the previous one. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of ensuring that the same named official deals with both sides of a particular case? Many hon. Members will be familiar with instances when, although both parties live in the same constituency, the CSA appears not to have integrated its consideration of the circumstances of the case. The result is that two CSA officials do not talk to each other about the same information.
  Mr. Darling: If it is possible to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests, I shall, and his proposal is certainly worth considering.
  Before I leave the child support system, I reiterate the general point that I think that this is the last chance for the CSA. It is important that we get this matter right, and so the Government will listen to suggestions, in Committee and on Report, from hon. Members in all parties. I do not know the Conservative party's attitude to this part of the Bill, but no doubt I shall find out. However, if improvements can be made to the Bill or to procedures, we are open to considering them.
  I turn now to community punishments, and to the state second pension. I shall deal first with community punishments, which are covered in part III.
  The first, brief, point to be made is that there is no unconditional right to benefit. Rights are matched by responsibilities. At present, one in five offenders given community sentences is brought before the courts for failing to comply with the requirements of the sentence. We simply cannot allow that to continue, as those people break their side of the bargain but still claim benefits. I do not believe it right that a community punishment should be regarded as a one-way bet, in which people can do what they want while expecting everyone else to pay for their benefit.
  We propose that benefit will be either withdrawn or reduced for offenders referred back to court by the probation service for breaching their community sentences. People will be told about what will happen, and will be able to remedy the difficulty immediately, simply by complying with the probation order. The remedy will lie in the hands of offenders: those who want their benefits restored will have to do no more than comply with the conditions imposed by the courts.
  The Bill provides the means to implement such a system. We shall start by piloting it in a small number of areas, and we will evaluate the pilot schemes before coming to firm conclusions. However, I believe that the measure will send the clear message to offenders that benefits bring obligations that they must meet.
  Mr. John Swinney: In those pilot exercises, will tests be applied to determine how the removal of benefits affects the poverty faced by the people involved? Also, should not there be ways to discover whether removing benefits encourages rehabilitation, or whether it leads to reoffending because people's circumstances have been made more difficult?
  Mr. Darling: There are provisions for hardship, but the remedy in cases such as the hon. Gentleman described lies

  161
  in the hands of the person who breaks a probation order. People are not required to live in poverty or to lose their benefit. They are required only to do what the court tells them to do. If they are not willing to do that, they can have no cause for complaint.
  I turn now to what I regard as an extremely important part of the Bill, the second stage of the reform of pensions. Part II provides for the reform of SERPS and its replacement with the state second pension.
  The reforms being put in place, together with those in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, will put pensions on a sound, sustainable and affordable footing for the future. Our plans have been welcomed almost universally.
  If we did nothing, by 2050, one person in three would risk depending on means-tested benefits in retirement. Under the pension system that we inherited, nearly a third of people working were headed for retirement on benefits. We believe that everyone who can save, should save. That is why we have legislated for stakeholder pensions, which will help the 5 million people unable to get an occupational scheme to get a funded pension. Stakeholder pensions are on track for delivery from April next year.
  Today, we are going further. We are helping 4.5 million low-paid people, 6 million moderate earners, 2 million carers and 2 million disabled people with broken work records by reforming SERPS and making it better through the introduction of the state second pension. The current system—SERPS—was designed to supplement the basic state pension, but it does not do enough for the low paid, and it does nothing for many carers or disabled people with broken work records.
  SERPS is earnings-related—so, by definition, if people do not earn very much, they do not contribute very much, and do not get very much back when they retire. We are determined to improve SERPS, and the state second pension will, in some cases, triple the amount of additional pension to which low earners will be entitled. For example, under SERPS, someone earning £6,000 a year—after a lifetime of employment—gets £14 a week on top of their basic state pension. Under the state second pension, that sum will rise to £54 a week. That is £40 extra for that low earner.
  Mr. Steve Webb rose—
  Mr. Darling: No one—not even the Liberals—can say that that is not a substantial improvement on the present situation.
  Mr. Webb: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the statement he has just made will not be true before 2047?
  Mr. Darling: No. Over the past few months, the hon. Gentleman has been complaining about the state second pension.
  Mr. Bercow: Answer the question.
  Mr. Darling: I was answering—I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman might be interested.
  162
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) keeps saying that the state second pension will take a long time to mature, and he is right to the extent that pensions, by their very nature, take some years to build up. However, because of the way in which the state second pension is structured, people will begin to see improvements from very shortly after it is introduced—probably in 2002. Many people will see a substantial difference in the amount of pension they will receive as a result of the changes that we are making.
  For example, a couple, one of whom is on low earnings, while the other spends half their time caring, will, as a result of our changes, get £30 more because of the operation of the state second pension. That is by 2025. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I make no apology for that. For heaven's sake—no wonder the Tories mis-sold pensions. What sort of pension can someone take out where they get a vast increase in money the day after they take it out?
  Mr. Eric Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman said 2002.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman, who spends a great deal of time grunting and snorting from the Opposition Front Bench, has misheard me. I said that the state second pension will start to be introduced from 2002. I went on to say that it will take time for people to see the full benefit of the state second pension. The point I was making to the hon. Member for Northavon was that even in 25 years' time—not long in pension planning terms—the couple I described will be £30 a week better off than they would otherwise have been if we did not reform SERPS.
  I believe that the changes in the state second pension will greatly increase the amount of money going, for example, to someone on £6,000 a year, who will be £40 a week better off. However, even someone on £15,000 a year will be £17 a week better off, and it will take 14 years before their income falls to the level of the minimum income guarantee. Any fair-minded person looking at the system will see that the state second pension and the reforms that we are making to SERPS are infinitely better than the present system because they allow people on low earnings, carers and disabled people to build up substantial pensions. That would not otherwise be the case.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Is not the problem that the state second pension will be extremely complex? My right hon. Friend says that it was been welcomed, but an analysis of responses—particularly from the pensions industry—shows that many respondents recoiled in horror at the complexity of the scheme. As a result of what the Tories did to the basic state pension, people have lost out by £27 a week. By introducing the state second pension, we are only replacing what was a good basic state pension. Would not it have been simpler to increase the basic state pension?
  Mr. Darling: If I were my hon. Friend, I would be very careful about taking at face value what some respondents said about the state second pension. The complaint of many of them is that it exists at all. If there were no enhanced state earnings-related pension—the state second pension—people would be better off in an occupational pension scheme because otherwise they would receive very little.

  163
  The Tories make the same complaint. They do not like the state second pension; their answer to its complexity is not to have such a scheme at all, leaving SERPS to give people precious little. In fact, they are not terribly keen on SERPS either. Their proposal was to privatise the entire pensions system at a cost of some £150 billion. It is not surprising that, three years after they announced that proposal, they have still to find any serious commentator prepared to buy it.
  I believe that the system that we are introducing is not complex. It recognises that people earning less than about £9,500 a year will never earn enough to go into a funded pension on their own. They might do better in a company scheme, with the company contributing as well. We are determined to ensure that the state gives them far more than they would otherwise get.
  Under our proposals, someone on £6,000 a year would be £40 a week better off because of the rebalancing of SERPS under the new state second pension. I should have thought that anyone—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), considering where she stands in our party—would have considered that particular piece of redistribution a good thing, to be supported rather than criticised.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: No, I have not finished my point yet.
  Although a number of respondents were concerned about the existence of the state second pension, the industry as a whole welcomes the fact that the state second pension will help not only low earners but moderate earners because they will have an enhanced rebate that they can take into their occupational pension, their stakeholder pension or, in some cases, a personal private pension.
  Mr. Bruce: On advance corporation tax and the £5 billion that is being taken away from pension schemes, how does that compare with what the Government claim to be putting into the second pension? I am sure that a balancing act has been done somewhere in the Treasury or the Department of Social Security to work out how much extra the Government are getting out of future pensioners, rather than providing extra for them.
  Mr. Darling: I wondered whether any Tory would be daft enough to raise that question today. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made a great song and dance, with much synthetic anger, about the Government's changes to the ACT system. Let me give him an answer. As I was perusing the reviews for our pension changes announced yesterday, my eye was caught by an article in the Financial Times headed
  "Pension funds show second best results in 10 years."
  He said yesterday that our changes to ACT had denuded pension funds of all their money. Yet the article quoted the company that compiled the figures as saying:
  "This was an incredible year, with an end-result beyond most people's expectations."
  So much for all the accusations that we were damaging pension funds—they have had a very good year.
  As I said yesterday, I do not want to go into too much detail on ACT. The changes simplify the corporation tax system. We now have the lowest corporation tax this
  164
  country has ever seen—something the Tories could never achieve. We have a stable economic background and a healthy economy, which is helping pension funds and pensioners. To cap it all, I bet that the Tories have no intention of going back to the old system, so I discount all their synthetic anger.
  The state second pension gives disabled people and carers a pension that they would not otherwise get. The pensions proposals that we announced last year, together with the proposals in the Bill, mean that all who can save now have the opportunity to do so. The changes that we are making as a result of the state second pension will help some 14 million people. That is a substantial amendment.
  Finally, the Bill provides additional powers to deal with suspected fraud. We are giving inspectors substantial powers that they do not have at present. We are also continuing to align tax and national insurance contributions with new measures to extend national insurance contributions to benefits in kind.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State's speech. Could he help the House by telling us to what extent the Bill increases or decreases overall public spending? Will he tell us the amount? It is not clear whether the Treasury will be better or worse off as a consequence of the Bill.
  Mr. Darling: On the state second pension, the answer is that the Bill increases expenditure by about £5 billion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It is all in the financial memorandum. If hon. Members care to read that document, they will find out what the position is.
  The Bill contains a radical package of measures to build a welfare state fit for the needs of the 21st century. It will be a welfare state founded on fairness and opportunity—two concepts that Opposition Members would not begin to understand. The measure will be fair for those who meet their responsibilities, but will be tougher on those who are not prepared to face up to their responsibilities. It links the right to benefit with the responsibility to comply with obligations. It is fairer for low-paid people, for carers and for disabled people with broken work records. It will help more than 14 million people on pensions.
  We are reforming the Child Support Agency; something that is long overdue and that it falls to a Labour Government to deliver. We are making better pension provision at present and in the future—something that only a Labour Government can do. We are making changes to the benefit system so that it is far tighter and far more affordable, and will be far more sustainable in the future.
  We are building a welfare state that will be supported. Step by step, we are delivering: we are ending child poverty; we are providing opportunity and we are building a fair society. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.31 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House notes that the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill will make the social security system yet more complicated; regrets that the child support formula will reduce the

  165
  entitlement to child maintenance of many parents with care; believes that the transitional period risks causing further resentment amongst people caught between two child support regimes; deplores the complexity of the Government's proposals for the state second pension; believes that the lower earnings threshold will act as a barrier to people moving into private provision; regrets that important features of the state second pension are being left for later regulation; and accordingly declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because it represents a missed opportunity on the part of the Government to reform social security."
  I begin with the same part of the Bill to which the Secretary of State referred—child support. I confirm that we agree with him on the fundamental principles of reform; indeed, they go back to our Child Support Acts 1991 and 1995. We believe that biological parents have an inescapable financial obligation to the children whom they bring into the world. Furthermore, unlike the Liberal Democrats, we believe that we cannot simply go back to the courts—on that we are with the Government. We need an effective administrative system in order to secure the financial support that all parents should give to their children. That was common ground when we introduced the original legislation, and it remains so.
  The Opposition also accept the need for reform. Every Member is aware—not least from our constituency surgeries—that the Child Support Agency is not working. We accept that the formula is too complicated and that more emphasis should be placed on enforcement. That is common ground and we support the Government's proposals on those matters.
  However, we have serious concerns about how the Government's proposals will work in practice. In that regard, I learned much from the work of the Select Committee on Social Security. I greatly appreciate its work. The Committee undertook a thorough investigation of this subject last year. The Opposition think that it is wrong that, under the Government's proposals, no account will be taken of the income of the parent with care. For example, the parent with care—often, but not necessarily, a woman—may remarry. He or she might then be in favourable financial circumstances, perhaps much more favourable than those of their ex-spouse, and there will be widespread resentment if the system fails to take into account the new income of the parent with care. We shall hear of such cases in all our surgeries; people will regard that as unacceptable and contrary to natural justice.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am a little confused. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that, although it is very important that one should pay for one's own children, if, for any reason, one's ex-partner is able to get money from a wholly different source, that automatically absolves one of any responsibility for continuing to pay for one's children at the existing rate? If that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying, it seems to be a somewhat complex—even unacceptable—set of mores.
  Mr. Willetts: I am not saying that that should be automatic, but that—as the Select Committee said—if the parent with care remarries and finds herself or himself with an affluent new spouse, there will come a point when it is simply unacceptable to fail to take those new financial
  166
  circumstances into account. Labour Members will find that their constituents will come to their surgeries to make that very point.
  Mr. Connarty: Is not the hon. Gentleman saying that he is going to play this issue for politics and not the moral right of the child?
  Mr. Willetts: I am talking about what seems to me to be a clear and simple principle. The hon. Gentleman will find that his constituents and others throughout the country are simply unable to understand why no account whatsoever should be taken of the financial circumstances of the parent with care if he or she remarries.
  Mrs. Joan Humble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I am sorry, but I would like to make a second point about the formula. I do not intend to take quite as long as the Secretary of State.
  We also oppose the fact that, at the moment, there is no upper limit on the liability of the non-resident parent. Again, as the non-resident parent's income rises—perhaps that is long after the relationship with the other parent of the child has broken up—there must come a point when one cannot indefinitely extract 20 or 25 per cent. of the income of the non-resident parent. We need to have an upper limit somewhere in the system.
  Trying to take account of the income of the parent with care and setting an upper limit on the liability of the non-resident parent would bring our system of child support much more into line with the common-sense instincts of the average constituent whom we are trying to represent. I will now give way to the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Humble: As a member of the Select Committee, I have tried to refresh my memory about some of our recommendations. On the point about the income and resources of the parent with care, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the recommendations of the Select Committee were to do with the earnings of the parent with care. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his remarks about remarriage and income from other sources.
  Mr. Willetts: No. This is an important matter, which we will find is one of the sticking points that we shall all face in our surgeries if these proposals, as currently formulated, are passed into law.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: Yes, but very briefly because I want to move on to other points about child support.
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman seems to want to pick and choose between the recommendations of the Select Committee, of which I am also a member. It accepted the Government's proposal that there should not be a limit on the income of wealthier parents because we believe that children have the right to share in the income of wealthy parents and share their standard of living.
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee and I am not. However, from my

  167
  recollection, a proposal in the original draft was changed after a vote of five votes to two. I agree with the two members of the Select Committee who thought that such income should be taken into account. I do not accept everything that the Committee said, but I think that its report is valuable and that some of its proposals should be reflected in the Bill. I regret the fact that they are not.
  I shall move on to another feature of the Bill—something that loomed very large when the Secretary of State was spinning and briefing on his proposals, but which he strangely passed over today. I refer, of course, to the tough new penalty, which we were told about several months ago, of taking away people's driving licences if they fell into bad odour with the Child Support Agency. We were told at the time that that was an example of a Government getting tough with people who did not comply with the Child Support Agency. The Government managed to get a lot of coverage for its tough new approach of taking away driving licences. There was even a suggestion at one stage that they would take away passports as well, but they allowed the Passport Agency to do that through its own devices.
  Now what do we find? This tough new measure is not an extra penalty, it is an alternative to a jail sentence. It is not, in other words, a toughening of the regime at all. It is a bold new initiative in which the Government are saying, "If you don't fancy going to jail, you can always hand in your driving licence instead."
  That is a bizarre new approach to enforcing benefit penalties, and I should be interested to know whether the Secretary of State believes that it will have wide application. If so, he has certainly created an incentive for people to try to get a driving licence, if they have not already done so, because they can trade it in against the alternative punishment of a custodial sentence. That measure is exactly the opposite of the spin that the Secretary of State put on it months ago: it is not a toughening of the regime, but a weakening of it.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: That is trivial.
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman says that it is trivial, but the Government's briefing on these proposals focused on the driving licence measure. It was about all that they could say about the proposals. Inches and inches of newspaper comment focused entirely on that bold new approach—and we now discover that it is not an extra penalty but an alternative to a custodial sentence, as the Bill makes clear.
  The transitional phase will be one of the biggest single problems that we shall face if and when the legislation is implemented. It will be very difficult to run two systems and it will be very difficult to maintain any legitimacy in the current arrangements if, at the same time, a new and more simple formula is being passed into law by the House. The Secretary of State did not properly address the problem of how he believes that he will be able to carry on collecting child support under the old formula while at the same time introducing the new system. He will be trying to run both systems in parallel, and that is where his problems will arise.
  We want to hear from the Secretary of State today—he gave no figures on this in his lengthy speech—whether he thinks that he will have to write off a large amount of the debts accruing under the old formula, and how he
  168
  seriously expects us to explain to our constituents that they still have substantial financial obligations under the old formula, long after the House has passed a new formula into law. It will be very difficult to explain to people in new cases in the coming year that even they will be treated under the old formula. As we all know, there is a serious enough crisis of legitimacy in child support at the moment. Trying to run two systems in parallel will make an already difficult problem far worse.
  Mr. Coaker: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that there should be a big bang and that everything should change at once? Is he seriously suggesting that there should be no transitional phase? If there were not, we would experience again the problems that occurred six or seven years ago when the CSA was established. Is not it far better to accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, despite the difficulties, we should have a transitional phase because without it we will simply recreate the chaos of the past?
  Mr. Willetts: I accept that we will need a transitional phase, but I want to hear from the Secretary of State, who will be responsible for running both systems during that phase, how in practice he expects to collect child support under the old formula and what scope there is for trying to introduce the new formula more rapidly, at least for new cases.
  The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) will find it very difficult to explain to people who come to his surgery with a new child support case that despite everything that they have read in the newspapers about the new formula coming into force, they will still be judged under the old formula. That is a legitimate question for the Opposition to raise because it is a problem that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have to face. That is why we say that the new formula for new cases needs to come into force as quickly as possible.
  Ministers have not yet revealed as much as we need to know about the regulations that will enforce the detail of many of the proposals. We are not even sure what the measure of income will be. That is not in the Bill. There is very little detail in the Bill and only a little more in the White Paper. We do not know, for example, how so-called unearned income—perhaps it is better to call it income from savings and investments—will be treated. It appears that it will be completely ignored in the new formula. If it is ignored, there will be many cases—we used to call them departures but they will now be called variations—where people will say, "It is unfair. A substantial income from investment and savings will not be taken account of in the formula. We want an individual investigation to ascertain how this will affect us."
  The proposed legislation fails to provide the necessary information to enable the House to reach a view on how the new systems will work. Given the admitted problems of child support over many years, it is our experience that above all we need clarity. Unfortunately, the Bill does not bring with it the clarity and information that the House is entitled to expect if it is to reach a full view on the Government's proposals.
  It is a great pity that the Government have not responded to the Select Committee's proposal of a Special Standing Committee. It would have been helpful if Ministers had accepted the suggestion of a scrutiny role

  169
  for the Social Security Advisory Committee. I speak as a former member of that committee. The Secretary of State's rather cavalier dismissal of a possible role for the SSAC in his response to the Select Committee's report was mistaken. There must be careful scrutiny of the detailed regulations that will implement the meat that is lacking in the Bill, and we are not persuaded that the Government are offering us the information that will be necessary for that scrutiny. We are not persuaded that there will be sufficient scope for scrutinising and debating the regulations. We have substantial concerns about the way in which the Government are going forward on child support reform, but we accept that the current system cannot be allowed to continue in its current form.
  As for a second state pension if the child support measures in the Bill are an example of a problem that must be tackled, the second state pension is an example of the Government creating entirely unnecessary muddle and confusion. It is a gratuitous set of measures which, in so far as it takes welfare in any direction, takes it in the wrong direction. The second state pension is just more paper promises. We have more promises of state pensions being financed from the generality of taxpayers and further discouragement to funded pension provision, which we believe in and want to encourage.
  We want to encourage people to save for themselves. Once again, the Labour party is looking to the state as a source of alternative pension provision. I remind Ministers of the pledge that appeared in the Labour party's manifesto, on which every Labour Member was elected when they fought the 1997 general election. It stated:
  "Labour will retain Serps as an option for those who wish to remain within it."
  The Bill represents a failure to adhere to a simple pledge in Labour's manifesto to retain SERPS.
  The Secretary of State says, "Our proposal is even better than SERPS." The right hon. Gentleman is trying to get the best of all possible worlds. He says, "We may be abolishing SERPS, but we are introducing something that is even better." One of the reasons for the extraordinary complexity of the proposals that he has put before the House is that he is trying to introduce a new system while replicating the distribution of benefits under the old regime. He is trying to ensure that no one will be worse off than he or she would have been under SERPS, while claiming that he is introducing a bold new system. One is reminded of the old child support formula. The sole purpose of the extremely complicated formula that is before us is to enable the right hon. Gentleman to try to do the job that the previous SERPS regime was doing.
  We have an example of the point at which welfare reform disappears in its own ingenuity. The only purpose of the complicated formulae is to try to replicate the same distribution of benefits under SERPS, as though the Secretary of State had not decided to abolish it. The right hon. Gentleman has not succeeded. Despite all his claims that no one will be worse off under the new system, there will be a significant group of losers. I refer to the 150,000 people who have earnings from employment and from self-employment. Under SERPS, their earnings from self-employment were taken into account, but the Bill contains no provision to ensure that any earnings from
  170
  self-employment are taken into account. Therefore, contrary to the Secretary of State's assurances, there will be a significant group of losers—people who do worse under his formula than they would have done under SERPS.
  In his desperate attempt to protect the same distribution of benefit as would have occurred under SERPS, the Secretary of State has set up a complicated structure with, for example, different rates of accrual of benefit in different earnings bands. I agree with the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that it will take 25 or 50 years to deliver even a tiny increase in pension entitlements—that is, paper pension entitlements, not backed by a real fund. It will be a sight worth seeing when Labour Members in their surgeries, facing pensioners complaining that they are to receive only a 75p increase in their basic pension in the coming year, explain that those pensioners should not worry because they will get an extra £1.50 in 2025.
  The proposed system delivers not jam tomorrow, but jam in the distant future. The Government have failed to understand that people want genuine funded provision for their future, not vague paper promises that in 2025 or 2050 they will have a theoretical paper pension that is worth £1.50, £2.50 or £3.00—if they are lucky—more than they would have had under SERPS. At the same time as those tiny and distant paper promises are delivered, the means-testing of current pensioners continues apace with the spread of the minimum income guarantee, which imposes yet another penalty on pensioners with modest incomes who saved for their retirement. Hundreds of thousands of pensioners find themselves trapped in a means test that results in their efforts to save not being rewarded.
  The provisions to establish the second state pension contain one of the most outrageous examples of apartheid in pensions provision that the House has seen for a long time: an explicit set of regulations creating entirely different pensions regimes for people in different earnings categories. There is to be a three-class model of pensions, with one regime for low earners, one for moderate earners and one for high earners—with nice high barriers to keep the different groups apart. That is not a Conservative vision of pensions provision; we believe that there should be funded pension provision for everyone. There should not be a £9,500 barrier, with sheep on one side and goats on the other. That is how tickets for the millennium dome should be allocated, not the way in which pensions provision in this country should develop.
  Mr. Terry Rooney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that people in different earnings bands have different pension requirements and opportunities, and that the responsible section of the insurance industry, not the cowboys, accepts that people earning £9,500 or less should not be in a personal pension scheme?
  Mr. Willetts: The point is that we believe in a mobile society, in which people earning less than £9,500 one year can have legitimate hopes that their earnings will be well above that the next. The system the Government propose has high barriers that will trap people in the second state pension and make it extremely difficult for them to move

  171
  into funded provision. The problem is that the system lacks the flexibility needed to accommodate people's mobility.
  Maria Eagle: How do the Conservatives suggest that those who throughout their working lives have caring responsibilities or receive low pay—the Conservatives oppose the national minimum wage, which would increase pay levels—can be assured of receiving good funded pensions that will keep them in their old age?
  Mr. Willetts: We believe that it is possible to encourage many more people than currently do so to take out funded pensions. The primary reason we oppose the Government's proposals is that, at the same time as quite gratuitously messing around with SERPS, they are creating complexity and additional burdens that will deter those who want to take out funded pension provision.
  Contrary to what the Secretary of State said in his speech, that has been the widespread reaction of representatives of funded pensions across the country. The National Association of Pension Funds complains:
  "Contracting-out procedures are already excessively complex. The two-stage introduction of the S2P"—
  the second state pension—
  "will add considerably to the complexity. Neither of the alternatives proposed seem likely to encourage employers to set up or continue to support"—
  that is important—
  "contracted-out pension schemes."
  The National Association of Pension Funds is saying that existing contracted-out pension schemes will become more onerous for employers to operate, because of the provisions introduced by the Government in the Bill and in previous legislation. There is a complacent assumption among Labour Members that the Government can continue to rely on the success of funded pensions as in our years in office. They assume that there will be an ever-wider spread of occupational pension provision. If they carry on in the way that they are going, that marvellous development over the past 20 years will go into reverse, and it will be the fault of Ministers.
  Kali Mountford: Is not the hon. Gentleman missing the point? What realistic prospect can there be of someone who has been a carer for 20 years getting private pension provision? Does not the Bill give something to someone who has no hope of anything in the current circumstances?
  Mr. Willetts: As the hon. Lady knows, there was already home responsibility protection under the basic state pension, and we also intended to introduce wider home responsibility protection at the same time as other changes to SERPS. That would have addressed the issue that concerns the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Boswell: Has my hon. Friend also considered the administrative aspects of a structure that is set up in national insurance terms, whereby earnings are assessed on a weekly basis and contributions calculated appropriately, and the proposed superimposition of annual limits, which may well create further anomalies and turbulence within the system?
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right to raise that point; indeed, I was about to deal with it. The interaction
  172
  of the provisions with the national insurance system is one of the important aspects that the Government have so far failed to address.
  Mr. Bercow: In the light of the chutzpah of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) in talking about people with caring responsibilities, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be extremely wise to abolish the age restriction of 65 for claimants of invalid care allowance and the carers premium, thereby assisting 55,000 of the poorest carers throughout the land?
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. That policy proposal, which was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, would do far more to deal with a practical problem than all the empty paper promises contained in an unnecessarily complicated set of proposals.
  The Secretary of State could have achieved his objectives—his own, not ours—simply by making relatively technical adjustments to SERPS. Instead of going down the straightforward route, rescinding some of our changes to SERPS and changing some of the factors whereby future pension entitlement was attained, which would have been a better way of meeting his own objectives, he proudly announces that he is abolishing SERPs, introducing something completely different in its place, and imposing a new set of administrative burdens and complexities on private pension providers, thereby threatening the funded pension arrangements that are one of this country's great economic successes.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the pension system that his Government left in 1997 meant that more than two thirds of women workers earning less than £10,000 a year had no second pension provision whatever? If he proposes to get those women to enter a funded pension system in the private sector, what sort of structure of coercion or incentives will be necessary to achieve that?
  Mr. Willetts: I believe that it would be possible to encourage far more funded pension provision through a suitable contracting-out regime. One of our objections to the proposals is that the contracting-out regime will become so complicated that it will impose a significant extra burden on employers who run funded schemes. Labour Members are far too complacent about the implications of the proposals for existing and new funded pension arrangements. They will regret the way in which they have ignored significant objections, not only from the National Association of Pension Funds, but from others. I could quote many other pensions experts who say that the Bill's proposals for a second state pension will impose unacceptable burdens on them. That is one way in which the proposals will threaten the funded pension provision that Conservative Members want to encourage.
  I want briefly to make a point about NIRS2, which lay behind the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). The Secretary of State had the good grace to speak with some humility about computer problems. However, given the Government's record of managing computer problems—they are their own millennium bug—it is not feasible that the system will be ready in the time scale that the Secretary of State outlined.

  173
  It is ludicrous to claim that people who run pensions will face tough new proposals on winding up pensions when their biggest problem is their inability to get accurate information from NIRS2. It is simply not good enough to pass legislation that imposes new burdens on them when NIRS2 problems remain far from resolved despite Ministers' assurances.
  I shall refer briefly to other measures in the Bill, because some of them merit careful scrutiny. We have heard a little from the right hon. Gentleman about loss of benefit for breach of a community order. Conservative Members believe that there should be tougher benefit sanctions to ensure the integrity of the social security system. We are always keen to examine ways in which benefit sanctions can be made more effective. However, when we considered proposals such as those in the Bill, we were told that we could not get away with them and that they would not be legally watertight.
  Let us consider the idea of imposing a similar community order on two offenders, one of whom has earnings and one of whom is on benefit. Both fail to meet the terms of the order and are thus in breach of it. The Bill proposes that the offender who receives benefit should receive an extra punishment—withdrawal of benefit—which will not be imposed on the offender with earnings. That may sound attractive, or be one of the gimmicks that the Secretary of State's spin doctors devise to make him sound tough, but I doubt whether he will get the provision through the courts.
  I shall be interested to read the legal advice on which the right hon. Gentleman bases his claim that the provisions will be compatible with the obligations that the Government assumed when they incorporated the European convention on human rights into British law. I do not believe that he will succeed in implementing the proposal, because it will face significant problems in the courts. It is a gimmick like curfews, which the Home Secretary introduced. Such gimmicks are spun to get Ministers on to the front pages, but they fail to make an impact in the real world. They are the empty pledges and claims for which the Government have become notorious.
  I shall have a modest bet with the Secretary of State that he will be unable to take away benefits from people who breach community orders any more than the Home Secretary is able to impose curfews on people who are responsible for anti-social behaviour. I look forward to the day when he is hauled before the courts and told that he simply cannot get away with it.
  Mr. Coaker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: No, because I want to conclude, and I said that I would not speak for as long as the Secretary of State.
  Finally, we need a little more information about the national insurance contributions on benefits in kind. They are a new stealth tax, raising no less than £225 million. One of the benefits in kind under attack in the Bill—how ironic, in a week when the national health service is once more in crisis—is private health insurance. People take a burden off the health service by using private health
  174
  cover, but that will be hit by national insurance contributions for the first time. I suppose we should be relieved that we are told that at least stress counselling will not, as a benefit, be subject to national insurance contributions, so there are small mercies.
  Virtually all benefits in kind will be subject to national insurance contributions, which will put a significant extra burden on employers and be a significant extra cost for employees. Those P111D forms will become even more complicated to fill in. The Government's approach is quite simple: if it is taxable it is NICable, and they are nicking another £225 million through that provision.
  The right hon. Gentleman said, "I don't want to be remembered as another Secretary of State who tinkered with the system." The fact is that the Bill does just tinker with the system; it is not serious welfare reform. Most of that tinkering is unnecessary and many of the proposals, particularly on pensions, are actively damaging. That is why we invite the House to vote for our reasoned amendment.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Terry Rooney: I am a veteran, or perhaps a casualty, of—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haslehurst): Order. I should perhaps remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that there is a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  Mr. Rooney: I am a veteran, or perhaps a casualty, of previous Child Support Agency legislation, having served on each of the Committees considering child support Bills, and I was reminded of Alice in Wonderland when the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), was speaking. He has obviously learned nothing from the operation of that legislation over the past six or seven years. I am grateful that amendments have been tabled by the Opposition and the Liberal party because I would have been worried and suspicious if there had been as much agreement on the Bill as there was on the Child Support Act 1991. That legislation was widely welcomed in principle but, sadly, the detail was very much neglected. We can learn a lesson from that: when complex algebraic formulas are included in a Bill, and extensive and detailed regulations are promised, it is helpful if hon. Members see what those formulas really mean during their consideration of that Bill.
  This may be rare from a Labour Member, but I should like to praise the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) because, when the Jobseekers Act 1995 was in Committee—she was the Minister responsible for it—she tabled draft regulations and provided specimen forms that were to be used to implement it. Perhaps my right hon. Friends might consider that: where the Bill promises regulations, draft regulations should be put before the Committee so that it understands exactly what is being implemented. Nevertheless, the Government should be congratulated on the widespread and genuine consultation that took place via the Green Paper and the White Paper, and also because comments made in that consultation have been reflected in the Bill. I am also grateful that the views of Members of Parliament have been taken into account in arriving at the legislation, including some opinions—unbelievably—that were expressed from those on the Opposition Benches.

  175
  In taking the legislation forward, we need to be careful that we do not fall into the trap that was generated by a significant media campaign about the victims being the absent parents. For too long, publicity in both the House and the media focused on the problems experienced by absent parents in meeting their responsibilities. Little was said in support of the real victims—children who were receiving no maintenance. The paralysing effects of the chaos and inertia that featured in the early years of the CSA built a platform for the media campaign; moreover, the changes made in 1993 and 1995 were made entirely for the benefit of absent parents. Not one legislative change was made with the children in mind.
  Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Havant, the advantage that this Bill has over earlier legislation lies in its transparency, and in the simplicity of the formula that it proposes. In future, no one will have an excuse for claiming that they did not understand what was required of them, or the amount that they had to pay. Under the current system, 70 per cent, of children receive no maintenance at all, and there are millions of pounds of uncollected and probably uncollectable arrears—money that should be supporting children, usually the poorest.
  Owing to the inadequacy of the computers, no one can say with certainty at any given time what the position is in any given case. Those who contact the CSA's regional offices usually find that they are speaking to someone whose brain is befuddled, who is probably living in the dark ages, knowing nothing of what goes on in the real world, and who can answer no Member of Parliament or member of the public with conviction.
  The present system generates mountains of paper. The agency may issue as many as seven communications on the same day, running to six or seven pages, each telling a different story and featuring incredible calculations that bear no relation to people's circumstances. The simplicity of the proposed 15, 20, or 25 per cent, formula will restore the agency's credibility, which is the first thing that is needed if parents are to have a genuine desire to co-operate with it. It is no wonder that so few wish to do so now: they rightly feel that the agency lies on the road to ruin and destruction, and that there is nothing in it for them.
  The advantages of the Bill are the simplicity and transparency of the proposed formula, the speed of assessment and the introduction for the first time of the maintenance disregard for those on income support. At last we shall have a child support Act, rather than a Treasury support Act. I welcome the disregard of maintenance in the calculation of working families tax credit, which will make a huge contribution to welfare to work. I am told by my local Employment Service office that single parents are much more willing to take work, especially part-time work, now that they know that they will keep all the maintenance paid to them.
  The Bill provides people with incentives to co-operate. It delivers a clear message to absent parents that they must get off the gravy train, because the easy ride is over. All the escape routes have been closed—it will no longer be possible to engage in little ruses in order to delay payment for three, four or five years—and, at last, attention will rightly be focused on the child rather than the absent parent.
  176
  The hidden benefit will, I hope, be the abolition of the independent case examiner. Let us hope that there is no need for that person to continue in that role within six months or a year of the new system coming into effect. [Interruption.] I see the professor, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), is doubtful, but, there again, we are used to that.
  I have tabled parliamentary questions many times to find out how much money has been paid through the special payments unit to people who have been abused by the agency, but, for some reason, I can never get an accurate figure. However, tens of millions of pounds of compensation must have been paid for maladministration and abuse by the agency. Again, it will be a bonus when such payments go.
  Every week, I and my office spend many hours—I am sure that other hon. Members do the same thing—speaking with the parliamentary business unit of the CSA, at Belfast. The people there are helpful, useful and sympathetic. They do not often come up with answers, but they are always sympathetic. That dedicated unit is there to assist and to serve purely Members of Parliament. The public do not get that service. Again, it is an incredible resource that, in one sense, is a waste: it is there only because of previous chaos. I hope that the new system will mean that we do not need that special privilege and facility any more, and that such work will disappear.
  Most important, it is crystal clear, from the Green and White Papers and from the Bill, that children will now benefit from the CSA's actions. That cannot be said to have been the case in the past. Far too many parents with care and children have been let down by inadequate legislation, inadequate administrative systems and inadequate ways of dealing with the business.
  I did not intend to, but I should like to speak on the second pension issue because of the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Havant. It is a fact that, post-1988, roughly 6 million people opted out of occupational pension schemes into personal pensions, enticed by a life assurance industry which, he is trying to tell us, will help those on low earnings to take out an appropriate product. That is dreamland stuff.
  Responsible sectors of the life assurance industry say that no one on less than £9,000 a year should be in a personal pension scheme, full stop. There is no argument about that. There is an argument as to whether those on between £9,000 and £12,000 should be, but, undeniably, those on less than £9,000 should not.
  Other sectors of the industry think that anyone earning. £1 a week or more should be in a personal pension. The same sector is writing to people to tell them that their endowment-linked mortgage is not high enough and that they need to put more money in it. It is levying 50 per cent, charges on the extra money that people are having to put in because the company got it wrong in the first place. We need to recognise that those sectors have a vested interest in knocking anything that, in effect, takes them out of the equation, but no one should be in any doubt that the state second pension is the best thing going for anyone on £9,000 or less.
  Like many other Members, I have a significant number of extremely poor pensioners in my constituency. Most of them are women, who are poor in retirement because of broken work records and because they were persuaded to

  177
  stick with paying the married women's stamp, which was the biggest con trick of all time. That denied them the basic retirement pension. Generally speaking, they were on low earnings, so their second pension entitlement is very small.
  My late mother worked for 30 years, as well as spending 16 years raising children full time. At 60, her pension entitlement was nil, and her second pension entitlement was nil. That is the world that the hon. Member for Havant seems to want to return to.
  The hon. Gentleman seems to think that, when my mother was working, on low wages, she should have toddled down to the local life assurance office and bought a personal pension—although, for the first two years, 50 per cent, of premiums would have disappeared in charges. It is dreamland stuff.
  In comparison, my father, who worked for 50 years, has an income above the retirement pension of a mere £24 a week. He receives that amount because, until the 1960s, there was no provision for a second pension.
  We then had the other scam—no one seems to mention it nowadays—of the graduating pension, for which one had to live for 14 years beyond retirement age simply to make back what one had paid into it, before receiving any benefit from it.
  The state earnings-related pension scheme was introduced in 1978. It seemed like a good scheme at the time, but—notwithstanding the changes made to it in the 1980s—it has not turned out to be as good as we thought that it would be.
  The fact is that the state second pension is a guarantee to people that they will be rewarded in retirement, as they have never been before. It has also, for the first time, embraced the issue of carers, people with disabilities, people on low earnings and people with broken work records. In time, we shall see the destruction of the poverty in old age that is a blight on our society.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) used a critical phrase—that "in time" we shall see those changes. I should like to start my speech by focusing specifically on the Bill's pension proposals. It seems incredible that, despite Liberal Democrat Members' opposition, and with virtually no parliamentary scrutiny, the House will abolish one of the two principal state pension schemes and introduce a new scheme. I make no apology for emphasising the Bill's pension aspects, which—shockingly, unlike the Bill's child support provisions—the Secretary of State almost skated over in his speech.
  The time scale in which the new pension scheme will be introduced would make a glacier look positively dynamic. Based on the Department's figures, by 2025, the poorest fifth of pensioners—who, presumably, are the pension scheme's target audience—will be £1.30 a week better off. The Minister of State is already shaking his head. I assume that he does so because he cannot refute the argument, and not because the figure is wrong. I
  178
  should be delighted to give way to him if he wants to challenge the fact that, in 25 years, they will be £1.30 better off.
  Miss Kirkbride: Is that figure adjusted for inflation?
  Mr. Webb: It is in today's prices, and is therefore a real £1.30 over 25 years—or about 5p or 6p a year. There is much to look forward to.
  It is a shame that the Secretary of State is unable to remain with us in the Chamber; the first point was so crushing that he had to leave.
  The Secretary of State said that, by 2047, there will be major increases in state pension entitlements. When I raised the issue of time scales with the Minister with responsibility for pensions, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—who generously and helpfully briefed hon. Members before Christmas—he said, "When SERPS was introduced, everyone said that it would take a long time. Look at it now—it's giving people decent pensions." Unfortunately, it is about to be abolished. Nevertheless, the point is that, whereas it took 20 years to build up a full SERPS pension, it will take over 40-plus years to build up a state second pension.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, North is shaking his head. Does he believe that that is not the position?
  Mr. Rooney: SERPS took the 20 best earning years, but one did not receive the maximum pension after 20 years. If one worked for only 20 years, one did not receive the maximum.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is no contradiction. The first people started to get full SERPS pensions within 20 years of the scheme being introduced. No one will get a full state second pension until 2040-odd. That is the difference. The critical point about state pension regimes—apart from the basic pension—is that they tend to last only 10 or 15 years. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the graduated pension, which was abolished. He mentioned SERPS, which is about to be abolished. We have had a succession of state pension regimes that do not last very long. We need sustainability. The state second pension will not exist in 2047. All these promises about what will happen 40 years down the line are not worth the paper that they are printed on.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the schemes are changed because of their huge cost to the Exchequer and the fact that the ratio between those drawing pensions and those paying into the schemes changes? Is that not their weakness, and does it not point to the fact that the funds to which my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) referred are a far better option?
  Mr. Webb: Our view is that there must be an appropriate balance between funded and unfunded schemes because there is a risk attached to both. Unfunded promises get ripped up by Governments and entirely funded income is much more subject to the volatility of the stock market. There must be a balance between the two.
  The main reason why pensions schemes get ripped up is that no one understands them. No one has a clue how their entitlements are worked out. The previous

  179
  Government halved widows' SERPS entitlements and only now—14 years later—have people realised that. These matters are so complicated.
  Professor David Piachaud, an adviser to previous Labour Governments, said of the Labour Government's second pension proposals:
  "It is the long-term sustainability … that seems most doubtful. The plans of Crossman, Joseph, Castle, Fowler and Lilley that were to last for a generation are all no more … the odds are that the name Darling will be remembered longer in association with Never-Never land than with pension reform".
  That is true. Pension schemes have to be made to last.
  The state second pension will be the preserve of the low paid. It will be a second pension only for the low paid and for carers. If it is a scheme just for the poor, what is to stop future Governments doing away with it altogether because the majority of people will have no stake in it?
  The current proposal is in breach of a manifesto promise. It is a promise that the Government should never have made but, having made it, they will bring us all into dishonour if they breach it. As we heard from the hon. Member for Havant, the Labour manifesto explicitly pledged to retain SERPS for those who want it. The state second pension will not be an earnings-related pension; it will be a flat rate pension. So, no matter how much the Government try to twist the wording of their manifesto, this is a direct contradiction.
  The Government's annual report, which lists their manifesto pledges and whether they have been fulfilled, marks "done" against retaining SERPS. It has certainly been done for.
  We do not know a great deal about the state second pension. When will it start? Will it be 2002 or 2003? We do not know for sure. When will it go flat rate? That depends on the success of the stakeholder scheme. What will the rebate structure be? Guess what—a consultation paper has been produced with two alternatives, neither of which are penetrable.
  Mr. Cousins: Is it the hon. Gentleman's view that the state second pension is better when it is flat rate or in its initial phase—which, as he said, we do not know the end of—when it is earnings related?
  Mr. Webb: I would prefer the first phase, as the second phase represents back-door compulsion. Essentially, it pulls the rug out from everyone on middle incomes and commits them to stakeholder pensions without being honest about it. As a result, the badly advised will stay in the poor-value state scheme and the well advised will probably opt out. We do not want that sort of regime.
  The critical factor in pension arrangements is certainty. People need to be able to plan with certainty and these arrangements do not provide for that. No one knows when the scheme will start, when it will go flat rate or what the rebates will be. People hardly know anything about it, so how can they plan their pensions?
  It is more complex still. I am grateful to the Minister for allowing his officials to track down this point for me. Page 62 of the explanatory memorandum states that the state second pension will apply only to people who have a good chunk of their working lives ahead of them. People just short of retirement age will not suddenly be switched to the flat-rate scheme. So one group of people close to
  180
  retirement age will be on one structure, another group will be on the flat-rate structure and others will be in stakeholder, occupational or personal schemes. The whole system will be so complex that it will be a mess. We need simplicity and clarity.
  The final and fundamental point about the pensions aspect of the Bill is that, even after 30 or 40 years of reform, the pension will be inadequate. The hon. Member for Bradford, North talked about adequacy and giving people a decent pension in old age. He mentioned the poor return that people may get on private pensions, but a poor return would be to spend 40 years making contributions to the state second pension but to be on income support within five years of retiring. That would be absurd and a waste of time, but that is the Bill's approach to pensions.
  Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman referred to what a future Government might do with the state second pension. Is it not a danger that the state second pension will be uprated only in line with prices, but the minimum income guarantee pension will be uprated in line with earnings? It would be open to a future Government to argue that it would be a far better deal to put people on to the minimum income guarantee pension compulsorily instead of leaving them on the state second pension. That is a worry to those of us who wonder how long the scheme will last.
  Mr. Webb: As so often, the right hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the crucial point. A future Secretary of State, when asked to improve the state second pension, will give the same response that the present Secretary of State gives when we say that 75p is not enough—"Oh well, we'll just put it on the means test." Soon the state second pension will do nothing except fill the gap between the basic pension, which will hardly be worth having, and the means test. What is the point of that?
  We also object to the child support proposals. The hon. Member for Bradford, North highlighted some of the ostensibly desirable aspects of child support reform, such as the maintenance disregard, which I support. Indeed, I called for it in my maiden speech, so I have again had a major influence on Government thinking. However, support for the maintenance disregard does not presume support for a particular method of working out maintenance liabilities. In other words, we can agree that, however the figure for maintenance is reached, some of it should be then disregarded. To oppose the Government's method for calculating maintenance is not to oppose the disregard—it is the method of calculation that is the problem.
  How can I put it?
  "Ministers have made no attempt to build flexibility into an inflexible financial formula."
  Those are not my words, but those of the First Minister of Scotland commenting on the Conservatives' reforms of the CSA in the mid-1990s. The Labour party used to think that the system should take account of individual circumstances. It used to think that flexibility mattered because it would add to the justice of the scheme, but it no longer thinks so.
  The Government recognise that the new system will be unfair and create onerous duties on individual absent parents. The giveaway is that they have lowered the average maintenance figure. The Government know that

  181
  there would be a storm of protest if they tried to collect the same amount of maintenance on average in the rough and ready way described in the Bill. Parents with care and children will lose out, because the Government have had to set lower maintenance assessments to overcome the injustice of a crude formula.
  The trade-off for the simple formula that everyone is lauding today is that some children will lose out. How many? That is a subject on which the Government have been astonishingly silent. I tabled a written question just before Christmas asking which categories of people would lose from the reforms and how many people would be affected. The short answer is that the Government have not got a clue. The reply stated:
  "to forecast which individual families are likely to be better or worse off … we would need to establish the extent to which the non-resident parent is compliant now"—
  in other words, whether maintenance is already being paid—
  "and estimate future compliance. We have not made such estimates".—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 77W.]
  Is not that irresponsible? How can the Government introduce a far-reaching reform to family support without knowing how many gainers and losers will be created and who they are? That is the action of a Government who are irresponsible on child support.
  Mr. Rooney: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that it would be responsible to retain the present system, under which more than 1 million children get nothing? Does not he accept that there has to be a trade-off between fairness and simplicity? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We have to accept that the simpler the system, the fewer escape routes there are for non-resident parents.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman seems to want to object to a point different from the one that I was making. I asked how it could be responsible for a Government to introduce a reform without knowing who gains and loses, but the hon. Gentleman spoke about a trade-off between fairness and simplicity. Reform is necessary, but if I were the Secretary of State—as I hope to be one day—and if I were introducing such reforms, I would make an estimate of gainers and losers and make that estimate public. This Government are afraid to do that.
  Is the CSA capable of being reformed? The hon. Gentleman said that people who ring the CSA often get a poor quality of service. How can that be changed when, although the numbers are fiddled with, exactly the same personnel are left in the relevant offices?
  Mr. Dismore rose—
  Mrs. Humble rose—
  Mr. Webb: I shall give way in a moment. The issue has to do with the culture of an organisation. What has happened is that the technocrats and anoraks in the Department of Social Security have done the sums and drawn the lines on the graphs, but they have lost the human touch. The culture of the CSA is beyond reform. That is why we believe that the agency should be abolished.
  Mrs. Humble: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the section in the report from the Select Committee on Social Security that covers this matter, and concentrates on the need for training staff. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Committee was given reassurances about the importance of training and of ensuring that staff are aware of the needs of people who telephone the agency. Will he accept the reassurances given by the chief executive of the CSA, who told the Committee that she was looking positively at such matters and that she was aware of the problems that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned?
  Mr. Webb: Obviously, any improvement in training is entirely welcome, but how often have such assurances been given in the past? How many times have heads of the CSA, past and present, said that the agency would perform better in the future? The culture of inefficiency and backlog, of excuse and cover-up is endemic to the CSA, and it has to go.
  Mr. Dismore rose—
  Maria Eagle rose—
  Mr. Webb: I want to make some progress.
  There has to be an alternative to the CSA. I was flattered that the Secretary of State began his speech by setting up a parody of the Liberal Democrat approach to the matter, and then attempted to knock it down.
  The alternative that we advocate is a system based on family courts. In marked contrast with what happened in the past, under our new system, such courts would be given guidelines but, if those guidelines create an injustice for a person, that person will have the opportunity to have his or her individual circumstances taken into consideration. What leaves people most aggrieved with the CSA is the feeling that the formula does not fit their circumstances.
  Maria Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me at long last. I am trying to work out whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating adopting a simplified formula or retaining a complex one. Will he say whether he is in favour of simplifying the formula?
  Mr. Webb: Yes, I am indeed in favour of simplifying the formula, which should be the benchmark around which there is scope for discretion in individual circumstances.
  In the past, the court process has been rightly criticised for its failings. It was often quicker than the CSA has turned out to be, but there was a problem of inconsistency arising from the lack of guidelines on plausible maintenance assessments. Courts are always given ranges in the sentences that they can impose, so that the right sentence can be chosen to fit the circumstances of each case. They are good at making such choices: why should they not do so in relation to matters of child support?
  We are told that the Child Support Agency will move over to the new regime at the end of next year, and that that will require a new computer system. However, the process of securing that new system has not begun. The system has not yet been tendered for. The Under-secretary, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), said yesterday that the Government had not even asked

  183
  Parliament for the necessary money yet. Given the chaos of the national insurance recording system, NIRS2—which the Government told me last summer would be sorted out by the autumn, but which I note from a written answer this morning is not to be sorted out for another year—how can we have any confidence that this reform will be brought in on time? How can we have any confidence that the new computer system will be ready? What have the Government been doing for all this time? Why have they not got the new system commissioned and ready for when the legislation and the new formula are in place?
  People who work at the CSA have told the Select Committee on Social Security that the management are making preparations to run the new formula on the old computer. That is incredible. Are we to have new cases on the old computer? If so, why do we need a new computer system? If the old computer is not up to it, what chaos will we have? The whole thing has all the makings of another fiasco, and the Government would do well to learn the lessons of the previous ones.
  The final section of the Bill contains the obligatory illiberal clauses in any "new Labour" Bill. In this one, we have the benefit sanctions for people who breach community service orders. People on the ground dealing with offenders are united in saying that this is gesture politics. The people who deal with the resettlement of offenders say that it makes no sense as a way of tackling crime. Probation officers—who, presumably, are not all "woolly liberals"; the phrase of the moment—say that it is
  "extremely difficult to envisage that the withdrawal of benefits from those who breach orders will enhance public protection or reduce crime."
  However, that is not what the measure is about. It is all about tabloid headlines. It is another case where the substance of the policy does not matter—it is about the next morning's headlines.
  Any one of these sections would be enough for the House to reject the Bill. Put them together and we have a bad Bill, which we are prepared and proud to oppose.
  5.42 pm
  Dr. Lynne Jones: There has been much interest lately in the reform of the other place. Looking at this Bill reminds me of the need to reform our Chamber, and especially of the need for better scrutiny. Time and again, Governments have introduced legislation aimed at achieving laudable objectives on which there is much agreement; time and again, the measures they have put in place have failed to meet those objectives.
  The example of that, par excellence, is the legislation that created the Child Support Agency. There was genuine agreement on both sides of the House that it was right that absent parents should support their children. However, the net result was the absolute shambles of the CSA, which we know about from our casework.
  It is interesting that in the Bill the Government will introduce measures to simplify drastically the complex formula that has come about over the years as the previous Government tried to grapple with complaints about the unfairness and lack of flexibility of the original formula. In contrast, the Government are now proposing reforms to pensions that will make the system horrendously complicated. There seems to be no joined-up thinking in the approach to these matters in the Bill.
  184
  I wish to concentrate most of my remarks on pensions, although that does not mean that I do not have views on other parts of the Bill. However, time is short. I wish to examine the objectives that the Government have set for pensions reform, which are not entirely covered in the Bill. First, the Government say that they want to reduce dependence on means-tested benefits for pensioners, and that it is quite wrong that, after years of working, people must retire and depend on means-tested benefits. I am sure that everybody agrees with that.
  The second objective is to encourage those who can afford it to top up state provision by joining a good private pension scheme. Again, I think that we can all agree with that objective. Not explicitly stated is a third aim that these measures should be rigorous and stand the test of time. That is implied in the proposals, because of course the measures will not come into full effect, as the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) pointed out, for about 50 years.
  Do the provisions meet the objectives? Unfortunately, I do not think so. Why do we need reform? If we want to achieve these objectives, the best way would be to ensure that the basic state retirement pension was set at a rate above the income support level for pensioners—the guaranteed minimum pension. That would, at a stroke, remove means-testing for all pensioners.
  Private pension schemes have grown as a result of the undermining of the basic state pension and SERPS. I submit that the best way of encouraging more private pension provision for those who can afford it would be to restore a type of SERPS provision, although not exactly the same. I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that it would be too easy for future Governments to raid such schemes, which should perhaps be administered at arm's length by a trustee body. However, some type of SERPS provision could be reinvigorated.
  People have difficulty in understanding SERPS, but once it is explained it is reasonably easy to understand the fundamentals. The same cannot be said for the proposals before us. It is not just because of the need to introduce changes in the original proposals to take on board concerns from private pensions schemes and employers that it will not be viable for people earning less than £9,500 to be in occupational pension schemes. The original proposals will have to be tinkered with to do something about those concerns. That will create horrendous complexity. In addition, there are three different accrual rates for the state second pension. People can go in and out of those rates according to how much they earn. It is a very complex scheme.
  Pension providers such as the National Westminster Group and the Legal and General Group plc have, along with the Confederation of British Industry, pointed out that the reforms are likely to lead to less private pension provision, not more. In addition, good employers with good occupational pension schemes could decide to stop providing them because it would be easier and cheaper to recommend a stakeholder pension scheme.
  There is a belief that stakeholder pensions will be like manna from heaven for people on low incomes, but they are simply personal pension schemes that require people to purchase an annuity on retirement. They are by no means secure. The Government have kitemarked personal pensions to limit charges, and that is welcome; but even

  185
  a 1 per cent, charging regime eats up 25 per cent, of any fund. That can be a significant amount to someone on a low income.
  It is not surprising that the Government have accepted the view that to encourage more stakeholder pensions would not provide low earners with a decent pension—hence the need to invent the state second pension. The state second pension has been praised for its redistributive effects and for the fact that it treats people earning less than £9,500—or the threshold set by the Government—as though they earned that amount. That is most welcome, but a simpler way to achieve that aim would be to uprate the basic state pension.
  I remind hon. Members that had the basic state pension been linked to earnings, it would now be worth about £27 more a week to a single pensioner. The state second pension will not deliver as good a deal to people in such income brackets. Labour Members should not delude themselves into thinking that the state second pension is a replacement for SERPS. It is not; it is a replacement for the proper uprating of the basic retirement pension. We should do far better to consider that uprating. At the very least, we should increase the state retirement pension to the rate of the guaranteed minimum pension.
  People will ask, "How will you afford that?" When people like me propose measures that will cost money, the costs are thrown back in our face, but when the Government propose even more expensive measures, that is okay. We must be aware that the proposals for the state second pension and for the rebates for those with incomes above the earnings threshold will result in a cost of £16 billion. That is the Government's projection when the scheme is fully operational. The Government's proposals will be quite costly—the Secretary of State mentioned a figure of £5 billion. I suggest that we should do better to divert such resources into boosting the state retirement pension.
  The need for reform arose because of grave concerns about pay-as-you-go schemes to finance pensions. However, funded systems are not necessarily better than pay-as-you-go systems. I do not have time to go into the reasons for that. The effects on the economy of drawing down a pension from a funded or an unfunded scheme are much the same.
  I refer hon. Members to a helpful brief produced for the all-party group on occupational pensions by the Association of Consulting Actuaries. It includes an article by Benjamin Meuli, managing director of J. P. Morgan. He makes the fundamental point that whether the system is funded or unfunded, we need to consider its impact on the economy. There is no evidence that the economies of countries with largely unfunded schemes perform less well than those of countries where most of the pension schemes are funded. On balance, we probably need both. In order to limit the risk in equities, it is necessary for private funded schemes to hold part of their investments in gilts. That is much the same as the Government using the investment from national insurance contributions.
  We shall do the country a grave disservice if we continue to undermine the social insurance principle. Despite the attempts of successive Governments to undermine national insurance and the social insurance principle, there is still a great deal of support for both. If
  186
  people knew that they would receive a good pension, they would be willing to pay into a state system, especially if it were managed in a way that prevented future Governments from raiding it.
  It makes no difference to individual citizens whether they pay through national insurance, through a hypothecated tax or into a private pension scheme—they still have to pay. The question is: what gives them the best value? Probably—as in all matters—it is not a good idea to keep all one's eggs in one basket. However, the state has a role to play for poorer people and for those who do not have the opportunity to save for their retirement. The state's role should not be restricted to those people; it should also underpin the private sector, for more affluent people.
  I shall support the measure in the Lobby today, but much work remains to be done to make it acceptable. It is necessary to consider the role of the basic retirement pension. We must examine that, and we must receive assurances about it if the Bill is to have any chance of working. I hope that the Bill will be much improved when it returns to this place. I offer my services to the Committee and hope to prove myself wrong in suggesting that the scrutiny process will be inadequate.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I begin with the Child Support Agency because it is central to the concerns of my constituents and to my constituency work load, as is the case for every Member of the House. That casework has evolved over time, from simple dysfunction—when no one could get an answer from the CSA at all, whether they were the parent with care or the absent parent, and came to their MP just to have some response—to a more developed state.
  At present, there are problems with arrears for parents with care. Those problems reflect past dysfunction and are largely behind us. Arrears have built up; people claim that they did not know and that they cannot cope with the repayments quickly. There is some uncertainty. Once something has got out of hand, it is difficult to bring it back to a manageable state, even with good will from all parties.
  Other Members who have spoken in this interesting debate have made the point that the absent parent dodges responsibility—although not always. The parent or new family with care of the child often come to me with problems because that is happening. Therefore, I support the principle that the enforcement of orders should be made more effective. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has pointed out, there are considerable doubts about whether that will be delivered in practice.
  I have several reservations. The first is a gloss on the Opposition's excellent reasoned amendment, in which we talk about the parallel operation of two systems. In fact, there will be three systems that will run together—if not precisely in parallel—because there will also be private arrangements or maintenance orders that have not previously been touched by the CSA system. In principle, such arrangements might continue. One of my concerns, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Havant referred, is that as there is no top limit on the new formula by percentage, the stakes are raised for moving to the new style of assessment at the earliest possible moment. A

  187
  parent with care who has anything other than an excellent relationship with the other parent is likely to want to move to the new formula if the absent parent is comparatively affluent. That would destroy court orders or private arrangements altogether.
  I have a second reservation. Whereas the old formula was at least, in principle, based on an assessment of need and was tempered or refined even if made more complex by the departures procedure, the new system will function as a tax. It will be a tax with a rather high marginal rate, even allowing for the fact that it will be imposed on net rather than gross income. Page 10 of the explanatory notes provides the helpful example of a mythical person named Neil. He has earnings that range from £150 a week to £170 a week—I take it that those are net earnings on a formula not yet determined—and his liability ranges from £18 to £23 a week, which is a difference of £5. That is an uplift of 27 per cent. or more in his contribution and it amounts directly to a tax rate of 25 per cent. That represents a substantial increase.
  My third point—I have written to the Secretary of State about this and not changed my view—is that the provisions in clause 15 on disqualification from driving are highly objectionable in principle. I am not a lawyer, but there is a clear distinction between the perfectly justifiable withdrawal of a driving licence for a car-related offence—whether that is dangerous or bad driving or the use of a car to commit another crime—and the withdrawal of a licence for the purely contingent matter of failure to comply with one's maintenance obligations. It will be interesting to see whether that punishment is to be applied to other offences.
  The Secretary of State has certified that the Bill will comply with the European convention on human rights. Frankly, I would not give the Government a chance of winning a case in which a plaintiff said, "I was a driver, I was entitled to drive and I was a safe driver, but, because of some entirely different matter, they took away my rights."
  Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the person in question lives in a rural area and cannot get to work by any means other than having a car, the principle of taking away a driving licence will be very similar to taking away the right to travel by bus or train from someone who works somewhere else?
  Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. I was going to list several anomalies and he makes a worthy addition to them. If we are going to take away a car licence, why do we not, for example, take away a pilot's licence if somebody has one? What will happen to non-drivers who cannot be penalised in that way? Why take a licence away from people who do not need a car to get to work, but allow people who need to drive to work to make representations to retain their licence and then, ipso facto, be able to use it for their leisure motoring, too?
  Maria Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the suggestion that people might lose their licence might induce a few of them who rely on their cars to pay their child support?
  Mr. Boswell: I understand that argument, but I think that it is wrong to use inappropriate remedies, however bad the situation. Remedies must be appropriate to the circumstances.
  Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boswell: I will not give way again, because all our speeches are subject to a time limit.
  My final concern about the CSA is how the Bill will impact in practice. I have already mentioned my constituency experience that non-maintaining parents are now being seen to wriggle. It is very likely that they will adopt what I call the "Cheshire cat solution" to the problem of their income. The obvious first tactic is to quit work or, to a lesser extent, to change employment and to hope that one is not caught up with, thus relying on some transitional friction to escape.
  If one is self-employed, probably one of the deftest ploys is either not to declare the self-employment—I know that the Bill intends to address that point—or to evacuate the value of the self-employment by shifting the profits elsewhere. I know of a case in which somebody is said not to make any partnership profits but who is, in effect, maintained by another member of the family. Therefore, no maintenance goes to the spouse with care. The extreme expedient, which will not be fully captured by the Bill unless a British employer is involved, would be to move outside our jurisdiction altogether. Even if they are part of a Cheshire cat solution, none of those ploys by people who should be maintaining their children would leave any smile on the faces of those who actually care for and maintain the children.
  I shall comment briefly on other parts of the Bill. On pensions I shall say very little, because I am as confused by the Government's proposals as, I suspect, are many people who are likely to benefit from the state second pension. The system is very complex and it will produce some potentially invidious class distinctions between low, medium and high earners. I have particular concerns for the self-employed. I have read out with the Bill that there are proposals to limit the rules on tax relief for annual contributions to private pensions, particularly as they would apply to the self-employed, so that one could not buy back into previous years when one did not have sufficient earnings. That would make such pensions less flexible—as a self-employed person, I have benefited from that flexibility in the past. My point mirrors the concerns that I referred to in an intervention about people on lower incomes whose earnings fluctuate week by week. These are points of detail, but they need to be considered.
  On part III on enforcement, Conservative Members will generally back well-founded proposals to avoid fraud or the blatant avoidance of payments. We welcome the exchange of relevant information between Government agencies, but the small print requires scrutiny. I am not absolutely sure that the proposals in clause 49 on the withdrawal of benefit do not follow the pattern of the proposals for driving licences that I have already criticised. There may be the random and contingent withdrawal of benefit for offences that are not directly connected to benefit. The Secretary of State must recognise that even control freaks need to play by the rules of the game in hand and not introduce the rules of another game when they are not getting their way.
  I wish to say a brief word about some issues that are not covered in the Bill. I welcome proposals that build naturally on the concept of home responsibility payments for mothers in receipt of child benefit that have been established for many years. Proposals to acknowledge the position of carers and of disabled people with intermittent

  189
  spells of employment have been considered. How much they will amount to in practice is a separate issue, but it would be welcome if the point were conceded in principle.
  However, the Bill comes after the recent scars of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, and perhaps it is just as well that it does not specifically address disability issues. One of my criticisms of the 1999 legislation, which has now, notoriously, been passed, was that proposals for incapacity benefit signalled that incentives to save for retirement and to build up one's own pension would be clawed back by a loss of benefit or, conversely, in the payment of taxes.
  Since then, I have come across two separate cases involving disabled people. One involves someone who has been employed in the media and who is probably well known to several Members present. I was appalled by the fact that, in effect, he had to hand in his job because he can no longer receive carer support from the independent living fund because of the level of his earnings.
  The second case is, in a sense, related. It deals with a couple in an established relationship. One was fully able and the other was disabled, and they wanted to have a disabled facilities grant to balance their responsibilities in running their home. However, because one of them was able, they could not obtain it.
  I accept that such cases, which are not new to the Government, are no longer acceptable. If we are trying to build a platform whereby people are given an incentive and opportunities to improve and provide for themselves, rather than staying in an implied dependency culture, we have to start tackling such problems. I see very little sign of that in the Bill, and I regret that. There are many missed opportunities and genuine queries about the detail, and it is for that reason that I shall be pleased to join my colleagues in the Lobby tonight.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I am privileged to follow the comments of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), but like the Secretary of State, I want to spend my few minutes commenting on the three themes of the Bill.
  The first is the linking of benefits to certain conditions. I speak carefully on this matter. I have the privilege to represent a seat in which the vast, vast majority of constituents would be a source of real pride to any country. Similarly, the vast, vast majority of parents in Birkenhead are parents of whom we all can be very proud. However, there is a growing group of people, certainly in the poorest areas, who are beginning to behave in a way that is totally unacceptable, and most of their unacceptable behaviour is aimed at other poor people.
  I view the Bill's proposals on this issue merely as a beginning, for we are faced, in some of our poorest areas, with a new form of barbarism that is totally unacceptable. Other, decent poor people—the majority—do not see why they should pay their taxes, and try to bring up their children to be good citizens when, sadly, a small but growing proportion of the local community can run amok and destroy those standards.
  If I were prophesying, as the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) did in his maiden speech, I would say that at the beginning of this millennium, our
  190
  constituents are only beginning to make proper demands on us to use the benefits system to try to improve behaviour, particularly in the poorest areas where, as I said, there is a form of new barbarism that is totally unacceptable.
  Before long in this place we shall have to debate whether it is acceptable that child benefit should be paid to those parents who are so lacking in parental instincts—the decent feeling that they should put their children before themselves—that they do not care one way or the other whether their children turn up to school. Indeed, they often plot with the children so that they will not go to school. If Labour Members believe that it is only through education that people now have a chance to get out of the rut, we will have to take seriously the view about child benefit, and follow it through.
  Similarly, is it acceptable that those who cause mayhem and chaos by their behaviour in the streets should continue to draw housing benefit, whatever they do, knowing that under the present rules, because they have children they will be rehoused elsewhere? My constituents—I am more than happy to make their case here—are already demanding that those parents should lose housing benefit, their children should be taken into care and they should find out what it is like not to have a home. That is the feeling about how bad the behaviour is in a minority of areas in my constituency.
  The hon. Member for Northavon may call that illiberal. I have been illiberal for 20 years in the House, and there is much illiberalism to come. If that illiberalism is along the line that I am talking about, I very much welcome it.
  The second theme is the Child Support Agency. The Secretary of State said that this is our last chance to reform it and get it in working order. That is a dramatic phrase, which I have used before. He really means that if we do not get it right this time, we will not touch it again, and we will pretend that it is not an issue, although of course it will be an issue for those of our constituents who get a rough deal, or no deal from it. The Secretary of State said that he has an open mind about even the main proposals for the CSA, so I shall state at least three of the structural changes that are necessary if the reform is to get off the ground and begin to crawl, let alone to walk or run.
  First, the rates that are currently talked of are too high. It is all very well for us to say what we think rates should be, but there is a political ecology outside the House that we have to understand and win over. The reason for that is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) said, that the other side had all the good stories, walloped the reform and won all the press. There was, and is, a feeling in the country that the Child Support Agency, as it is constituted, is not fair.
  Until we have a set-up that people feel is fair, and people who brag in the pub that they do not pay, get more than the cold shoulder from their mates, we will not make a success of this reform. Part of the trade-off has to be to get the system to work. We can always increase the rates for new people if it works, but we must bear what the Secretary of State said in mind—if we do not win this time, the system will not succeed.
  Secondly, the Department of Social Security and its agencies are not the right bodies to collect money. The body that has the culture for doing so is the Inland Revenue, and it should be given the charge of the new agency.

  191
  Thirdly, the formula must be simple. The Government have already conceded too much by saying that they will take into account travel expenses for parents who want to visit their children. Of course we all agree with that, but before it becomes a political shroud that Labour Members shake freely, no one daring to disagree with it, let me say that if that condition remains in the Bill, that will be the new scam.
  We fought, quite properly, the good cause of people who were threatened with violence and said that they should be able to plead that. However, the figures for violence have risen from under 3 per cent. of cases to 40 per cent. because everybody knows that claiming violence is a good way of trying to rig the system to their advantage when they have made a private agreement.
  There are secondary matters that we also need to take into account. It is not fair to have a minimum £5 levy for everyone and for there to be two rates for those on incomes between £100 and £200. The £5 rate will apply to those on benefits even if their income is between £100 and £200 a week, but a higher formula will apply to those in work on the same or lower earnings. If we add in the value of rents received by people who are already on benefit, I do not see why the same formula should not be applied to them as will be applied to people who are on a similar low income but who earn that income.
  I caution against using driving licences. I fear that I may have been among the people who suggested that, but I no longer think that it is a sensible idea. If the Whips in the House want to control us, they must understand what we fear, what we worry about and what will hurt us. We must apply that rule in this case, and my guess is that what will hurt the people who we want to pay is the loss of their passport. They are the people who pay nothing but who go on fine holidays.
  The inability to leave, or perhaps to re-enter, the country would be a far greater deterrent than removing people's driving licences. As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, people will simply break the law because it is believed that it is important for people to be able to work, and we would be pushing them to break the law. I am all in favour of toughness, but when we devise the measures, we should ensure that they are ones that people fear, so that they will not be laughing at us.
  To develop the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), there are lessons that we can learn quickly from the private sector. Why is it that it is so much better at tracing parents, generally fathers, who will not pay? I find that most of these fathers have holidays and mobile phones, for example, but the CSA cannot find them. However, within a short time the private agency will find them. We should all be interested in success. We must find where these people are, and I hope that the Government will implement the necessary changes now and not wait for the Bill to go on to the statute book.
  We all need the proposed reform to be a success. If the Government are confident that it will be, as I hope it will be, why is it that in the welfare reform Green Paper one of the success measurements relates to improving the CSA, but we look in vain to find a similar inclusion in the new poverty audit? If we are confident about reform, why are we not up front in saying what we expect reform to achieve within a certain period?
  192
  The debate on pensions is so different from that on the CSA. With the CSA, we are at the end of the line; with pensions, we are at the beginning. One piece of information shows how difficult pension reform will be. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly walloped the Opposition by saying that they left office after decades in power with one pensioner in three being poor. However, when all the reforms that the Government say that they will introduce are implemented and working to the very best effect that any of us can hope, after 50 years of the reform programme, we shall reduce the number of pensioners in poverty from one in three to only one in four. Before we think that all the answers are in the Bill, it is crucial that we keep our minds open to other reforms.
  If the modest reduction to one in four of our fellow citizens being poor is achieved, as my right hon. Friend defines "poor", it must be assumed that there will be a rush of providers for stakeholder pensions. I do not think that there will be, but let us assume that that will be the position. It must be assumed also that, as we read in the newspapers, the exemption that my right hon. Friend is granting to small employers will not have a significant impact on people working in small firms, who are largely on lower pay, who go for stakeholder pensions. Further, it must be assumed that with the best will in the world, our reforms, that we want so much to be a success, have no bad effects on occupational pensions, which my right hon. Friend so often rightly says is the one welfare reform of this century of which everybody can be proud.
  The debate is about trying to use our huge welfare budget—the largest budget that the Government have—to ensure that we get the very best behaviour from people, and particularly from that group which is making life impossible for decent people at the bottom. Against that background, I welcome the reforms that are proposed in the Bill but see them as only the beginning.
  I do not usually disagree with the hon. Member for Northavon, but he has dubbed the Bill as illiberal. Some of my constituents have been reduced to tears and to breakdowns because of anguish. They do not have our freedom or bank balances to enable them to move away from the wretched people who are causing them distress. There will be a cheer in my constituency for what the Government are doing, and there will be even louder cheers when we return to the issue of linking benefits to good behaviour.
  I hope that the Government will live up to the promise that genuinely they have an open mind in accepting radical structural reforms to the CSA that will lead to a simplified formula. As the Bill stands, I do not believe that it will get up and crawl, let alone walk.
  We can welcome all that the Government are doing on pensions and I emphasise that the state second pension will provide a level of redistribution that most of us thought that the Government might shy away from. Let us cheer the Government when they are doing things of which we can be so proud and can take into the country. However, we must not let ourselves be fooled by our own rhetoric. If everything goes well and if every reform works, we shall be laying down office and stewardship when we have reduced the number of people in retirement who are poor from a third to a quarter.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I was not quite sure to whom the Secretary of State was referring in his opening remarks. I now realise that he was referring to a significant number of his Back-Bench colleagues when he said that some people were clearly born at the wrong time and in the wrong place under a Tory Government.
  I have learned today how little I know about pensions. I have worked in this place for about 20 years so far and it is becoming a matter of some urgency to learn a little more about how the pension system works. The fact is that nobody trusts Governments with his or her money. What is more, the record shows that they are absolutely right not to do so.
  The reality is that the world at work changes far faster than the world in which pension schemes can operate. When I started contributing to a pension, the idea was to have a final salary pension scheme. There are many people locked into such schemes, which are entirely unsuitable to them. For example, many women are being crucified by the conflict between staying on at work to get a reasonable pension and the need, as they see it, to look after an ailing member of the family. Final pension schemes were designed usually on the basis of a lifetime's work with one employer, but that concept has been overtaken.
  I shall give an example of the complexities that arise. When my wife moved down from working five days a week to four for her principal employer, no one had explained to her—I do not suppose that many people understand this—that a full-time pension is based on seven sevenths of the week. If someone moves down to working four days a week, he or she will have four sevenths of a pension. It would normally be thought that on moving down from five days a week to four there would be a pro rata effect on one's pension.
  Such complexities, the length of time that pension schemes operate and, as has been well demonstrated, the fact that they become wrapped up by Governments after 10 or 20 years of trying, suggest a possible fault. People want from their pension scheme a reasonable return on the money that they have put in. Would it be unreasonable to suggest that people should have the opportunity every five years to take their pension pot and reinvest it? After every five years they would at least have some control over the scheme In which they are and where they are.
  A serious issue about pensions is that they are designed to create a positive disincentive to marry. Many respectable widows and widowers in my constituency are finding it infinitely more satisfactory to live in sin. Some of these people find this distressing. [Interruption.] Some Members laugh, but they should understand that some people who were brought up with a particular set of morals find this situation very mistaken.
  The Bill demonstrates yet again what an extraordinarily punitive Government we have. All my experience, whether as a schoolmaster or in any other walk of life that I have assumed, suggests to me that people respond infinitely better to incentives than to punishment. Perhaps it would be a great deal better to take, for example, what the National Association of Probation Officers has said about the disincentive effect of punishing people who break their probation conditions by destroying their benefits. The association has pointed out that if someone
  194
  pays attention to his probation conditions he will win thereby a diminution of the time that he is bound by the order. Such a system would be a great deal better than one that, by punishing, either drives people back to crime, or makes life difficult for conscientious probation officers who believe that more harm than good might be done by their reporting a breach of probation conditions. That matter should be examined in Committee.
  My primary focus is on the CSA and its reform. It is extremely distressing to hear the Secretary of State say that there will be more than 2 million children on the CSA's books. A major contributor to the problem of poverty in our enormously wealthy society is divorce: it is the fastest route to family poverty that one can devise. I speak as one who has been through it, so I know how damaging divorce can be to income projections and capital accrual. Divorce impoverishes everyone, regardless of income. Quite apart from that, we should be extremely disturbed by the fact that 2 million children will have experienced the distress of family break-up.
  It is too readily assumed that the mother is always the victim. I have heard in my surgeries about a significant number of cases in which the husband has clearly been set up and paid a heavy price. Most distressing to me is to hear of cases in which a father tries to use his access arrangements but is prevented from doing so. If the mother no longer wants to have anything to do with the father of her children, it is easy for her to deny him access, for example, by telling social services that his visits so distress the children that he should be prevented from seeing them altogether.
  We must ensure that men who conscientiously pay child maintenance have a clearly defined and properly enforced right to see their children. If that contact has to take place in neutral locations, such as the foyers run by some charities, fair enough. The anxiety that the problem has created must be addressed.
  The CSA must be one of the most awful places in which to work. I can imagine no job more dreadful than one that involves being verbally attacked in every way on the telephone when trying to arrive at an objective view of someone's circumstances. I should be interested to learn what the CSA's staff turnover is. Those who come to my surgery would say it must be 100 per cent., because their case never seems to be dealt with by the same person two weeks running.
  I suggest a practical way in which the Government might be able to alleviate that problem. There is no technical reason why local authorities and other centres should not provide a facility whereby those who want to discuss outstanding issues with the CSA have on-screen access to the same information as the CSA clerk. That would circumvent the need for a huge amount of correspondence and help to remove a major source of disagreement. Conditions change between someone writing to the CSA and the CSA writing back. It would be enormously valuable to exploit technology to ensure that those on both ends of the telephone conversation have sight of the same information on screen.
  The Bill presents considerable difficulties in respect of the true cost of maintaining children. We greatly underestimate the cost of rearing children, but the state has a powerful incentive to try to ensure that children grow up surrounded by a reasonable income. We live in the fifth richest country in the world, and we could

  195
  usefully divert far more money to enhancing child benefit. Such a measure would also help families to withstand late maintenance payments.
  I have been around long enough to have seen the pendulum swing to and fro between detailed conditions being attached to various benefits, discretionary payments and simple formulae. Every time a simple formula is set up for the sake of easier administration, the number of people who feel that they are unfairly treated because their personal circumstances are not taken into account increases. After a time, an incoming Government decide that changes are needed and either give officials more discretion, or introduce a formula containing all sorts of caveats. All is fine for a while, but officials are human and they all too often give people the benefit of the doubt, with the result that the cost of such discretion outruns what was intended.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will recall that, when introducing the Child Support Bill, the previous Government were attacked by everyone, including their own Back Benchers, the then Opposition and the Liberals, for laying down too simple a formula. The reforms carried out made the system more complicated, but it still does not work. Should we not return to first principles, instead of creating another formula?
  Mr. Rowe: The issue is a difficult one—the fact that the pendulum swings from one end of the spectrum to the other in all of our benefits debates demonstrates just how difficult. I entirely agree with the Government that what is needed is speed of decision making and resolution. That the assessment of individuals can be months behind schedule is intolerable. Why, when the CSA makes a mistake, does the client pay the price? It seems that the CSA's mistakes are never visited on the CSA. We should establish a reciprocal arrangement, whereby if a client falls behind in making payments because the CSA is behind in making its assessment, the client should not have to pay the additional costs.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I have focused carefully on all the speeches made in this debate, especially those that have addressed the subject of pensions. I am in awe of, and admire, those hon. Members in all four quarters of the House who speak with great eloquence and knowledge about pensions. The creation of a proper system of pensions for the people of this country is like holiness: we are all in favour of it and we all have different ideas about how to achieve it, but it is extremely difficult to achieve in practice.
  I am persuaded that the Bill at least attempts to ensure that those who have endured deprivation and hardship during their working years or who have experienced periods of unemployment do not have that experience reinforced in the evening of their life.
  In that regard, I am pleased to support the measure, although I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), still regret that my party abandoned the policy that it reiterated in general election after general election—that it would restore the
  196
  link with earnings in respect of pension upgrading. I regret that it has been abandoned. When she mentioned the matter, one or two of my colleagues, whom I hold in high personal regard, uttered from a sedentary position, "How will we pay for it?" Of course, if it were done as a big bang now, it would be enormously difficult. We must recognise that much water has gone under the bridge, but we should not have abandoned the principle or the objective.
  To the extent that there is a marginal difference between me and the Government, I believe that we should have been more ambitious in our redistributive policies, and that we probably should not have accepted for two years the Conservatives' budget in terms of overall expenditure.
  We should have been bold and brave, as some were a score of years ago with the Rooker-Wise amendment. It was an ambitious move, which Government Front Benchers then resisted because of costs. Sometimes parliamentarians prevail, to their eternal credit. They will be remembered for that, and perhaps not for what they do later. I still say to the Government that we should be more ambitious in our desire to redistribute wealth.
  With reference to the Child Support Agency, I listened carefully to what hon. Members said. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has a point on the narrow issue of driving licences. All too readily, legislation is certified as complying with the European convention, and there is a danger of our draftspersons devaluing that certificate. They would have said that it complied, even before we signed up. We should be more cautious.
  Not only will the provision be challenged if it is enacted—I hope that we will rethink the matter in Committee—but it is also illogical. Leaving aside the European convention point, one could ask why driving licences; why not bicycles, or equipment for train-spotting, bird-watching and so on? There could be a schedule of ways in which people could be penalised. This is not the best concept in this important and valuable piece of legislation.
  I listened to the intervention of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who tried to rewrite history by observing that the Conservative Government were criticised for the legislation introducing the CSA because it was simple. The criticism that should be levelled against the Conservative Government is that the concept was marketed in such a simplistic and populist way. The word was put around by the spin doctors of the day and taken up by the press that there was a vast army of men out there who were not paying maintenance but could pay, and that it could simply be collected off them.
  The CSA was almost universally thought to be a good idea, and some of those who were most enthusiastic about it are now attending our surgeries. They made arrangements with their former spouses or partners or diligently endeavoured to meet their responsibilities. They have, in a sense, been contributing to the work of the CSA, and now realise that it was a big fib that there was a large group of people out there who could pay child support and from whom it could be collected. The truth has now been rumbled. Of course, we know now that it ain't that simple.

  197
  One of the lessons of the CSA legislation is that there was insufficient proper scrutiny of its effects by the House.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Mackinlay: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but I remind him of the time limit.
  Mr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene, and I shall be as quick as I can. Does he remember that originally, in 1991, the then Government, who are now the Opposition, sold the idea of the CSA on the basis that they would pursue absent fathers, and set a target of £2 billion that they would save as a result?
  Mr. Mackinlay: One of the principal elements of the legislation was revenue collection by the Government, rather than the social consequences of improving the quality of life and the resources available to families and children. We must recognise that it was a bad piece of legislation.
  I listened open-mindedly to the remarks of the Liberal spokesperson, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), which had some merit. However, we are not starting from scratch. We must deal with the system that we inherited.
  The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), is not in his place, which I regret. Indeed, I regret that several Secretaries of State and principal spokespersons are not present. The shadow Secretary of State leaned on the Dispatch Box and asked how we would cope in the interim period, during the changeover, as though the situation were a cock-up created by the Labour Government.
  No one suggests that the interregnum—the changeover—will be easy, but we shall have to cope. It is not ideal and there will be hiccups. The people to blame—the architects of the ill-conceived legislation—are not on the Government side of the House, but on the Opposition side. A period of silence by the shadow Secretary of State would have been appropriate.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mackinlay: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman will have had four or five bites of the cherry. Sit down.
  I stated in a letter to Madam Speaker that I wished to speak on a particular matter, which has not been mentioned this evening—the part of the Bill that amends the law relating to war pensions. We should not lose sight of that, despite the tendency to group three or four Bills together in one Bill, which is wrong.
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before Christmas, reminding him of the fact that I had a ten-minute Bill supported by hon. Members from right across the political spectrum. It mirrored a Bill that had been passed by the House of Lords, with the Government spokesperson there saying that the Government were not opposed to the measure. It was introduced in the other place by Alf Morris. It is a simple measure that could be incorporated in this Bill in Committee.
  198
  Under the measure, the Secretary of State would be obliged to make a report to Parliament every year, after consultation with all interested parties, particularly the ex-service organisations, about the expenditure in the previous financial year on service pensions, war pensions and war widows' pensions. The measure is obviously sought by the Royal British Legion, the Officers Pension Society, the Royal Naval Association, the Royal Air Forces Association and the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association. It would be immensely appreciated if Parliament took the opportunity to put that on the statute book.
  If the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) has been briefed by her civil servants that I intended to raise the matter, she might remind me that there is already a statutory report on war pensions, which comes to Parliament. However, it is not subject to statutory consultation in advance, it is not required to reflect whether sufficient resources are available to meet the new needs created by the inevitable advance of age among war veterans, and it does not incorporate service pensions or war widows' pensions.
  It is time that Parliament revisited the matter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say, in the spirit in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with other parts of the Bill, that the Government are open to suggestions and are prepared to accept amendments in Committee.
  I do not want to labour the point tonight, but I hope that the issue might be an example of the popular desire for Parliament to recognise the need to tackle, through an annual report to Parliament, the interests of ex-service men and women, people who receive war pensions, war widows and their dependants. It is important to do that because, unlike other Parliaments around the world, we do not have a dedicated veterans Minister or an annual debate on veterans' issues. I regret that. The last debate on that matter was on 1 July 1996. I was fortunate enough to win the ballot for one of the last private Member's motions on a Friday and we held a well attended, full day's debate on the subject. Tony Newton, the Minister who replied, was sympathetic to the proposal of holding an annual debate. There are annual debates on other issues, and I hope that the current Minister will take up the suggestion.
  We all have a view about our obligations to people who have made sacrifices on behalf of the United Kingdom in the various conflicts of the century that has just passed. I hope that my proposal for an annual report will be incorporated in the Bill in Committee or on Report, and that it will go some way towards not only tackling Parliament's deficiency in considering veterans' issues, but prompting the annual debate to which I referred. I hope that the Government will reflect on that, and that my colleagues who are fortunate enough to serve on the Committee will adopt the proposal and push it through.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). I contested that constituency—alas, unsuccessfully—in 1979. I hope that hon. Members who serve on the Standing Committee will endorse his last suggestion, which is perfectly proportionate and sensible.

  199
  The Government took office claiming that they intended to reform the welfare system. The measure is their set-piece Bill for their first—and hopefully their last for some time—Parliament in government. Yet what will be the headlines in tomorrow's national newspapers? I suspect that they will simply be about taking away driving licences from those who do not pay their contributions.
  We live in a society that is generally becoming wealthier. Newspaper reports this week suggest that more and more people own their homes, the value of housing is rising and an increasing number of people have savings and shares. Most people can therefore make adequate pension provision for themselves. The test for the Government, especially a Labour Government, is what the provisions achieve for the less well-off and the poorer members of our community. I have heard little that is coherent about that. Indeed, the cut-off of £9,000 and the various other provisions will make it more difficult for those who are less well-off.
  Just before Christmas, the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) crossed the Floor. The day before he did that, there was a by-election in my constituency, which is next door to his. It took place in the sort of ward that, I suspect, exists in all constituencies. It comprises a solid housing estate, including a few houses that have been bought under the right-to-buy provisions, and is the sort of ward that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) mentioned: it consists of many decent people but its unemployment rates are above average. The by-election took place in a ward that the Labour party had held for the past 27 years. On the day, 5,000 people had an opportunity of casting their votes. The Conservative party won, despite the excellent Labour candidate, who was leader of the Labour group on the district council. He has been mayor of Banbury and his wife has also been mayor. He has devoted his life to public service in the town and lives in the ward. He lost because many Labour voters no longer see a reason to vote Labour.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What was the turnout?
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman asks for the turnout figures, but after two and a half years of a Labour Government, the people in that ward, which has been Labour for almost a generation, had no incentive to turn out and vote Labour. If one visits hospitals nowadays, one finds that nurses feel no incentive to support the Labour party.
  The Bill should tackle the needs of the many poorer members of our community. If they hear about the measure, they will feel that it does little for them. I emphasise to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the Bill gives us an opportunity. I hope that the Opposition will make it clear—as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the shadow Secretary of State, did in his opening remarks—that the measure does nothing for the worse off in our society.
  The place for those who believe in one nation, and in helping those who are less well off, is the Opposition Benches, not the Government Benches. The Labour party has become so keen to appeal to the meritocracy that it has forgotten those who live in wards such as Ruscote in my constituency or many of the wards in Thurrock, where I pounded the streets in 1979.
  200
  If one knocks on doors during the local government election campaigns in the spring, and asks pensioners and the less well-off whether the Bill does anything to make them or future generations better off, very few will say that the measure is worth while. While many hon. Members will spend weeks in Committee, going through the measure line by line and clause by clause, it will achieve little for the poorer members of our society.
  Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baldry: I am sorry, but I am about to finish.
  The Bill is a wasted opportunity. If it is the Government's social welfare reform showpiece, I am proud to be a Conservative. I hope that, in the next Parliament, we shall have the opportunity of introducing decent pensions legislation that helps those who are less well off.
  6.58 pm
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: Like many Labour Members, I support the Bill. I want to speak about part I, which deals with child support. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, it will enjoy positive support in our constituencies. We shall see the success of the measure in future. I agree with my right hon. Friend and many other hon. Members that it constitutes a big step in the right direction.
  Like all hon. Members, Child Support Agency cases form a large part of my postbag. They include absent parents who complain about muddle, delay and, all too often, grossly incorrect assessment. They also include parents with care—mothers who are almost always alone and who complain that the fathers pay next to nothing towards the care of their offspring. Complaints are made because, in tight-knit communities such as those I represent, it is common knowledge that a father's life style is such that he could adequately support his children.
  I also deal with exotic cases. Some mothers have immense difficulty in getting any cash from dads whom they suspect deliberately work in a country with which we have no reciprocal agreements for social security deductions. Also, absent fathers are assigned the bill for the wrong set of children because they have been misplaced on an information technology filing system. One man was deemed to be the absent father of a child by a woman he had never heard of, from a part of the country he had never visited in his life. It turned out that he had been placed on that file because he had the same unusual forenames and surname given by the mother.
  Those cases would be laughable if such gross errors did not cause great worry and heartache at the minor end of the scale. At the serious end of the scale, they can lead almost to tragedy. The man I referred to came within a cat's whisker of having his marriage dissolved because of the strain he was under. Many others suffer greatly, such as the men who tell me that they will have to quit work, and the women who cannot get a job because the lack of parental contributions from the absent father means that they cannot afford nursery or child minding facilities.

  201
  Like many of our great social disasters, the CSA had its genesis in the former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. In a speech to the Pankhurst Society in 1990, she said:
  "We have proposals which will help lone parents … the whole process will be easier, more consistent and fairer".
  That hyperbole hid the real reason behind the CSA—the drive to cut social security spending. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) let the cat out of the bag at the launch of the CSA in 1993, saying:
  "The total costs to the taxpayer of supporting lone families reached almost £5 billion last year. Many taxpayers resent paying out to support children of parents who may have incomes higher than themselves."
  No one will argue with that last sentence, but the net result was that, through its modus operandi, the CSA probably helped to impoverish families and create a growing lone parent underclass. Conservative Members who were Members of the House at that time cannot say that we did not warn them of what was coming.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will not be too embarrassed if I refer to the speech that he made on behalf of the Opposition when the Child Support Act 1991 was being debated. Moving our amendment, he said that the Bill
  "leaves lone parents on Income Support not one penny better off … allows maintenance payments to be disrupted if the absent parent defaults … and does not tackle more serious problems facing lone parents and their children".—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 194.]
  He was spot on and we all now know it, which is why we are debating how to make progress.
  Yet again, we have to clear up a mess that was left by the previous Government, who ran this country for 18 years. Armed with first-hand knowledge of how the CSA has wrecked lives and the system's inherent faults, we have a Bill that will tackle those evils and those faults. We have a Bill that contains measures that will contribute to our fight against child poverty, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, and help to support the lone parent family.
  Above all, we need a simple formula—and today we have one. Hon. Members and their caseworkers have become experts on the CSA formula.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Kumar: I shall give way briefly because I have only 15 minutes in which to speak.
  Mr. Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I agree that there is a case for reform, but does he not agree that, to some extent, those reforms will replace one set of injustices with others? Some of the people he is trying to help will be harmed by the changes.
  Dr. Kumar: I do not see it like that; all I see is a simple formula that will provide a clear direction for us to take. I hope that that will solve a lot of the problems and I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will respond to them in detail. [Interruption.] It is all very
  202
  well for the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) to laugh, but I was generous enough to allow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) to intervene. He has not been present for all of the debate, so, rather than laughing, perhaps hon. Members should listen and learn.
  All hon. Members would happily relinquish their role in such cases. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Northavon finds this amusing, but he should listen to what we have to say; he might learn something. Above all, we need a simpler formula, and that is at the heart of the Bill. A simpler formula has to be the starting point. It would be transparent, easily understandable, easily enacted and simple to work with. In that context, I must make it clear that my complaints about the CSA system are not made against the dedicated staff who work in the agency. In my experience, the staff at the office in Falkirk, which serves my area, do their best for their customers and service users, but are defeated by having to work with bad and underfunded IT systems, and having to cope with a constant avalanche of changes to the formula and the consequent avalanche of complaints from people who feel they have been wrongly assessed.
  I believe that the basic proposals in the Bill are simpler for fathers—they are more understandable, more realistic and can be more easily assessed against income—and fairer to lone mothers because they are simpler. It will be easier to collect money, and easier collection should mean that cash circulates faster in the system. Mothers will therefore have the right to expect money to be correct and paid on time. Above all, the proposals are fairer to the children.
  I am also pleased that the new formula is accompanied by a tougher regime for ensuring collection and the co-operation of absent parents with the system. We all know of mothers who received almost total non-co-operation from self-employed absent fathers who knew that the chances of them having finally to put their hand in their pockets were effectively nil. The artificial blockage between the CSA and the Inland Revenue—a bureaucratic blockage that has blighted too many lives—will be bulldozed out of the way. I am pleased that such draconian measures have been included in the Bill. We should not shed too many tears over the confiscation of a passport, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, or the imposition of a prison sentence because of the neglect of a man's children. I have seen too many lone mothers in tears already.
  The measures should be considered with other measures to support families, such as the working families tax credit, new child care and nursery initiatives, improvements to housing benefit and other state benefits and, of course, the minimum wage—which Labour Members support, unlike the Conservatives. All that means that we now have a comprehensive and holistic structure for child and family support, but we must not assume that the Bill may not have shortcomings. Some were mentioned by my right hon. Friend.
  Our experience of past child support legislation shows that we are dealing with an inherently complicated issue. It has been further complicated by the fact that CSA staff and benefit advisers were dealing with men and women who, in many cases, had already undergone agonising separation. The image of the "deadbeat dad" reflects the reality for a small minority, but in my experience—and, I suspect, that of many hon. Members—they are a very

  203
  small minority. The fathers whom I meet are different. Most wanted, and want, to support their children, but have found themselves beaten by the system. They see their children as the ultimate victims of that. The real problem with the existing system is that an inherently bad mechanism has been consistently and regularly overlaid by amendments and alterations, born in this place. There have been myriad draft regulations and statutory instruments.
  I want to convey a simple message to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: "Please do not allow your advisers or your civil servants to influence you, persuading you to make 'a little adjustment here, Minister' or 'a little tweak there, Minister'". That would be the first step towards a retreat into complexity, allowing the growth of a new byzantine structure that would be hard to understand and harder to penetrate.
  The mothers and fathers whom I see at my surgeries want to get on with rebuilding their lives, confident that their children will be adequately supported whether they are living with them or with their former partners. That is a simple aim, which I hope and expect the Bill to fulfil. The aim is not to damage our future—that is, our children. The men and women who constitute the human face of the 200-odd cases with which I am currently dealing want the same. The Bill is for them, and I welcome it on their behalf.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I echo what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) said about the staff at the Falkirk office, whom members of the Social Security Committee visited. I must admit that—like, perhaps, many hon. Members—I had, before my visit, entertained rather a low opinion of the staff, having listened to what all my constituents were saying. On that visit, however, I became aware of all the problems with which the staff have to deal, the enormous pressure that they are under and the low wages that they are paid. I now think that they are doing a good job in very difficult circumstances, and I am happy to pay tribute to them.
  I do not know what the House considers to be the purpose of family law, but I believe that it is to create a structure in society whose aim is to keep couples together, if that is possible, and, if it is not, to ensure that absent fathers—it is usually the fathers who are absent—remain in touch with their children and support them. That is a simple aim, which I think is supported by members of all parties, but in that respect we have failed as a society. A third of non-resident parents pay nothing, and 50 per cent. of children in poverty come from single-parent families. Daughters in single-parent families, where the single parent is not working, have only a 7 per cent. chance of obtaining higher education qualifications.
  The present system is clearly not working, so what we are discussing now is what we can do to improve it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) that our chief concern should be for those who are most vulnerable and have the least resources.
  I was privileged to share most of last week—while I was thinking about what I would say today—with a man called Jean Vanier, who set up the L'Arche homes for people with severe learning disabilities. Small beginnings were built up into a worldwide movement. We are
  204
  discussing circumstances that involve much pain and anger; he deals with circumstances involving an enormous amount of pain and anger, and disability as well. He has been extraordinarily successful in overcoming the difficulties by adopting an intensely personal approach to each case. Everyone is treated as an individual and has a personal assistant. The help that is given is not simply material—although I suppose that asking the CSA to give other than material help would be asking too much of it.
  I conclude from that visit that we shall make real progress in meeting social objectives only through a personalised system. That would involve someone sitting down with the couple concerned, if possible—or with the two people separately, if they refuse to be interviewed together—working out the total income involved, and encouraging the father to adopt a system of payments and visiting. Some may say that they accept all that, but it is not possible. Let us look at the present system, which has become unbearably complex. Because it must deal with a hundred items of information, the CSA spends 90 per cent. of its time making calculations and only 10 per cent. on enforcement. The whole thing is a mess. Society must give up on it and move to a simplistic system of crude rough justice.
  The pressure imposed on the CSA by existing claims is such that we must move to such a simple system. To do that would be intensely unpopular politically, but it is the only option for the Government. The lack of a clear timetable is dangerous: the existence of two systems operating side by side will cause enormous vexation and unhappiness.
  The Government, being politically acute, realise that a move to the new system for existing claimants would be unpopular. I think that it would be right, but the Government are not going to do it: they are going to introduce the new system only for new claimants. That is a shame, although it may be necessary. I understand all the difficulties. As a member of the Select Committee, I have visited the CSA and studied its work. I have listened to what my constituents have said, and I know that it is rough justice, but at the end of the day we are not being very ambitious, are we? We are giving up on so many people. We are saying that we, as a society, believe that a child is worth 15 per cent. of someone's income. A child is not worth 15 per cent. of someone's income; a child is worth 100 per cent. What right have we to say that we are so lacking in ambition—so unwilling to try to use the levers available to us—that we set arbitrary formulae such as this?
  Human nature will break through, as it always does. The small print tells us that the departures will be abolished and variations will be introduced. Once variations are introduced, they will multiply, just as they did when we tried to introduce a relatively simple system. They will multiply because fairness and justice will demand it, and we shall end up with a system very similar to the present one. If the Government cannot afford to devise a personalised system, perhaps they will at least provide a named official to ensure that both parents deal with the same person throughout the process.
  I want to say a little about pensions. We are creating an affluent society. Over the past two decades, 80 per cent. of richest pensioners have been better off, and a third of the poorest have been better off. We should be ambitious for society: we should encourage everyone to provide for their old age. I agree with what many have

  205
  said about the complexity of the three current different systems. We need a seamless web enabling us—by means of compulsion, if necessary—to force people to make adequate funded contributions.
  The Government have made the fair point that those who earn less than £9,000 a year are unlikely to be able to build up a fund sufficient to raise them above the means-tested benefit level. I do not know the answer; I simply know that a complicated system involving stakeholder pensions, second pensions, occupational pensions and personal pensions will not encourage people to accept the funded system that we all want. The only way is to have some element of compulsion but, once that is in place, let people choose the sort of system that they want. Many countries have gone down that route. I am convinced that the private sector is best placed to provide such a choice.
  I have talked about society being ambitious. One ambition can be to break and to restore broken relationships. We can try to build communities. There is no point talking about building a world community, a European community or a national community if we cannot use whatever small resources we have to build community between two people.
  Jean Vanier told a moving story that affected my ideas on the subject. He has a friend who is a French lady and very elderly. In the 1940s, she was very good looking and a fine pianist. Everyone liked her. She had a tremendous future. When the war started, she joined the resistance. Eventually, she was captured by the Gestapo after using her piano-playing prowess to try to infiltrate it and to warn the resistance of what was going on. The Gestapo tortured her to the extent that it destroyed her entire nervous system. She would never be free from pain for the rest of her life. She went into that prison with 20 people, but she was the only one to survive.
  The person who tortured that lady was a young Nazi doctor called Leo. In 1983, she received a telephone call and she immediately recognised his voice. He said that he was about to die and wanted to come to see her. He did so. They talked for two hours and he asked for her forgiveness. She forgave him. They embraced. As he was going away, he asked what he should do. She told him and he did it: he went back to the Austrian village where he was the burgomaster—he had admitted nothing about his past; he was a distinguished man—and admitted everything in front of the whole village. Two or three weeks later, he died.
  What that tells me about human beings is that they can build some relationship, but that we as a society have, in many respects, given up on people. We say that we cannot be ambitious for society, create a framework in which people stay together, forgive each other, ensure that fathers look after their children, or recreate a sense of hope in our estates. That is very sad indeed.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. David Crausby: Welfare reform is, by its nature, controversial in that it will for ever be popular to increase welfare and unpopular to propose any reduction in benefits, so it makes a pleasant change to be able to speak on a welfare reform measure with which I almost entirely agree. Interest will inevitably
  206
  concentrate around the Bill's measures on the CSA and reform of the state earnings-related pension scheme, but the Bill also contains important changes to the way in which occupational pension funds are managed. I am especially concerned about those aspects, which have been almost entirely ignored in the debate.
  Anyone who contemplates a future in British politics will surely support the reform of the CSA for parents who live apart. Many of us have waited with bated breath since we were elected for the delivery of an understandable system of child support rates. Most of us would agree that the principle that absent parents must be held responsible for the maintenance of their children is completely sound, but the present system of enforcement is incredibly unfair.
  We must all have had constituents who have suffered injustice as a result of the present provisions. I am delighted that one of the aims of this long-awaited Bill will be to introduce lower rates for non-resident parents on very low incomes.
  A simpler method for the calculation of child support has been desperately needed. At long last, legislation proposes a formula that will at least be clearly understood. Most important, we must ensure that the changes that we enact will primarily be in the interests of children, who have too often been under-represented in the years of debate on child support.
  Part II deals with the state second pension. I hope only that the Government will do a better job in delivering a second pension than a series of Governments have done in the past. The sad reality is that, historically, Government have proved to be no more trustworthy when it comes to the actual payment of pensions than those who controlled the Daily Mirror pension scheme. That is not surprising as we permit a situation where we have not built up the adequate funds required to guarantee the payment of pensions.
  As politicians, we would not tolerate, or consider tolerating, a private pension provider paying its pensioners out of current members' contributions, yet that is the situation. Our Government operate a pay-as-you-go scheme, expecting today's national insurance contributions to pay for today's pensions.
  I hate to have to say it, because I always strongly believed in the state provision of pensions and still do, but the historical reality is that pensioners would have been much safer in the hands of a dodgy insurance company than they have been depending on the whim of some future Government either to pay or to renege on the promise of a pension. With those words of caution, I enthusiastically support the measures in the Bill concerning child support and SERPS, but we must not forget the important issue of the control of occupational pension funds. I intend to confine my remaining remarks largely to aspects of the Bill that involve occupational pensions.
  I almost entirely agree with the Bill, but I nevertheless have some reservations about the clauses that deal with reforming the regulation of occupational and personal pensions. I am particularly concerned about the Bill's proposals on member-nominated trustees, which do not go nearly far enough.
  The Pensions Act 1995 was an important step in the right direction. I loudly applauded it at the time. For the first time, there was a general requirement for members to have the right to nominate and to select one third of

  207
  their scheme's trustees. Before that Act, we had the ridiculous situation of employers having the right to appoint trustees on behalf of their employees. It was a patronising concession in the 1978 legislation, which allowed workers to be involved in decisions concerning their pensions, but based on the precept that those workers could not be entirely trusted to decide whom their trustees would be.
  The 1995 Act was a step in the right direction, but did not, of course, do enough to defend pension scheme members. Although the Bill is a further improvement, there is still some considerable way to go.
  Why, for example, should member-appointed representatives amount to only one third of the trustees? If it is right for employees to be involved in the management of their pension funds, why must they always be in a minority? Clearly, proper control of pension funds should be in the hands of those who should have ownership of those funds. The most prudent managers will inevitably be those who have most to gain or to lose from a fund's good or bad administration.
  It makes sense that employers who have responsibility for variable contributions to a fund—and, thus, the obligation to ensure that the pension scheme is sufficiently funded—should, quite rightly, be entitled to have authority and influence over the fund. To deny reasonable representation to responsible employers would be counter-productive in encouraging those employers' involvement in occupational pension schemes, and good employers deserve to be encouraged in the provision and management of pensions.
  Unfortunately, however, all employers are not automatically responsible employers. When employers enjoy a contributions holiday for several years while members continue to pay, I start to take a different view about their in-built right to a majority of trustee appointments.
  I believe that representation on a board of trustees, and control and influence over a pension fund, should be linked to the contributions paid. If, for example, an employer has paid over 50 per cent. over the lifetime of a fund, that employer should be entitled to majority control. However, when the balance shifts—as could quite easily happen in a mature fund, to which employees are making the majority contribution—the balance of power on the managing body of trustees also should shift. Therefore, should an employer wish to retain a majority of the appointed trustees, the very minimum that the employer should be prepared to do is to contribute at least as much to the scheme as the members have contributed to it.
  I spent 19 frustrating years serving as an employee representative trustee on an occupational pension scheme, and much of my time was spent struggling with employer-appointed trustees who, when it came to the crunch, almost exclusively reflected the point of view of the employer who appointed them. Too often, meetings became a negotiation between employee-elected trustees and employer-appointed trustees.
  I do not blame anyone for that type of behaviour, because the way in which our schemes are established in law make such conflict inevitable. In truth, it was more than their job was worth for employer-appointed trustees to act against the interests of the hand that fed them. Moreover, if they had behaved differently, the result
  208
  would have been almost immediate replacement by someone who was more responsive to the company's interests.
  I do not want anyone to get me wrong: I do not have any problems with the practice of pension negotiations between employers and employees. Indeed, I think that pension negotiations are a very healthy exercise, and encourage them as often being much more constructive and less inflationary than the negotiation of pay increases. My concern is that the board of trustees is not the place for negotiations, as trustees' common responsibility should be the prudent management and investment of their fund. When trustees are answerable to different masters, they will inevitably respond differently, and not always act in the interests of their pensioners and fund members.
  The Bill contains clauses on winding up schemes. Winding up a pension scheme, for whatever reason, could have a devastating effect on the lives of its members. An elderly person's accumulated package of pensions is similar to a child's education in that one gets only one shot at it, and, once it starts to go wrong, it is extremely difficult to put right. When a company goes into liquidation close to the end of a man or a woman's working life, he or she may suffer incredible shock. Understandably, scheme members cannot grasp why it should take years to sort out their pension scheme.
  I therefore welcome the Bill's proposal to require that regular reports be made to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, which clearly has to have a stronger role in those traumatic circumstances, so that it is able to add some impetus to the process.
  Trustees should, of course, have the time to ensure that they comply with their obligations under trust law, and they must be supported in often very difficult and frustrating circumstances so that they are able to do their job properly. However, employees often have expectations of pensions that are calculated to the very last penny and plans beginning on the very day that they retire. Changes in those expectations may be devastating to those people and could make them feel extremely vulnerable. In such circumstances, the very last thing that those working men and women need is for a wound-up scheme to take years in which to resolve its liabilities. I therefore welcome the Bill's proposals to speed up the process.
  My only word of caution is that schemes in difficult circumstances are rarely overfunded, and that we must ensure that the operation is as inexpensive as possible. Ultimately, we should remember that the reforms are about protecting workers who have expectations and entitlements to a pension, rather than about rewarding organisations and highly paid individuals who seem to appear and descend like vultures when a scheme is in trouble.
  There is so very much more to do in the minefield of occupational pension funds, which really should be there to provide for us in old age. Nevertheless, with the reservations that I have described, I welcome the Bill's provisions as an important step in the right direction. I look forward to many more steps on the road to ensuring fairer and more accountable delivery of decent pensions.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby); the whole House is better informed because of his experience and knowledge of, and expertise in, the subject.
  This has been a very good debate, in which many very good and positive points have been made. The debate will have been well worth while, if the Secretary of State is as good as his word, and if the Government are serious about taking on board some of positive points that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House—certainly the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, Baroness Hollis has been at pains to consult widely, and that is much appreciated; I am chairman of the Social Security Committee, which has had the benefit of much of her time and energy, for which we thank her.
  I should like to start with a procedural point, and expand a bit on the comments of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on how the Bill has been constructed. Although many points have been made in the debate, no one has yet dwelt on procedural matters.
  First, although the Minister of State is a seasoned hand in the legislative stakes, procedurally, the Bill is a dog's breakfast. There should have been two Bills, and the whole House would have been better informed if we had had two half-day debates, with two shorter Standing Committees—I am not asking for more Government time. Had that been done, the debate would have been much more coherent.
  Secondly, it is madness to interleave new legislation into the Child Support Act 1991, as it will make the legislation—if anyone understood it in the first place—totally incomprehensible.
  Thirdly, clause 27 is entirely redolent of the 1991 Act. Even the notes produced by the Government describe wide-ranging discretionary powers, all exercisable in negative procedure resolutions. None of the resolutions will use the affirmative procedure, so that they will have to be dealt with in prayers. We have been there before. In 1991, when the Child Support Agency was established, the damage was done in the secondary legislation—and here we go again.
  Clause 27 is, therefore, offensive. The Government really must understand that, if they are to win the confidence of the House, never mind anyone outside it, they will have to fall over backwards to ensure particularly that the House knows what is going on and when, and that they keep us advised appropriately.
  Fourthly—my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made passing reference to this—it is offensive to invite the House to examine on Second Reading the principle behind important and far-reaching legislation on the state second pension—the consultation period on which ends in three days—without any access to a coherent overview of the results of that consultation process.
  I do not blame Ministers for that, because I know that the business managers are a pretty draconian bunch to try to win arguments over. Nevertheless, from a parliamentary point of view—I am not making any party points at all—the legislation should have been handled in an entirely different manner. Indeed, the parliamentary draftsman should be brought to book. There is an
  210
  argument that the Government are introducing too much legislation and the draftsmen cannot cope with it, but I do not have time to address that. Given that the Government are introducing a large volume of legislation at such a rate, the House of Commons deserves better information and a better legislative process in respect of these important measures. However, I shall let that pass.
  As Chairman of the Social Security Committee, I acknowledge that the Department helped us enormously with the three-day evidence session and that Baroness Hollis made absolutely every effort to give us all the information.
  As one or two of the points that I wanted to make have already been covered, I shall turn to the ones that have not. I am sceptical about the value and the accuracy of the regulatory impact statement. It is far too optimistic about the effects on business. The point has been made that we shall have to toil through the transitional arrangements. The deduction of earnings orders and the new criminal sanctions that can be visited on business people if they actively withhold information will also produce difficulties. If the enforcement that we anticipate under the new regime is not carried out carefully, small businesses in particular will have to make a great deal of extra effort for no return. I counsel the Government to be extremely careful. I hope that I am wrong, but I think that the obligations on businesses will be onerous and that the regulatory impact statement is optimistic.
  Like everyone else, I welcome the simplified formula for the child maintenance premium, the disregard and the working families tax credit exemption. I did not know until the Select Committee took evidence that people receiving working families tax credit who are on housing or council tax benefit are entitled only to a £15 disregard because housing benefit and council tax will take anything over £15. That is likely to create an awful lot of anxiety and a great deal of constituency casework, so we should examine it carefully in Committee.
  My biggest worry about the Bill is that, while the Government have been assiduous about trying to work out the cost of a child—although the evidence is pretty thin and they did not manage to persuade me that their calculations were accurate—nobody has looked at the ability to pay. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) also made this point. Paragraph 17 of the Select Committee report and its first recommendation are extremely important. If that recommendation were accepted as an amendment, I would be persuaded to vote for the Bill. The Select Committee recommends that the Government should remove the set formula rates from primary legislation and put them into secondary legislation so that they can be changed if they are found not to be right.
  Creating new legal liabilities does not generate new resources. When families split, no extra money is generated. Of course there are people who are swinging the lead, and I want to attack them as robustly as everyone else does, but I do not think that we understand the extent of people's debts. I am talking not about earnings or proportions, but about debts such as store cards and credit cards. Many people have a huge overhang of debt which they cannot cope with, and although, in principle, 25 per cent. of one's income does not seem too much to pay for one's children, for some it is an impossible demand.

  211
  The Bill includes draconian methods of enforcement. The chief executive of the CSA plans to reverse the balance of its work from 10 per cent. enforcement and 90 per cent. calculation and assessment so that 10 per cent. of its work will be devoted to calculation and assessment and the rest of the £230 million operation will be put into enforcement. If the CSA enforces the legislation by imposing fixed penalties and taking away people's driving licences, it will create an even bigger bogeyman. It will have to be extremely careful about how it implements some of the measures and make sure that it is not simply recycling money by taking it away from people who are very poor to give it to people who are even poorer. That would not be in anyone's interests.
  I should mention two important points that the Government must take on board in Committee. First, to take £5 from people who are on benefit, income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance and to make that a flat-rate payment may be right in principle—it is a difficult judgment to make. However, hon. Members who have not studied the matter in detail may not understand that, when people on income support lose £5, another family on benefit will be even worse off.
  Income support levels are not sustainable in the long term and some second families are on income support for years. To take £5 from them and to threaten them with fixed penalties, taking away their driving licences and sending them to prison is contrary to natural justice. We have to keep the position in balance. The proposals can all be justified on paper and in an ideal world they are right. Like everyone else, I want people to get the benefit to which they are entitled, but we have to be careful; otherwise, we might make the situation worse. One third of those who are supposed to be paying the CSA are hiding because the organisation is so inefficient that it cannot find them. If the new, efficient regime works, it will create great difficulties.
  The transitional process will be extremely difficult. I want to leave the Government with one thought—hon. Members may be interested in this. One of the most compelling pieces of evidence to the Select Committee came from John Avery, the Deputy Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who has been on the receiving end of many of those difficulties. I quote from the memorandum that he submitted to the Select Committee. He wrote:
  "Simplifying the system should make its administration more straightforward but, even with a simplified system, unless there are enough staff and the staff have the necessary support facilities, training and instruction or guidance, and the time in which to absorb that training or guidance, the problems which have characterised the Child Support Agency's first six years will continue."
  That is true. The CSA is facing an increasing case load at the moment. I know that the Government are introducing a new IT system. I support that, and I think that it is necessary to get it in place as fast as possible. However, if we do not put resources into the transitional process in particular and the stage-by-stage evolution of that process is not made absolutely clear to everyone early on so that we have answers to the difficult questions that will come to our surgeries, the transitional process might make the situation almost unbearable.
  Finally, even if I objected to nothing else in the Bill, the benefit penalty for contravention of community service would in itself be a reason for voting against it. I
  212
  cannot for the life of me understand why sensible Department of Social Security Ministers have allowed such nonsense to be included in the Bill. It will never pass the European convention on human rights. The Secretary of State's certificate on the face of the Bill is nonsense. It may be a provision that the Government plan to keep in a cupboard and never use, like the death penalty for treason. Perhaps it is some sort of gimmick, but it does not help. If local authorities started going to lay magistrates—not sheriffs but justices of the peace—and getting the power to take benefits off people who are not turning up for community service, it would be a travesty of justice. There is no other way of describing it, and I hope that the Government will have second thoughts.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: I intend to stick solely to the issue of pensions. Individuals have exactly the opposite problems with pensions from Governments. Governments design pension schemes that look good in 40 years' time, but individuals always discover that their pension situation is no good when it is too late to do anything about it. That means that there is a fundamental question of trust that must be resolved, as several hon. Members have pointed out. If the promise of the state second pension is to be believed, the national insurance fund must be protected by independent trustees in exactly the same way as a private pension in order to rebuild trust and to make citizens real stakeholders in their state-provided pensions.
  For many years, the minimum pension income guarantee that the Government have introduced will be a more dependable and meaningful part of pensioners' income than the proposals in the Bill. If that continues for very many years, it will destroy public confidence in the proposals that the Government are rightly making. That will be the case especially if the minimum pension income guarantee increases in line with earnings but the state second pension increases only in line with prices. That would produce a gap that would postpone for many years the point at which the state second pension is worth more than the guarantee, which would undermine the whole structure of the scheme. It would also undermine private sector stakeholder schemes, because when people realise that they are saving not for themselves but so that the state may make a smaller contribution to them through the minimum pension income guarantee, they will be angry and demoralised.
  The state second pension must, if it is to include carers—which is rightly one of its objectives and one of its strongest features—have at least as generous provision for them as the existing state system. In that respect, we look to the Government to ensure that the existing system of home responsibility protection in the national insurance basic pension is also reflected in the state second pension.
  The state second pension has the makings of an excellent product, especially in its earnings-related initial phase. In fact, it is so good that a problem may arise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that when it ceases to be earnings related, rebates will be offered that will guarantee—to people on moderate incomes who will be forced out of the state second pension scheme structure into stakeholder schemes—that they will be no worse off. However, if we examine the Government's proposals on rebates, it appears that from the very moment the state second pension stops being earnings related the rebates start

  213
  to build up enormously. By around 2040–50, those rebates will require a state expenditure of between £12 billion and £15 billion a year to support them, at today's values. When we are told that we cannot afford to increase the state pension scheme, we should consider the cost of the Government's alternatives.
  The state second pension scheme is so good that many existing low-paid workers in contracted-out final salary schemes will find that they would have been better off in the state second pension than in their own schemes. The Government have to address that problem and they have two options. One is to force up the benefits of final salary schemes so that they match the benefits of the state second pension scheme for low-paid workers. I understand that the Government are thinking of doing so, and it is important that we are clear about that. The alternative is to allow low-paid workers in contracted-out final salary schemes to opt out of those schemes into the state second pension scheme to maximise their benefits. Those are intricate but important points if these proposals, which contain the basis for a good scheme, are to be credible to low-paid workers in existing final salary schemes.
  The stakeholder proposals may assist in a rapid run-down of final salary schemes. We look to the Government to make some proposals that will protect the future of that structure of final salary schemes. That could be done in several ways, perhaps by mixing and matching final salary schemes and stakeholder schemes. The Government must be clear about what they will do before the Bill passes into law.
  The Opposition claim that an increasing number of people will be reliant on money-purchase schemes. If that is so, the Government must address the problem of annuities. We are forcing more and more people into an annuity trap that is now acute and that is likely, with the passage of the years, to get worse. If we have low inflation and interest rates, coupled with no gilts going onto the markets because Government finances are in balance and a steady and increasing flow of more private pension pots into the market, annuity rates will be driven down even further. The Government must consider the tax treatment of annuities and whether there is an alternative to the annuity system that will protect the purposes of a long-term tax-supported saving schemes that support people's incomes in retirement.
  The Government must also revise some of the tax proposals that accompany the stakeholder scheme. The present proposals allow for contributions of up to £3,600 a year with no link with earnings and net of tax. The purpose of that may be to extend the scheme to carers who have suitable funds, but people in higher income brackets will be able to take advantage of a substantial tax subsidy of up to £3,600 a year for non-earning partners and for children, because there is no lower limit on access to the stakeholder pension scheme and its tax support. From the moment a child is born, its parent could fire into the scheme £3,600 a year net of basic rate tax. It cannot have been the Government's intention to produce such a substantial element of reverse distribution in an overall pension scheme that is heavily focused—rightly—on people with low incomes.
  I am unclear what proposals the Liberal Democrats have to make on these issues, but the Conservatives have made it clear that they favour coercing people into private
  214
  sector money-purchase schemes. That cannot be a sensible approach until we have sorted out the problems of annuities. That is why it is so important that the state second pension scheme that the Bill will introduce is robust enough to become a permanent part of our pension arrangements. It is too dangerous to leave matters so that pensions could be rewritten at a later date. That would undermine public confidence in the whole scheme, as happened under the previous Administration, as would a shift to coercive contributions to private sector-funded schemes.
  Above all, when debating pensions we must remember that we should not be trying to find complex, back-end loaded solutions to what are front-end loaded problems. In an important speech just before Christmas, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said that
  "the truth is that the elderly population in this country is set to grow in the next 50 years at half the rate of the last 50 years. And the pressures in Britain will be much lower than in many other industrialised countries."
  We should take comfort from that.
  The people who should be the focus of our deliberations are those who are pensioners now and those who will become pensioners in the next 10 years. They are the people whose years on low incomes have not been supported by any additional pension scheme, and whose few pension rights are so small that they will be caught in the minimum income guarantee system for pensioners—if that system develops in the way that the Government, rightly, intend. We must focus on today's pensioners and pensioners to be, not on those who will be pensioners in 2040 and 2050.
  It is therefore extremely important that the Government's proposals for state second pensions will benefit today's pensioners-to-be. It is no use designing a scheme whose very real benefits will be felt only in many years' time. Such a scheme would cause to be forfeit the credibility of the proposals and of the belief that public sector, state-provided pensions will be our best protection, now and in the future, against forced membership of private sector-funded schemes.
  I hope that the Government will consider those matters and modify some of the Bill's proposals. The state second pension proposal, especially in its earnings-related phase, is excellent. It could change permanently people's approach to their prospects in retirement and to their activity in the present-day labour market. It could also change their lives as citizens through its promotion of caring for and support of others.
  The gains could be huge, but they must be supported by clear proposals to protect the scheme from some of the deficiencies that I have pointed out. If that is achieved, today's pensioners and pensioners-to-be will be able to feel properly covered by the proposals. I hope that the Government will consider some of the matters that I have raised and that we will be able to tease out some solutions in the course of our deliberations.
  In constituencies such as mine, there is a restlessness among pensioners and pensioners-to-be. Because of the pensions difficulties of the past few years and the problem of pension mis-selling, they are far more aware of their pension prospects than any previous generation of pensioners-to-be. They are anxious that the Bill will not benefit them in a meaningful way. I hope that the Government are able to respond to their concerns.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I listened carefully to the extremely erudite speech from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and to the powerful speeches from the hon. Members for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). They concentrated on pension provision; and although I intend to speak about the Child Support Agency, I want to note that an excellent opportunity for root-and-branch reform of the pension system might have been lost.
  The provisions in part III covering loss of benefit are an example of macho politics. They are the stuff of tabloids. They represent populism in extremis and they are legally highly questionable.
  I am one of those who believe that the CSA is almost beyond redemption. The ill-fated poll tax was amended three times before it eventually—and deservedly—hit the buffers. Similarly, the CSA is not long for this life either. However, for the purposes of today's debate, I shall accept the second-best position and examine the latest attempts to make the agency work.
  One of the basic complaints about the CSA—it is only one of many, I might add—will be familiar to all hon. Members. It is that the formula employed to determine the level of maintenance is complex and too rigid. The proposals in the Bill appear less complex and seem to be far more readily understood. That can only be good; no doubt, absent parents will be able to work out how much 15 per cent.—or 20 or 25 per cent.—of their earnings will be, but commentators in this area have grave reservations about the Bill.
  It seems almost bizarre that under no circumstances will the income of the resident mother or of the parent with care be taken into account, regardless of whether that person is very wealthy or on benefit. The Government say that that provision has not been adopted in the Bill because it would be too complicated to include the financial circumstances of that person, who more often than not is female. However, the Australian model, which does take account of that income, works perfectly well. I believe that the Select Committee on Social Security urged that consideration be given to adopting that approach.
  Furthermore, there appears to be no upper limit on the amount of child support that can be paid. That will probably affect rich people more than others and does not seem to me to be logical. I believe that earned income should be taken into account. For example, a self-employed father could set up a company and an account and pay himself a dividend from the money earned. Clearly, that would not be right, and proposals to prevent that should be included in the Bill.
  It is possible that the Bill will have the effect of reducing child support by about 30 per cent. Would that be good or bad? I believe that it would be bad. Perhaps the Government think that reducing the levy and requiring people to pay less will mean that bad payers will be more likely to pay. I do not know whether that argument holds up or, if it does, where its logic leads us.
  I am worried also about the blanket imposition of the CSA jurisdiction on all families. That will undermine and undo settlements that have been reached fairly through the courts. Family proceedings are dealt with in family and county courts. The system is not perfect, but by and large
  216
  it is equipped to carry out a comprehensive assessment of the parties' respective financial positions. More to the point, it is equipped to assess financial needs after a relationship breaks down, and the needs of the children involved. It is therefore strange that courts should deal with that part of a family's finances, only for the whole process to begin again with the CSA when the level of child maintenance is assessed.
  In the past, clean-break settlements have been a useful way of disposing of interlocutory application in divorce matters. They will now be brought into question again. Why should an agreement be reached, or capital given away, if that arrangement is to be torn up 12 months later and the process started all over again?
  Many commentators are worried about the way in which the Bill is framed. The Child Poverty Action Group raised a considerable number of concerns. One of them is very important and has to do with families on income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance. The organisation has stated:
  "Although the average level of assessment falls under the new scheme, some poorer 'second' families will find themselves paying more. 68 per cent. of the 150,000 non-resident parents who have increased assessments are on benefit or have incomes of less than £200 a week … Other non-resident parents on income support will be liable to pay the £5 a week minimum. This includes those responsible for children in a second family"—
  a point made earlier by other hon. Members and on which I shall not dwell. The briefing continues:
  "We understand that the Government wishes to encourage compliance and to ensure that as many children as possible receive maintenance."
  That has to be right. It goes on:
  "However, income support/income-based jobseekers allowance fall short of the levels of income required to meet the needs of families."
  The briefing then highlights points made in the debate today.
  Under the present law, the parent with care is required to authorise the Secretary of State to recover moneys from the other parent if the parent with care is in receipt of income support. That is going to change—probably for the good—but there are matters that must be considered carefully. The parent who authorises—very often, if not always, that parent is female—can show good cause. It is right that the good cause provisions are included in the Bill, especially as there will now be a presumption in favour of collection by the Secretary of State. That will place a burden on a mother at an extremely stressful time, following the breakdown of a relationship. The matter must be handled with great care, and I hope that it will be; otherwise, there is a danger that a person will feel almost harassed in the circumstances.
  As always, there are welcome provisions in the Bill, although they may be overshadowed by some of the points I have made. However, I welcome the provisions relating to second families to ensure that youngsters are not treated any differently from the youngsters in the other family unit. The apportionment proposals in schedule I are most welcome, as are the shared care provisions. These are important reforms which will rectify several current injustices.

  217
  On the matter of compliance and enforcement, I rang the CSA in my area last Friday. A young woman had come to see me who was £11,000 in arrears, having not been paid a single penny over the past two years. I spoke to a gentleman who said that he was sorry and that he should have dealt with the case in November. However, he had been in the Scotland Office, dealing with enforcement there. He said that he would do his best to get on with the job. I do not know him personally, and I know few people who work for the CSA. I know that it is a difficult job, and that it is not well paid. However, I urge the Government to give the staff the resources to do the work.
  I wish to refer to the "self-employed dodger", of whom I have several in my constituency. Some have disappeared off the face of the earth, while some have been found but still cannot be pinned down. Unless the people are available to do the enforcing, we might be wasting our time this evening and in Committee. I am sure that the question of resources will be looked at again.
  The access to income tax returns in this context is a welcome and common-sense approach. I am sure that that will be handled with care, as there must be some civil liberties questions arising from the matter. There are those who want to beat the system, but the system will take them on. That is quite right. I have seen—as have countless others—the dishonest person get away with it for far too long. On the other hand, the hard-working person in full employment who tries to make payments and who was previously assessed at a crippling level has been seen as a soft target. The emphasis may well shift to the dodgy character who is salting money away and trying to avoid responsibility.
  There are some practical improvements in the Bill, but there will be thousands of appeals to tribunals. That is almost inevitable. I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), who urged Ministers to consider extending legal aid to those who wish to take matters to a tribunal. I am not pleading on behalf of lawyers. I am saying that many people are not sufficiently able to present their case as it should be presented. I am not saying that every appellant must be represented, but we must make it comfortable for those who are unable to argue their case coherently to take the case to a tribunal. If there has to be some form of legal aid in these limited circumstances, let us do it—legal aid is given for far dafter things. I hope that the Government will consider that in Committee.
  The spectre of criminal sanctions for civil wrongs may well raise human rights issues. Previous speakers have mentioned that matter, and I shall not dwell on it. However, such sanctions should be used extremely sparingly, if they prove to be legal. I am extremely unhappy about depriving someone of a driving licence in this context, as other persons in the same situation will not face that penalty. Human rights legislation has been mentioned, but I shall not dwell on that point.
  I believe that the system should take account, as far as possible, of all the relevant circumstances. That means taking into account each individual's circumstances. If we
  218
  are talking about imposing a totally rigid, concrete system again, I am afraid that we may be looking at a further review in five years' time.
  The Law Society has said that a
  "perception of fairness in any new scheme would increase compliance, whereas inflexibility and harsh sanctions may increase the sense of injustice and lead to non-co-operation."
  There is some force in that argument.
  The Bill appears to be a genuine attempt to right many wrongs. It is far from perfect, and I hope that the matters to which I have referred and the concerns raised in the debate will be pursued in Committee. I hope that the CSA—almost a Frankenstein's monster—can be made more human and user-friendly when the Bill emerges from Committee. However, I believe that that is a tall order.
  8.16 pm
  Mrs. Eileen Gordon: I thank the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for his thoughtful remarks on the CSA, and I, too, wish to speak on that subject.
  As soon as it was created, it was clear that the CSA would never work properly or achieve its aims in the form in which it was set up. I know that we are starting a new millennium and that we are looking to the future, and I think that we are doing that tonight with these proposals for welfare reform. However, we take our history with us and we should learn from the past.
  I speak from my experience as a case worker for a Member of Parliament at the time the CSA was set up by the last Conservative Government. This evening, I thought I almost heard an apology from those on the Conservative Front Bench for the way in which the CSA was set up.
  We should not forget how bad things were in the beginning, and the impact was immediate and distressing. I worked for seven years as a case worker, and no other issue in that time came close to the chaotic situation created by the CSA. Our phones never stopped ringing from worried constituents, yet we could not get through to the agency. If by chance we got through, we never spoke to the same person twice and we did not know who we were speaking to. There was no useful information, and the agency did not get back to us.
  I do not believe in special treatment for Members of Parliament. I believe in equality—everyone should receive the same service. However, it crossed my mind that if this was how the CSA treated the offices of Members of Parliament, how was it treating the general public? I am glad that proposals for the better use of telephones and face-to-face interviews are part of the reforms.
  It became clear that the parents who were already supporting their children and who could be easily identified were being targeted—the easy targets. The assessments often did not make sense at all. We had one case where deduction of earnings was threatened, where the father would have been left with a minus income. It was obvious that the formula for calculating payments was so complicated that the staff did not understand it either.
  I am sure that the staff were doing their best, but with such a complex system and duff technology they did not stand a chance of getting it right. Anyone who was

  219
  involved at that time knows the litany of problems, such as non-resident parents who received huge arrears demands because the form had gone in and payments were due from that day rather than from when the parent received notification of the amount. The delays caused by the system could be six months or more, yet it was the parents who were penalised. In some cases, forms were lost; in others, people received three letters on the same day saying completely different things. Unfortunately, these problems still arise.
  Many people came into the advice surgery close to despair. It was awful. Some parents were no longer able to keep contact and visit their children because of the high payments demanded. My instinct at that time was that the whole system should be abolished. However, having thought about it since, I think that we would have to reinvent that wheel. I certainly do not want to adopt the Liberal Democrat solution of reinventing the wheel in favour of lawyers.
  I have always believed that both parents should have responsibility for their children. A child is not a one-night stand—a child is for life, as is the responsibility for that child.
  Mr. John Smith: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially when time is so short. She mentioned one-night stands. Is she aware of the loophole in the current legislation whereby absent fathers who have had children as a result of one-off and clandestine relationships outside their marriage can evade paying any child support? My constituent, Mrs. Jane Jones from Llangan, has not received one penny from her former husband, a wealthy business man, even though a court order was made in her favour in 1992, because the Child Support Agency discovered that he had a child with a prior claim outside the relationship. Under the ludicrous rule of confidentiality, the CSA refused to pursue him. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the Bill should be used to remove that loophole.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That is far too long an intervention.
  Mrs. Gordon: I do agree with my hon. Friend. Such a loophole is a disgrace, and I hope that it will be considered in Committee.
  The Child Support Agency was dealing with responsible parents, rather than tracking down the irresponsible ones—the opposite of its stated intention. Changes have been made since the agency's disastrous launch, but tinkering at the edges could not solve the fatal flaw of the complicated formula for payment, which tied everyone up in bureaucracy. That is why I welcome the simplified formula. Some may say that it is too simple, but people will know where they stand. They may even be able to calculate their payments, which they could never do in the past. The proposed system is much fairer and, with the use of reliable modern technology, should result in a more streamlined service.
  The Bill's first concern is the child. I am pleased that second families will be taken into account, and that stepchildren will be treated the same as second family children. I think that all children from the various relationships should be treated equally—they all have the same needs, and should have the same opportunities. I hope that that will be discussed in Committee.
  220
  Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is not in his place at present, I welcome the good cause provision. It will ensure that parents who are genuinely in fear of their ex-partners will not be penalised if they do not disclose information. I know that it can, as my right hon. Friend said, be used as a scam. However, when I visited the local women's refuge, I met women who were in deadly fear of their ex-partners. They feared for their safety and, indeed, for their lives, and those of their children.
  It is estimated that more than 1 million children will benefit from the new system. Many children live in extremely complicated family structures. The Bill, and the reform of the CSA, will stop more children slipping into poverty. A child does not choose its parents, but bringing a life into the world is an awesome responsibility.
  I hope that the reforms will be put in place as soon as possible, although I recognise that they must be implemented properly if they are to work better than the original proposals. I will never forget the introduction of the CSA, the ensuing chaos and the real pain that it caused parents. Many of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench were in this place then, and they have learned from the previous Government's mistakes. I trust them to implement the reforms properly, and to ensure a fair and just system for parents and especially for children.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: This has been an interesting and enjoyable debate, and I am pleased to have been called to speak in it.
  I want to apologise for anything that I have been involved in to do with the Child Support Agency. I was for two years Parliamentary Private Secretary to Alistair Burt; I listened to what colleagues said about the CSA before it was introduced, when it was introduced, and when we amended it. I am convinced that we never got it right. Having made that admission freely, I have to say that neither has the Bill got it right. It is going down the same wrong road, and I hope in my speech to show how it may be improved.
  I am sure that colleagues will acknowledge by common consent that Alistair Burt was a decent Minister, who attempted to do his best. They will also acknowledge that when the Child Support Agency was promulgated, it had all-party support. The things that we worried would go wrong never did. All our predictions were unfounded. We worried about parents with care not wanting to co-operate, but in general they did. The problem was that the amount of money individuals were asked to pay was seen to be too high. People said that the amounts were unfair and that they could not pay. They were complaining not about the formula, but about the amount of money that the Government were attempting to take from them.
  My job as a PPS was to go to all the meetings protesting about the measures—my Conservative colleagues were protesting just as strongly as others—and to listen to what was said. The Government responded by making things more complicated, by taking more into account. We tried to move away from a simple formula that we thought everyone could understand—such as the one that the Labour Government want to re-introduce and to establish other disregards. That tended to lower slightly the amount that we were trying to collect. Some cases solved themselves, but the vast majority of people

  221
  continued to say, "This is too much money—I cannot afford it". By trying to take that extra amount, we ended up by getting nothing for people.
  If people can afford to pay £30 a week and are asked to pay £40, they do not pay anything and try to find ways of getting out of the system. They have been extraordinarily successful. According to the figures in the reports, 1.5 million children should be helped by the CSA, but only about 250,000 or 300,000 receive anything and only 100,000 receive the amount to which they are entitled. That shows that the system is not working.
  I say to the Minister, with all the passion that I can muster, please, please, please consider what we shall be asking people to pay. For example, let us consider a couple who are probably living right up to their means, who break up and move to separate houses. All of a sudden a guy, who has perhaps left his home, has to find another quarter of his income to pay into the second household. If that was unacceptable and could not be done under the previous system, it will not be done in the future.
  The figures are amazing. It is said that the average payment at present is £38 a week. That is derisory. Under these proposals, the amount will go down to £30 a week. What incomes are we talking about, if those are the low figures that are collected? People with an income of £20,000 a year after tax should be paying about £100 a week. Many people will apparently pay very little.
  I make the same proposals that I made to my previous bosses—perhaps that is why I ceased to be a PPS—and to the Labour Government when they came to power. I admit my culpability in not realising that the Conservatives were taking the wrong direction—I certainly did not see where we were going. We can tell absent parents that there is a fair amount that they should pay to their children. That amount would probably be between £40 and £45 for the first child, about £50 for the second and about £75 for the third. I suspect that those are the amounts that absent parents would volunteer to pay if they knew that the amounts had been set and that they did not have to fill in a form. They would never have to declare their income; they would never have to tell anyone what they were doing. On the day that they broke up, they would know that they would be required to pay a certain amount. It might be uprated in line with earnings or social security benefits and so on, but that would be the amount that people would pay.
  My guess is that people who said that they could not afford even those amounts would still tend to pay a higher amount than the state would allow them to get away with. My suggestion is that by implementing a fixed figure that is seen to be reasonable, we would, at a stroke, get rid of two thirds or three quarters of the CSA's load. The only people who would have to fill in a form would be those who genuinely said, "I cannot afford to pay this, I am making my bid to pay less". Perhaps the percentage of people who had to fill in a form would be the one that Ministers are expecting; I hope that it would be lower. There should be a system that is as simple as possible to assess whether people could really pay. The system should have some flexibility, because people find it difficult to work with absolute formulas.
  222
  We know already that many couples who have broken up have given some excuse to the CSA. They do not want to play; they have gone off and made their own deals outside the CSA. People have accepted that. We are about to reopen all the cases in which we bullied people into giving us information. No matter how easy the formula is, some people will always try to avoid revealing their income. It could be that, at the end of the year, the income tax collector will ask people how much their income was after tax. However, that almost begs the question whether people will try to change their income so as to pay less income tax and national insurance. They will hide the details of their income.
  I understand that Ministers have been considering the possibility of people not including under income the investment income or dividends that they receive. People with a reasonably large income can generally make arrangements through their employer or switch between salary and unearned income. Thus, they could avoid their liabilities. To have a situation in which there are absolutely no limits, where everyone is to be pursued for every last penny of 25 per cent., or 20 or 15 per cent., of their income will simply add to the work load of the CSA. Surely, we are trying to avoid giving it such additional work.
  I plead with the Minister to consider setting a fairly low limit so that we can start to achieve what we set out to achieve out in the first place. Parents should make a reasonable contribution towards their children. However, many people will say, "Hang on a minute. If people are terribly rich should not their children receive more money." That is absolutely right. If I were separated from my wife and my children were still of school age, I would feel duty bound to pay more money than the Government insisted I paid. However, that is what any normal human being should do for his or her children. The Government should merely be involved in setting the minimum amount of money and they should insist that people pay that sum if they can afford it. They should not say that they will continue to increase the figures.
  For two years, I had to listen to complaints and interpret them for Ministers. However, I woke up one night and asked whether it would not be better to cut out the vast majority of cases by setting a simple base figure. People were committing suicide but, on average, we were getting only £20 a week from people for child support. That was nonsense, so we should create a practical system that will work.
  I am sure that Alistair Burt is not too busy these days, but I suggest that Ministers pay his rail fare, buy him lunch and ask him to consider the proposals in the Bill. He has heard all these arguments in the past, so I am sure that it would be worthwhile to have lunch with him. In fact, if one gave him a £50,000 consultancy—incidentally, I am not his agent—to advise the Government, I suspect that that would mean that a lot of money would be very well spent.
  I have not referred to my notes, but I have said what I wanted to say about the Child Support Agency. I now wish to refer briefly to pensions. Again, I am concerned that the Government are going down the wrong route. Governments have proven to be the most unreliable provider of pensions. If one compares what Governments have done to pensioners with what Robert Maxwell did, Robert Maxwell seems a saint. Each time Governments have offered guarantees to pensioners by telling them that

  223
  they will receive certain benefits for their contributions, the promises get kicked into touch. What people put in is not in any way related to the money that they get out. We have talked about the contributory principle, but no court of law would suggest that the amount of money going into a scheme and the amount coming out reflected any sort of natural justice. We must consider the proposals for pensions very carefully.
  I began work as an apprentice with a limited company and when I changed my job years ago, one had to have one's pension contributions back. We tried to amend the law so that people could transfer their money, but we left a problem for this Government to deal with. When people change their scheme, they try to take too much money and do not put enough into the next scheme. That problem needs to be tackled.
  I then went into self-employment, but I am not allowed to continue the pension scheme that I started as a self-employed person. I have to make it paid up and I cannot switch it over. The Government suggested that they might start to do something about that. I also have a limited company that has a pension scheme. I do not take any income from that scheme, so I must have that as a paid-up pension scheme, too. The system is very complicated.
  To my mind, personal pensions are the right way to go, but we must understand what mis-selling was about. Pension companies were telling individuals whose employers paid into their pension schemes that they should come out of such schemes and go into personal pension schemes. The companies also charged far more than they should have done. Despite that, it is better for an employer to pay into a pension fund that has the employee's name rather than that of the company on it. That is the right way to go because such a pension can go with a person if he moves from job to job. If the Government try to achieve a funded scheme along those lines, they will do everyone a favour because frankly we cannot rely on the Government scheme.
  The Government have to perform a spin trick. If one tells people that they have to pay taxes into their pension, they hate it. If, however, one performs a spin trick whereby people put money into their own savings, rather than paying taxes, they are much happier. If we did that, we could also say that we had reduced taxes and increased savings, which is good from any political standpoint, and that is the trick that we must all seek to perform.
  8.40 pm
  Mrs. Joan Humble: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, especially after so many thoughtful and interesting contributions.
  I shall concentrate my remarks on the Child Support Agency, but I shall first make an observation about war pensions. Many of my constituents work for the War Pensions Agency at Norcross near Blackpool, and I know how hard they work to get assessments right in the first place. I am also aware that sometimes they do not get them right, and appeals are made. I have three constituents who have been waiting months and months to have appeals heard. They are all elderly, and they cannot afford to wait much longer. I therefore welcome the clauses that will speed up the appeals procedure. I hope that my hon. Friends will also consider speeding up the assessment procedure in the War Pensions Agency.
  224
  Turning to the proposals for the CSA, I am pleased that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the need for change. There is a consensus that parents have a responsibility to provide for their children. When the previous Government set up the CSA, almost everyone agreed with that underlying philosophy. The problems arose because of the practicalities of implementing the legislation. Clearly, there are lessons that we need to learn to make sure that the implementation of this Bill does not lead to the problems that we experienced last time.
  The spectre of the CSA has hung over too many people for far too long. The agency has failed the children whom it was designed to help, but it has also caused anger among their parents—more anger than is necessary in the breakdown of any relationship. With the new regulations, we need to encourage parents to work together in the best interests of their children, instead of trying to avoid their responsibilities, as so many do.
  We know from earlier contributions that the CSA has almost 1.5 million children on its books, but only around 250,000 are gaining financially from child support payments. As staff deal with up to 100 items of information in each case, huge delays are built into the system. As delays occur, so arrears accrue that non-resident parents cannot pay. When they cannot pay, they do not want to pay, so the whole child support system becomes discredited.
  We have to remember that behind all the statistics about the CSA, there are real people whose lives have been blighted. Like many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, I have dealt with many constituents who have suffered at the hands of the CSA and who come to me out of anger, frustration and desperation. I have met mothers who are totally unable to get any money from the fathers of their children. Some of those mothers have been married to wealthy or self-employed men who have avoided payment but continued to live an affluent life style, thereby not only causing anguish to their former partners but sending their children the message that they do not care. Something must be done about that.
  Equally, there are second families where the fathers are paying their CSA assessments. Sometimes they cannot afford to make the payments because they accepted debts, often credit card or loan debts, at the breakdown of the previous relationship. They find that the CSA cannot include these payments in its calculations, but the debts still have to be paid. The CSA produces assessments that fathers want to pay but cannot. Constituents have told me how the CSA has failed them and their children. That is why I am pleased that the Government are proposing radical changes instead of tinkering with the system. Everything that could go wrong with the CSA has gone wrong.
  The simplified formula that is set out in the Bill will help staff to do their job more quickly, efficiently and accurately. Soon after I was elected to this place, I obtained a copy of the CSA assessment procedures that the staff have to complete. It took me a long time to read it. I read it three or four times, and I still could not understand it. I have a deal of sympathy with the staff who were trying to make the assessments. I well understand how they made so many incorrect assessments. The new, simplified formula should help them to produce correct assessments at the first stage.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: My hon. Friend has made an important point. At present, the charter

  225
  allows the CSA to take 22 weeks to respond to queries about an assessment. The new and simplified system should ensure that the turn-round is much faster than that. That alone will create a great deal of good will in rectifying injustices.
  Mrs. Humble: I agree with my hon. Friend. The new system will help parents to have a clearer idea of how much they should be paying out and how much they are likely to receive. In many instances constituents come to me with complex assessments, not knowing how they have been arrived at. They do not understand why they should pay what they are being asked to pay.
  I welcome the proposed £10 child maintenance premium, which together with the maintenance disregard for working families tax credit, will be a valuable tool in the fight against child poverty.
  I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security. As a member of the Committee, I was pleased to take part in detailed discussions. Many people gave evidence to us and many heartfelt representations were made. The majority of those who made submissions in writing or who came to give evidence to the Committee were supportive of the reforms although there were one or two problems with them.
  Paradoxically, the problem that was highlighted by the Committee's report and by people who gave evidence to us was that because so many people welcomed the proposed changes, there were concerns that clients under the existing system would feel aggrieved if the transitional period leading into the new system was prolonged. As the Select Committee's report points out, it will be difficult to operate two systems over a prolonged period. That could lead to a sense of unfairness.
  I think that we all realise that if we cannot bring everybody on to the new system in one big bang, there must be a period of transition. We must ensure that the new system works if we are to ensure fairness for new claimants and for the old claimants who are transferred. I hope that there will be detailed debates on the Bill and that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench will offer reassurances to existing clients on the time scale that they can expect for the transitional period.
  Consideration should also be given to existing claimants who want their cases to be reviewed during the transition period. Are such cases to be given new assessments that will be phased in, or will they be brought on to the new system? We must assure existing claimants that we shall examine such complexities as soon as possible, while doing all we can to ensure that the current system takes care of their best interests, and those of their children, as well as possible under the existing rules.
  I recognise that, in part, the problems of the transition period will be resolved only if the information technology available proves reliable. I am no expert in computers and IT, so I listen to the advice that I am given by others. I hope that the new systems being considered by the Government for use by the CSA will be sufficient to deal with the complexities of both the current system and the new system that we propose to introduce. If they are, people will be assured of receiving a far better service than is currently provided.
  226
  The new system, new technology and the training in dealing with claimants that staff are to receive are influenced by the changing, more complex family circumstances in which many children are now brought up. The Bill takes careful consideration of shared care arrangements. I welcome its provisions in that respect, in part because I want parents to talk to each other about the care of their children; it is in the child's best interests if apportioning child maintenance helps parents to do that.
  I am also aware that the Bill and the preceding White Paper refer to first and second families, but there are many first, second, third and fourth families. I listened with interest to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith). I encountered a similar case, in which a mother applied to the CSA for support, but, on making inquiries, the CSA discovered that the father of her child had fathered another child, and it could not proceed with her application because of the confidentiality of the previous application. The family were left in limbo, despite the fact that the father had a responsibility to both children. I entered into an interesting correspondence with the CSA on that matter.
  The Bill refers to children of a relationship who have an entitlement to support. I hope I understand correctly that that means all the children of a father and that any assessments will take into account and apportion the percentage payments across all those children. Dealing with such complex family arrangements is difficult, not only in terms of financial assessment, but when CSA staff talk to people on the telephone. I hope that Ministers will ensure that CSA staff training covers not only the new assessment procedures, but dealing sympathetically with members of the public from extremely diverse family backgrounds. I am sure that issues of confidentiality will be taken into account, but the basic point is to ensure that all children receive their full entitlement.
  When the Social Security Committee visited Falkirk, we found that CSA staff were keen to do a good job. They want us to give them the tools that they need. I am sure that we shall do so.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: It has been noticeable that virtually every Back-Bench contribution has concentrated on one particular aspect of the Bill. I intend to follow that example. It is almost inevitable, because we are really dealing with three Bills. It is difficult to discern any general principle that holds the entire Bill together as a unity.
  If the objective is to reduce complexity in the provisions for child support, it is utterly confounded by the complexity heaped on the arrangements for pension reform. If the objective is to reduce pensioner poverty, it is confounded by the arrangements for the minimum pension guarantee, which are almost calculated to deliver pensioner poverty in the future by their diminution of incentives.
  I shall concentrate on the provisions for child support. From experience at constituency advice sessions, no hon. Member can be unaware of the magnitude of the social problem that we face. Nevertheless, we continue to have unrealistic expectations of the Child Support Agency.
  When I am confronted by a child support case, I am often profoundly affected by the complete absence of any notion of contributory negligence on the part of the

  227
  victims themselves when they come to complain to me about the Jezebel or fiend whom they married and about whose behaviour they now complain. The CSA finds itself in the middle, between the warring parties. It cannot satisfy one customer without of necessity dissatisfying the other, yet we continue to maintain the language of "clients" and "customer satisfaction", which is entirely inappropriate.
  If the proposed reform delivers its objective by radical simplification of the formula—the objective of administrative efficiency—there will be a huge reduction in the number of complaints about delay, incompetence and maladministration, but that will be accompanied by a vast increase in complaints of another sort—complaints about the nature of the rough justice that will be meted out by the new simplified formula.
  Ministers have said that rough justice is better than no justice at all, and I agree, but let us be clear about the nature of the rough justice that will be delivered by the formula. As I pointed out to the Deputy Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration when he gave evidence, complaints about rough justice are not complaints on which he will be able to adjudicate, because they are the deliberate and calculated product of the new simplified system.
  I went on to say to the Deputy Parliamentary Commissioner that we should abandon any notion of customer satisfaction, and accept that the agency is never going to be loved and that we might make a virtue of the rough justice by saying
  "that it is the proper penalty or disincentive for the condition into which the customer has delivered himself.
  That is pretty uncompromising language. The Deputy Parliamentary Commissioner's reply was revealing. He said:
  "Whether you should do that I think I have to leave to your own judgment. Have you accurately summarised what I believe to be the dilemma everyone is going to have to face? Yes, I believe you have."
  What are we considering? We are saying that dealing with the Child Support Agency on the basis of the simplified formula—the rough justice—is the penalty for being in the condition in which one finds oneself. Other people, who are not in that condition, can afford the luxury of private arrangements and do not have to deal with the agency. In a perverse sense, family break-up and divorce has often been a luxury consumer item reserved for those who could afford it. It is now generally available and the punishment is the rough justice meted out by the Child Support Agency. That is an example of the principle of less eligibility, which was fundamental to the poor law reform in 1834, and is now central to the Bill's reform of the Child Support Agency. I have never shrunk from the principle of less eligibility, but it is extraordinary that so many Labour Members now embrace it.
  9.1 pm
  Kali Mountford: I want to preface my remarks by thanking the Child Support Agency staff who work in Belfast. Since the new unit was formed, its staff have greatly helped my office and me. They work under tremendous pressure and in difficult circumstances. They told me this week that my number is on their white board as that of a regular correspondent to whom they respond quickly. Other hon. Members have made the point that
  228
  everybody, not only thorns in the side, should receive a quick response. Nevertheless, agency staff need our thanks because they bear no responsibility for the way in which the agency was set up.
  The House should recall that it was unanimously agreed that absent parents should be responsible for their children. That principle should not be taken away. It is an important principle that fathers or mothers who no longer live with their children should continue to maintain them. It would be better if children were maintained out of love, but it is a sad fact of life that, before the Child Support Agency was created, the previous court system did not work. People who used that system encountered many other problems. Liberal Democrat Members should take note of that. They may recall that the previous system was a blunt instrument—blunter than the simplified formula that they criticise. The most crucial problem with the court system was that it provided for no automatic right of appeal, review or update. Every time a change in circumstances occurred, the individual—usually the mother—had to return to the courts. That procedure was not only lengthy, but expensive and extremely onerous for the parents.
  I welcome a new, simplified formula. During the debate, we have considered human behaviour and the way in which people respond to one another. That is crucial. The way in which the current formula has been used as an instrument by warring partners against each other has not been raised often. The complexity of the current formula enables people to bat the matter backwards and forwards. The child, who is in the centre, is completely forgotten, such is the enmity of some break-ups. Such children have dreadful experiences—not only a lack of maintenance and support, but being used by their parents. Warring partners will doubtless find new instruments with which to attack each other, but the child should not be an element in that assault.
  The child is crucial. The key issue is not whether that instrument is blunt, fair or finely tuned, but recognition of the fact that the child needs, and is entitled to, support. There must be a mechanism for providing swift delivery, which is absolutely essential and can be achieved only by a simplified formula. We could debate for ever whether it is fair to include this or that provision in the formula, or we could make it more complicated again, but we should guard against that because it would return us to the current system. The Government should take note of that.
  I also ask the Government to give me an assurance on clause 3, about which I have grave concerns. I understand completely why they want to tighten rules. Warring partners who have parted find themselves in a position where they can abuse the system to suit themselves—not necessarily the children—by claiming that a certain situation exists so that both parties get something out of that system—and income support pays when the father ought to be paying. The problem with making such a change—and I understand why it needs to be done—is that I fear that mothers fleeing violence may not make the necessary provisions to safeguard themselves because they are not in the best mental state to do so.
  It is possible to use procedures to make sure that income support application forms allow the mother to consider whether she wants to claim against the absent father, although they do not have to be included in the Bill. Many of us have experience of women fleeing violence, and anyone who has spent any time with such

  229
  women will know that the violent partner will use any excuse to pursue the departing mother and inflict more damage on her. It is possible within such procedures to make sure that we protect mothers. I would like an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—if not tonight, at another stage of our consideration of the Bill—that those women will be protected. I do not believe that the Government intend to put them in danger and I expect to receive that an assurance at some point.
  We have argued about complexity and non-complexity and whether the complexity of the CSA ought to be carried through to the new system for pensions. It has been alleged that there is a dichotomy in respect of whether we are being consistent, but there is a distinct difference between the complexity that can be used by warring partners and the complexity that might be necessary in a pension system. The current pension system is already very complex, so adding another tier of legislation would create another step and naturally make it more complicated—but does that necessarily mean that the additional layer would in itself be wrong? I would argue that it would not, because there are groups of people who, without the Bill, would have nothing whatever available to them. They would be dependent on income support-related pension schemes, which we now call the minimum pension guarantee, but we must not completely disregard carers who have made a huge contribution—not only to their families, but to society as a whole—by caring for their loved ones. To put that contribution in financial terms, I saw it described as worth £31 million a year, which is a huge sum.
  Carers are usually women. They are doing the country a service by caring for people, so it is right to recognise that through a properly funded pension scheme. The second state pension scheme goes some way to achieving that, but I have had a thought of my own, which I have shared with the Minister and the Secretary of State: we should look beyond the Bill and what we want to achieve through it for the future and think about whether we should be considering pensioner provision as a whole. I think we call that joined-up government these days.
  An aspect of Government policy that could be readily and usefully translated into pensions law is the provision of personal advisers. Some speakers have commended the idea of a named individual, but the personal adviser could play a special role, which I think the Government should take into account in future legislation. Such advisers could deal with some of the complexities to which hon. Members have referred.
  People may not need pensions advisers throughout their lives; there are times when advice should be sought elsewhere. They will receive statements about their pensions, and during their working lives there will be triggers reminding them of the state of pension provision and prompting them to consider whether they should take out further pensions on their own behalf. Shortly before retirement, however, life becomes more difficult—people realise how little time is left and reflect that they may not have made adequate provision.
  At present, people are not even claiming all that they are entitled to claim. In that context, benefits advisers have a special role that they are not currently asked to undertake. When people receive their national insurance contributions read-out, about six months before retirement, someone should be saying, "Let's talk about your pension provision.
  230
  Should you not be claiming minimum pension guarantee?". We are always talking about the take-up of benefits; if we provided advice on benefits at the appropriate time, we could prevent people from falling out of the system and into deeper poverty. That would also be a suitable time for the discussion of other arrangements that such people might be making for their old age.
  I urge the Government to consider, for the purposes of future legislation, the tensions that exist between budgets applying to pensioners. I am thinking of the budgets of the national health service and local government social services departments, as well as those of the Benefits Agency. The tension between care and provision is often artificial: in many instances, the restrictions imposed on a call on the public purse relate to a specific aspect of provision, regardless of whether it is within the remit of the Department involved. Pensioners are whole people, and our response to how they are to live out their retirement should accordingly be holistic.
  At the turn of a millennium, we must consider changes in social life. Society has changed rapidly over time, and social provision has had to respond to that change. We must now look forward to the rapid social change that we are bound to experience over the next 100 years. For instance, people will live, on average, 30 years longer. Although the Bill may well be adequate in terms of what we are debating today, it will inevitably run out of steam. We should consider how we are to provide a viable old age for people far into the future. If our pensions provisions are to be sustainable, we must have a proper debate about how a diminishing number of people in work are to pay for the increasing number who will be in retirement. At some time the strain will become immense, and the pay-as-you-go scheme may well crack.
  We may have to consider other measures, such as an increased working time. I would probably welcome that as I grew older and did not want to retire. Flexibility is another option. The TUC has been considering flexible arrangements for a long time, and, indeed, the Labour party has considered the idea of a flexible decade of retirement. When the Government have completed their work on this welcome Bill, they should continue to look forward to the many social changes that we are bound to experience and reflect on how we are to respond to them.
  9.14 pm
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to contribute to what is an interesting debate. I shall focus most of my remarks on the CSA, but, on pensions, let me say that the real reason why the Government wish to introduce a state second pension is that they have failed miserably to deliver all the pledges on the original state pension that they made during the last general election campaign. Judging by my mailbag, pensioners in my constituency of Vale of York are hugely disappointed at the derisory increase that the Government announced this year. The Minister might consider that matter before he himself becomes a pensioner.
  The challenge that faces the Government is a missed opportunity. They had the opportunity to impose proper reforms to simplify the social security system and they have blown it. Instead, they are introducing reforms that are even more complex than those that continue today. The Secretary of State said that the crux of the problem is twofold. First, calculations are too complicated and take too long to assess. Secondly, corrections are too slow for implementation to take place.

  231
  The Minister must put the House's mind at rest as to how the dual system will run in the transitional period. The Government have to satisfy us and our constituents about how the transitional period will operate.
  I am hugely disappointed following my correspondence with Baroness Hollis of Heigham in the other place. She said that the Bill would put my mind at rest on the subject of overtime. Neither the comments this evening nor the Bill itself have satisfied me that the Government will take overtime out of the initial assessment. Judging by what constituents have said to me, it is wrong to count overtime—which is, by definition, not a permanent feature, particularly for employees in industries such as construction and engineering and for sales staff, who do overtime before Christmas—as part of overall permanent income. I should like the Minister to rule out the possibility of overtime being part of the overall assessment.
  I am slightly concerned that the Government will resort to more telephone contact between CSA staff and constituents, particularly those in Vale of York. Judging by correspondence that I have had and meetings at my surgeries, constituents are not always left with the best impression by CSA staff. That is understandable. We all understand that CSA staff work under huge pressure and are probably understaffed, but there is no excuse for a member of the agency to be rude to constituents. Perhaps some charm school offensive could be undertaken as part of the Bill before the CSA provisions come into effect.
  The Green Paper promised that the consultation results would be made public. The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), will recall her reply to me at the November Social Security questions. She told me that the reason why the correspondence and results of the consultation would not be made public would become obvious when the Bill was published. Can we conclude that those show that the overwhelming majority of people, including me, other Members, outside bodies and many private individuals, such as constituents who wrote in at our suggestion, were against the proposed Government reforms? Is that why the Government are loth to publish the results of the consultation?
  I mention the case of Mr. Michael Donaghy in Vale of York, who has been left in extraordinary circumstances. He is not the parent, but is in charge of a boy whom he is bringing up as his own. The absent father, has been making payments, but the CSA informs me that those will stop. Mr. Donaghy will be left with no provision other than his income, which is very modest. I plead with the Minister to reopen Mr. Donaghy's case, as the reforms that the House is considering today will offer him no consolation.
  I commend the official Opposition's reasoned amendment, and hope that the House will support it.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who speaks with great knowledge on the subject. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister of State will say why the responses to the consultation have not been published. My hon. Friend has not only legitimately asked that question, but doggedly pursued an answer to it.
  I also have little doubt that, when my hon. Friend talks about the need for a charm school offensive, she had me in mind as someone who might lead it.
  232
  This debate has been interesting, not least because the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith)—who has left the Chamber—decided to use it as an occasion on which to name one of his constituents as an adulterer. Tomorrow morning, the gentleman named will undoubtedly have something interesting to read about over his cornflakes.
  Like the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), I am humbled by the breadth of knowledge about pensions on both sides of the House. Nevertheless, what unites all hon. Members is that we are all experts on the Child Support Agency; as a result of our various constituency surgeries, advice centres, advice bureaux—whatever one calls them—we have become very familiar with the agency's internal workings. However, unlike some hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, when I have dealt with CSA staff as a constituency Member of Parliament, I have always found them to be unfailingly courteous and increasingly efficient in their deliberations.
  Before I go much further in my speech, I should like to express the regrets of the official Opposition that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), is planning not to stand at the next general election. Not only will he be greatly missed in the House, but he looks far too young to retire—although he may possibly go on to greater heights. We wish him well.
  The Secretary of State said that this legislation is the CSA's last chance. Therefore, it is even more important that we get the legislation right. If this is the CSA's last chance, we shall have to ensure that the proposed reforms work. However, as the Minister's neighbour, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), said, there is much to put right in the Government's proposals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) reminded us that the original proposals establishing the Child Support Agency enjoyed all-party support. He also told us—it was particularly interesting—that the problems that the House envisaged when establishing the agency did not occur, but that we have encountered an entirely new set of problems. I tell Labour Members—in some friendship—that that is the risk with this legislation.
  We accept the need for change, but have to ensure that we do not simply exchange one set of problems for another. Our objective surely must be to ensure that children are supported and that parents accept their duty of financial responsibility for their children.
  The Committee—on which I hope to serve—will have the considerable advantage of having the Social Security Committee's report, which I have found to be extremely useful. I should like particularly to draw the House's attention to a very useful letter from Australia—from the family court of Australia and the chambers of Mr. Justice Kay, who offers us just over two and a half pages of advice. I shall quote one sentence which would serve the House well. It states:
  "The success of the scheme may well depend on the extent to which the public perceive it to be fair."
  I am pleased to see Ministers nodding in agreement.
  I believe that children should be treated equally. Sadly, I have to tell my neighbour, the hon. Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon), that she is wrong and that, under the Government's proposals, children of a second marriage are treated materially differently. The hon. Lady may be

  233
  forgiven for that mistake because the White Paper offered two options and the Government chose the one under which children were not on an equal footing. I hope that the hon. Lady is selected to serve on the Standing Committee, as we hope to put that right.
  Mrs. Gordon: I am concerned that children should be treated equally and I hope that the Committee will consider that point.
  Mr. Pickles: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support. Let me reiterate to the Whip on duty that I hope that she is selected to serve on the Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) warned about the consequences of rough justice. The Government made a virtue of the simplicity of the new system. We are not unsympathetic to that view. Surely everyone is in favour of a simpler system, but removing complexity has a cost. The simpler we make the system, the more we risk individual loss. The Government talk about rough justice, but for some there will be no justice.
  Under the basic scheme, one would expect a number of clear exemptions. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) warned that the number of variations will undoubtedly increase and that, in two or three years' time, it will not be dissimilar from the number of variations under the current system.
  The Government refer to a new concept of rough justice. We know that 350,000 parents with care will be worse off by an average of £17 a week. I put that point to the Secretary of State on 29 November at column 4 of Hansard. The right hon. Gentleman seemed unaware of that figure. He thought that I was talking about the contributions made by parents without care. So let us assume that the figure of 350,000 is right, as it was supplied by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle). Let us also assume that the Secretary of State's statement that 1 million children will be better off under the scheme is right. So, if 350,00 parents with care will be worse off, assuming that they have an average of 2.4 children, 840,000 children will be worse off by the provisions. Allowing for a margin of error, that is virtually one for one so that, for every child that will be a winner under the new system according to the Government's figures, there will also be a loser. That does not seem to be an improvement in the system. Half will lose and half will gain. The Government need to get their strategy right.
  When the Under-Secretary introduced the doctrine, she said that it will be good for everyone if people receive a small sum rather than a theoretical sum. Have the Government not heard of an enforcement strategy and actually making people pay? We are prepared to take away people's driving licences and at some time we will probably take away their passports; why do we not simply make them pay? That seems much more sensible.
  Who are the people who will lose? As we are fortunate enough to have Mr. Nicholas Mostyn QC's figures on page 86 of the Select Committee report, we know that those with former partners and who earn just above the national average male manual earnings or the national average male non-manual earnings will be worse off. Those are the
  234
  people who are going to be receiving a lot less. The people who are going to be paying out, according to Mr. Mostyn, are those who are on well below average earnings. They will see an increase of around 170 per cent. That surely makes no sense. The Government cannot expect support for such a warped and unjust scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) was right when he pointed out how dissatisfied poor people are with Labour.
  It is also inequitable to have no upper limit. A measure supposedly designed to help children is nothing more than social engineering. The number of children involved will damage the public's confidence in the reform. It is clearly illogical not to have an upper limit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is illogical because the measure is designed to ensure that children receive maintenance, not to ensure that they receive a share of the parent's wealth. That is a wholly new concept in English law.[Interruption.] Labour Members disagree, but it is a topsy-turvy world to create a new concept in English law only for children of a marriage that has broken down but not for children of a marriage that has not broken down. If a child's parents live happily together, he or she does not have a right to a share of the wealth but, if the parents break up, he or she will have that right. Furthermore, there is no way to enforce transfer of that wealth to the child. If the money is spent on luxuries that have no benefit to the child, he or she will have no recourse. It is little wonder that Mr. Alistair Henry, a practising lawyer, has said—in a letter sent to all right hon. and hon. Members, that the Bill will create a world of little Lord Fauntleroys.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that wealthy parents do not transfer a proportion of their wealth to their children by giving them, for example, tax-free donations to their savings or helping them through university? He is talking nonsense.
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady has missed the point completely. Parents may transfer wealth to their children of their own volition, but the proposals in the Bill would introduce a mechanism by which non-resident parents had to transfer their wealth to their former spouses, not their children. Financial settlements would be turned on their heads, and that makes no sense. The original recommendation of the Social Security Committee was that there should be an upper limit. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) was right to warn of the effect that the proposals will have.
  I have already told the House about Mr. Justice Kay's advice that the public must perceive the scheme to be fair, but it will be unfair if the income of the parent with care is not assessed when that person has a higher income than the parent without care. That will lead to great distress and great damage to public confidence in the system. The object is to ensure fair maintenance for the children, not to offer a further means by which wealthy parents with care can damage less well-off parents who do not have care. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) was right to say that the system should not be used to extend conflict within the family. Our surgeries are full of people with stories about parents without care, usually men, who shirk their responsibilities and have a life style that is inconsistent with their declared income—they have new Porsches and take expensive holidays—and it is right that we should pursue them.

  235
  Increasingly, however, people come to our surgeries with relationship problems. Those people fit the lyrics of the American singer-songwriter Randy Newman, who described "uptown, uptempo women" and "downtown, downbeat guys." [Interruption.] The House will understand that I am a well-read product of the '70s.
  When a child lives in a wealthy home, there is no justice in a policy that squeezes poor parents without care. That is oppressive and wrong, and we should do something about it. That is why, in the Australian system, if a parent with care has an above-average income, the prescribed figure is reduced dollar for dollar. As Mr. Justice Kay said, public confidence will not be bolstered if it is not recognised that a
  "carer is earning Australian $100,000 per annum whilst the payer is struggling to make ends meet."
  However, there remains a glaring omission in the Bill—the question of dividend income, which was raised originally by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). People who receive unearned income will not be eligible to be assessed by the CSA. There is neither sense nor logic to that.
  Conservative Members believe strongly in people having dividend income. We want people to invest, to put money aside and enjoy dividends, but we want them to use the money to pay for their children's upkeep. The Bill offers a Bertie Wooster escape clause. The House will recall that Bertie Wooster led a blameless life, but he had many liaisons and was engaged to no fewer than six females. He was engaged once to Madeline Bassett, Honoria Glossop, Pauline Stoker and Vanessa Cook, and twice to Lady Florence Craye and Roberta Wickham.
  What would have happened if those liaisons had been consummated and there had been issue from one or more of them? Wooster was a wealthy man who received dividend income but, under the Government's current proposals, the CSA would not have been able to lay a hand on a penny piece.
  Another illustration might involve a plumber who decides to form a company and to take a dividend instead of wages. Under the Government's scheme, he would not have to pay a penny piece, and that surely makes no sense. The Secretary of State has powers to prevent payment evasion and to ensure that those who deprive themselves of a source of income will be liable. However, neither Bertie Wooster nor the plumber could be considered, under the Bill, to have deprived themselves of any form of income. There is much to put right in the Bill's proposals for pensions, to ensure that the interface between the various systems are improved, as the pension industry advises.
  Finally, the debate has made clear the House's universal contempt for the idea of removing people's driving licences as a way of enforcing the requirements of the Child Support Agency. It is surely the daftest and most stupid idea ever to come from a spin doctor. I believe that our first job in Committee will be to remove this ridiculous idea.
  I strongly urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support our amendment tonight.
  9.40 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): There have been 20 Back-Bench speeches today, and I have heard every one. I missed a
  236
  few minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), but I know that it was a thoughtful speech. Some Opposition speeches have been thoughtful, if not always positive. Sometimes, Opposition Members have misunderstood the purpose of the Bill. They concentrated, as did most of my hon. Friends, on the child support aspect of the Bill. No one need apologise for that. Given what has happened recently and the scale of Members' involvement with CSA cases, that is inevitable.
  At the outset—this is not meant as a criticism—I wish to refer to any hon. Member who raised any individual CSA case by mentioning the names of constituents. Before I or my ministerial colleagues do anything, we want written information and letters. We are not taking throwaway names in the Chamber and then going away to look up individual cases.
  Mr. John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rooker: No, I will not. I am making that point so that nobody expects that just because someone's name was raised tonight, we will go away and deal with that case. We will not. We will require written instructions from the Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rooker: No, I will not.
  Mr. Smith: On a point of clarification.
  Mr. Rooker: There is no need for clarification. I am asking for letters if cases need following up.
  I want to respond to some of the points raised in the debate, although it is impossible for me to do justice to all of them. On child support, there were many references to the well-off being required to pay a lot of money because of the percentage assessment—we must make it clear that the percentage figures of 15, 20 and 25 per cent. for one, two and three or more children apply only to net incomes above £200 a week. There was only one oblique reference to that. Anyone earning between £100 and £200 a week will pay a lesser percentage. For anyone earning up to £100 a week, it will be almost a token payment. These are net incomes. Reference was made to a salary of £20,000 a year and a payment of £100 a week.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: That is £20,000 net.
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman now says that it is net, but he did not make that clear before. The salary necessary to give a net income of £20,000 a year would be substantially more than £20,000. There are not only fixed percentages—there are built-in hurdles in the system before they are reached.
  It is true that there is no upper limit, but there is a limit in terms of the percentage. The limit of 25 per cent. of net income is less than that which can be reached under the present system—under the current system, the limit can hit 30 per cent. of net income. That must be taken on board. It is not possible for us to produce a genuine assessment of losers and gainers, although we have been criticised for that. Given the fact that there is such a default in the current system, it is not possible genuinely to assess changes in people's behaviour.

  237
  To their credit, the previous Government instituted a cultural change with the introduction of the CSA. It has not worked out as expected, even with the changes. I was present when it was introduced, along with other hon. Members, and the matter was not scrutinised enough. Everyone thought that it was a good idea and that there was a problem to be addressed. There was a general consensus. However, the detail was not looked at properly in the regulations, in Committee or on the Floor of the House. I hope that the details of the Bill will be looked at in Committee.
  This time we have the added advantage of greater consultation and the Select Committee report. We have learned from the errors of the past. We are not claiming perfection, but we are claiming that we will have a system that will meet public demands, that will be fair and transparent and that can be operated by our officials.
  The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) spoke about charm schools. It works both ways. I cannot tell my constituents when they are angry and banging on the table, and odd relatives who claim that I set it all up when I was on the Back Benches, that they must be charming when they speak to the CSA staff. One has only to be on the receiving end on the telephone for an hour in a CSA office to realise the sort of things that the public say to the staff. That is why the staff are extremely stressed and turnover is running at 27 per cent. It is not simply a question of not paying them enough—the job is extremely stressful. Part of the stress is to do with the system they have to work with. We hope that the new system will enable them to be more user-friendly, that there will be less stress because of the clarity of the calculations, and that the public reaction will also be different. It works both ways.
  I should like to respond to some of the points of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). I shall, if time permits, deal with the points on pensions. The general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's message and his criticism of our proposals was that he wanted one law for the rich and one for everybody else. We are not prepared to countenance that. The idea of putting a fixed cap on absent parents is nonsense.
  However, we agree that we want the two systems to operate together for as short a time as possible. There must be two systems—there cannot be a big bang. It will not be possible to switch off the system one Friday, to put the existing case load of more than 1 million on the system the following Monday, to accept new claimants from that date and expect the system to work effectively. That will not happen, and we would be irresponsible to suggest otherwise. We want the gap to be minimal, but we have to make it work.
  It was argued in a debate on the Queen's Speech that new information technology is required and it will take some time. We regret the delay, but we will not allow the system to operate with the new formula unless we are satisfied that it will work. There is no benefit in rushing it by either three months or six months just for the sake of a headline or to meet any self-imposed dates. This is the last chance for a CSA-type operation, as I am sure all hon. Members will appreciate.
  238
  The hon. Gentleman had nothing positive to say about the state second pension which will, over a period of time, benefit more than 14 million people, including 2 million carers and 2 million long-term disabled people who have never had such provision in the past. If we do not change the system, a time will come in the next century when one in three of a much greater number of pensioners—16 million instead of 10 million—will retire straight onto the means test. We must address that now—it is not a question of thinking about 2040. The Government must operate a twin-track policy for tomorrow's pensioners and today's. The same policy will not work for both. The cost implications make that impossible. I just wish that in 1960 there had been a proper consensus regarding pension provision so that we would not now be in this mess, with millions of pensioners living in poverty.
  We have to work in the long term, and I accept that Ministers will never be accountable for pension decisions. We have to try and reach a consensus in this House and outside to achieve a system that is fair and justifiable and that will work.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the Minister for interrupting his speech. It has come over on the Press Association tapes that the Home Secretary has said that he is minded to release General Pinochet. Can I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you have received any request that a statement be made by the Home Secretary at 10 o'clock tonight?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I have received no such request.
  Mr. Rooker: I shall try to respond to some of the points made by hon. Members, although I cannot go into great detail. We reject returning the issue to the courts as was proposed by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). After reflection, I am sure that all hon. Members will also do so, although we shall debate the matter in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said that the new system would lead to high deduction rates. I hope that I have made the point that there is a limit of 25 per cent.—not a cash limit, but a percentage limit. That is fair. However, that will not destroy private arrangements, as he suggested. Partners or parents who want to make private arrangements are free to do so, as long as they do not involve the benefits system. That was the bottom line for the institution of the CSA in the first place.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) thought that the new scheme was already too complicated. He referred to travel costs. We think that they should be taken into account if they are exceptionally high. It is not to say that we shall not treat the Committee stage seriously that I point out to right hon. and hon. Members that we know, from internal discussions and from advice that we have received, that if we move a host of seductively simple, fair and clear amendments to a measure that is—as my right hon. Friend points out—already overly complicated, we shall never make it work.

  239
  The formula that we propose is fair; it can be made to work with the existing system and with new information technology. If we start to tweak it in Committee, the evidence, which we shall put before the Committee, suggests that we may not be able to deliver. We are intent on delivering change in the operation of the CSA. I give due warning that any amendments must be carefully drafted and supported by careful arguments.
  Several hon. Members mentioned the driving licence provisions. The hon. Member for Havant said that they would not toughen the measure. Indeed, they would. Those provisions would be an alternative to a prison sentence, if the courts did not want to impose one. After all, in most cases, especially for debt, prison sentences are a ludicrous sanction, by any stretch of the imagination. The driving licence provisions would offer the courts an alternative sanction; they will not weaken the measure. Most motorists get apoplexy when their car is in service for a day—
  Mr. Kirkwood rose—
  Mr. Rooker: I am sorry I cannot respond to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
  The threat of losing their licence will probably cause them to pay their dues. That is all we ask them to do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) asked whether all children in the relationship would be covered by the child support system. Yes, they will. If the payment is necessarily split—for example, if there is a requirement to pay 20 per cent. for the children of two parents—it will be split with 10 per cent. going to each.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) asked whether mothers should be able to choose to pursue maintenance. We are happy to discuss that matter in Committee, but it is right that, where income support is being paid, parents with care should co-operate, wherever possible, in seeking maintenance for their children. They will have to opt out rather than opt in. However, they will be informed of that when they make their initial claim for income support. It is right to do that.
  The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) deserves an answer to her question on consultation, which I know she has put on another occasion. She makes a legitimate point. I have to give her more or less the same answer that I gave her before. However, it is a fair answer—she can check it. A list of the organisations and academics who responded to the Green Paper, excluding those who asked us not to publish their responses, has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, as has a summary of the responses to the written consultations. We have met all requests for copies of those lists, or of the summary of responses.
  Of course, an enormous number of the public responses gave confidential information. We do not think that it is right and proper to make such information available in general terms. However, respondents to the Green Paper overwhelmingly accepted the case for radical change. The hon. Lady also made a point about overtime. When overtime is a regular part of income, it rightly should be taken into account.
  240
  I wish to make a couple of points about pensions. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much general conversation. In a long and detailed debate, the House should listen to the Minister who is replying.
  Mr. Rooker: I apologise for the fact that my speech is not full of rhetoric. I genuinely want to answer some of the points that Members have raised.
  We do not think that there is apartheid in pensions. It is true that high earners have no difficulty achieving a decent pension and modest earners may or may not be in occupational pension schemes and have the opportunity to be so. Those who are not will want to choose another option, and that is why we have instituted low cost stakeholder pensions. For low earners, I must tell Conservative Members that it is not tenable to expect carers, disabled people with broken work records and people with long-term low incomes over a lifetime's work to organise funded pensions. That is not possible. By introducing the state second pension, we can virtually double—and, in some cases, more than double—the pension that such people will receive compared with the existing state earnings-related pension.
  SERPS was good when it was invented. I was in the House and voted for it when it was introduced in the 1970s. However, because it is earnings related, it does not, by definition, do much for the long-term low paid. It is true that for the average male retiring today SERPS provides about £40 a week; 20 years ago, people complained that they would have to wait all that time for that sum. The time has passed, but it takes time to build up a pension pot.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rooker: I was just about to answer my hon. Friend's point if she will allow me. She made the point that we could use the £4 billion to £5 billion involved in net benefit expenditure on the state second pension for the basic state retirement pension. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave a figure of £5 billion for net benefit expenditure in 2050 on the state second pension. If we were to use the basic retirement pension at the minimum income guarantee level, by 2010 we would be spending £7.5 billion, by 2020 we would be spending about £20 billion, and by 2050 the estimate is that it would cost £50 billion extra in public expenditure. The idea that we could knock off introducing the state second pension in order to fund the basic pension at the MIG-level frankly does not add up. The figures multiply 10 times—from £5 billion to £50 billion—so that idea is not a runner.
  Dr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rooker: No, I cannot. I understand that my hon. Friend has volunteered to serve on the Committee, so we can debate these issues there.

  241
  One or two of my hon. Friends mentioned community service orders, but it is not possible to go into them now. We are dealing with the long-term issues and we are trying to get them right. We do not claim that we can do it all in two years or in five years; we are working for pension provision for the first half of this century. One only has to consider the opportunities that the Conservative party had to get the matter right. In the century that has just finished, the Conservative party ruled the United Kingdom for more years than the Communist party ruled Soviet Russia and it still could not get pensions right for the 21st century.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 340.

  Division No. 24]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Allan, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Amess, David

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Baker, Norman

  Fraser, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Beggs, Roy

  Gamier, Edward

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Bercow, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boswell, Tim

  Gray, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Green, Damian

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Greenway, John

  Brady, Graham

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brake, Tom

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Brazier, Julian

  Hammond, Philip

  Breed, Colin

  Hancock, Mike

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hayes, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Burnett, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bums, Simon

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Burstow, Paul

  Horam, John

  Cash, William

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Chidgey, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Collins, Tim

  Keetch, Paul

  Colvin, Michael

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

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Cotter, Brian

  Key, Robert

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Leigh, Edward

  Day, Stephen

  Letwin, Oliver

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lidington, David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Livsey, Richard

  Faber, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fallon, Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  242

  Luff, Peter

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Soames, Nicholas

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Spring, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Madel, Sir David

  Streeter, Gary

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Malins, Humfrey

  Swayne, Desmond

  Maples, John

  Swinney, John

  Mates, Michael

  Syms, Robert

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Oaten, Mark

  Thompson, William

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Öpik Lembit

  Townend, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Page, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Wardle, Charles

  Pickles Eric

  Webb, Steve

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Welsh, Andrew

  Prior, David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Randall, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Rendel, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Robertson, Laurence

  Willis, Phil

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Wilshire, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ruffley, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Yeo, Tim

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sanders, Adrian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ainger, Nick

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Browne, Desmond

  Allen, Graham

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ashton, Joe

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Austin, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Banks, Tony

  Cann, Jamie

  Bames, Harry

  Caplin, Ivor

  Barron, Kevin

  Caton, Martin

  Battle, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Chaytor, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clapham, Michael

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Benton, Joe

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Berry, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Best, Harold

  Clwyd, Ann

  Betts, Clive

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blackman, Liz

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cohen, Harry

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coleman, Iain

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Colman, Tony

  Borrow, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  243

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoey, Kate

  Cousins, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hurst, Alan

  Darvill, Keith

  Hutton, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jamieson, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jenkins, Brian

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Edwards, Huw

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Etherington, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kidney, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Flint, Caroline

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Flynn, Paul

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lepper, David

  Foulkes, George

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fyfe, Maria

  Levitt, Tom

  Galloway, George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Linton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Love, Andrew

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCabe, Steve

  Goggins, Paul

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Grant, Bernie

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McFall, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grogan, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gunnell, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacShane, Denis

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McWalter, Tony

  Healey, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Martlew, Eric

  Hill, Keith

  Maxton, John

  244

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Singh, Marsha

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Miller, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Spellar, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Squire, Ms Rachel

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

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mountford, Kali

  Stevenson, George

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mullin, Chris

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pearson, Ian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Timms, Stephen

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Todd, Mark

  Pike, Peter L

  Touhig, Don

  Pollard, Kerry

  Trickett, Jon

  Pond, Chris

  Truswell, Paul

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tynan, Bill

  Vaz, Keith

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Purchase, Ken

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watts, David

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  White, Brian

  Rammell, Bill

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rapson, Syd

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wills, Michael

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wilson, Brian

  Rowlands, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Roy, Frank

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wise, Audrey

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wood, Mike

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wray, James

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wyatt, Derek

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order NO. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 338, Noes 43.

  Division No. 25]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cummings, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Allen, Graham

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Ashton, Joe

  Darvill, Keith

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davidson, Ian

  Austin, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Banks, Tony

  Dawson, Hilton

  Barnes, Harry

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Barron, Kevin

  Denham, John

  Battle, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dobbin, Jim

  Beard, Nigel

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Drew, David

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benton, Joe

  Edwards, Huw

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Efford, Clive

  Berry, Roger

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Best, Harold

  Ennis, Jeff

  Betts, Clive

  Etherington, Bill

  Blackman, Liz

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fisher, Mark

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Borrow, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foulkes, George

  Burden, Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Burgon, Colin

  Galloway, George

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gapes, Mike

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cann, Jamie

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Cawsey, Ian

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Chaytor, David

  Grant, Bemie

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cohen, Harry

  Healey, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Colman, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heppell, John

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corbett, Robin

  Hill, Keith

  Cousins, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Crausby, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  246

  Hope, Phil

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

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

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hurst, Alan

  Mudie, George

  Hutton, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jamieson, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pendry, Tom

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pike, Peter L

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pond, Chris

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pope, Greg

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pound, Stephen

  Khabra, Piara S

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Purchase, Ken

  Laxton, Bob

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lepper, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Leslie, Christopher

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Levitt, Tom

  Rammell, Bill

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rapson, Syd

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Linton, Martin

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Love, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCabe, Steve

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Roy, Frank

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Ruane, Chris

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McDonnell, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McFall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sawford, Phil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNulty, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  MacShane, Denis

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martlew, Eric

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Maxton, John

  Spellar, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  247

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wareing, Robert N

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Watts, David

  Stringer, Graham

  White, Brian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wills, Michael

  Timms, Stephen

  Wilson, Brian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winnick, David

  Todd, Mark

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Touhig, Don

  Wise, Audrey

  Trickett, Jon

  Wood, Mike

  Truswell, Paul

  Woodward, Shaun

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wray, James

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tynan, Bill

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

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

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Baker, Norman

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Beggs, Roy

  Livsey, Richard

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Brake, Tom

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Breed, Colin

  Oaten, Mark

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burnett, John

  Rendel, David

  Burstow, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Sanders, Adrian

  Chidgey, David

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

  Cotter, Brian

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Swinney, John

  Feam, Ronnie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Thompson, William

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Hancock, Mike

  Webb, Steve

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Welsh, Andrew

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  Keetch, Paul

  Mr. Phil Willis.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  Senator Pinochet
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you aware that this evening a statement has been issued by the Home Office in relation to the detention of General Pinochet, and that that statement says in terms that, in the circumstances—that is, the medical recommendations—the Secretary of State is minded, subject to any representations he may receive, to take the view that no purpose would be served by continuing the present extradition proceedings and that he should therefore decide not to extradite Senator Pinochet?
  248
  Is it not a contempt of the House that such an announcement should be given to the press and no statement made to the House? You indicated to me earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you had received no request to make a statement. May I ask you whether it is in the traditions of the House that the Home Secretary—wherever he may be—should make a statement to the House before briefing the press?
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I associate my colleagues and myself as strongly as possible with the request made through you that the usual convention of the House be observed and that Secretaries of State making the most controversial and most potentially provocative public statements on a matter that relates both to their parliamentary duties and to their judicial responsibilities do so first to those who have regularly raised it with them across the Floor of the House?
  May I ask that everything be done to make sure that, at the earliest opportunity tomorrow, the Home Secretary comes to the House, apologises to the House, makes a statement to the House and explains what is this evidence that is so conclusive—and how we can have a guarantee in this case that there is not the sort of illness from which people recover very miraculously? In the past, such people have been allowed to escape from judicial process.
  Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that during the 18 years of the previous Government there were many occasions when we protested because statements were not made in the House, so there is nothing unique about what has happened today.
  Having said that, and bearing in mind that the Conservatives have said time and again that Pinochet should be sent home, those of us who believe that a statement should be made at some stage are very concerned indeed. We therefore want to put on the record the fact that someone we consider to be a murderous tyrant should face justice and not be sent back to Chile.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I think I have heard enough now.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Howard.
  Mr. Michael Howard: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that we all understand how preoccupied the Home Secretary is at present to press home his attacks on the aggressive behaviour of the people of England, but notwithstanding that, would it not be a mark of respect to the House if he were able to tear himself away from that preoccupation for just a few moments to explain to the House why he has come to this decision now and not many, many months ago? Given the presence on the Treasury Bench of at least one Home Office Minister among the legion of

  249
  Ministers there, would it not be in order for that Minister to communicate to the Home Secretary the desirability of his—[Interruption.]
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard enough. Right hon. and hon. Members will be well aware that this is not a matter for the Chair. Whether or not ministerial statements are made, and the timing of such statements, are entirely matters for the Government, who will no doubt have heard the exchanges that have taken place here this evening.
  Mr. Edward Garnier rose—
  Mr. Dominic Grieve rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will take no more points of order.
  Mr. Garnier rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now deal with the money motion.

  CHILD SUPPORT, PENSIONS AND SOCIAL SECURITY BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State for or in connection with the carrying out of his functions under the Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which are payable out of money so provided under any other Act; and

  (2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Allen.]

  Question agreed to.

  Sewage and Water (North Thanet)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise, briefly, a matter that is of considerable local importance to my constituents living in the Cliftonville area of North Thanet, and has wider implications—to which I shall return—for the whole coastline and water resources of the United Kingdom.
  The provision of water to meet the domestic, industrial and agricultural needs of the 21st century and the disposal of sewage and waste water generated by homes, businesses and industries in growing volume is a vexed question that has taxed many good minds.
  Tonight, I shall refer specifically to Southern Water's proposals for the expansion of a sewage treatment plant at Foreness Point, and for the discharge of the resulting millions of gallons of high quality effluent daily, through sea outfalls, into the Thames estuary. I shall seek to demonstrate that that waste of potentially recyclable effluent is something that neither Kent nor the United Kingdom can afford.
  First, let me set the proposal in context. Since my election in 1983 I have had a good working relationship with Southern Water, which is responsible for the provision of water to two thirds of my constituency, and for the treatment and disposal of waste water throughout the area. In 1983, Southern Water began a process of planning and investment in a new sewage system for Herne Bay, removed the need to discharge sewage through a short Victorian outfall into the sea, dramatically improved the bathing waters, and reduced the risk of flooding in the town centre.
  Much sewerage work has also been carried out in the isle of Thanet. I was proud to see the completion at Foreness Point of the then state-of-the-art marine treatment works, and, on 28 April 1989, formally to declare it open. The construction of that plant had generated dirt and dust, and had caused disruption and inconvenience. My constituents bore the inconvenience with fortitude, in the belief that what was being installed would serve the needs of the area for many years to come, and the construction of an inland treatment plant—inaugurated by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales—consolidated that view. To my constituents' horror, however, fresh demands presented by European directives and regulation have rendered the "new" facility at Foreness obsolete within 10 years.
  By June 1994, Southern Water was already examining options for further developments to meet the new requirements. In the summer of 1997, it sought waste water works approval, saying that
  "there might be still further development if legislation changes".
  Giving formal notice of its intentions, Southern Water stated that the alternative of an inland treatment plant at Weatherlees would be "massively more expensive" than Foreness. Notwithstanding the Department's campaign to
  "regard water as a valuable resource"
  and insistence on conservation, everything that has taken place since has been driven not by environmental concerns, or by our water requirements, but by short-term financial expedience.

  251
  It quickly became clear that there was massive public objection to the Foreness plan on two grounds-the potential desecration of an area of natural beauty and scientific interest; and, perhaps more significant, proposals to pump millions of gallons of what we are told will be
  "effluent with a high level of environmental protection"
  daily into the sea, when it should be recycled for domestic and industrial use.
  The Foreness Point environmental action group, with more than 2,700 members, was formed. Public meetings followed. On 2 October 1997, the Environment Agency (Kent) wrote to the county planning control officer to say:
  "The Environment Agency objects to the proposed development as it stands. The environmental statement by Southern Water fails to give proper attention to alternative uses for treated effluent.
  No consideration has been given, for example, to options which could contribute materially to the enhancement or conservation of water resources within the Thanet area".
  That is the crux of the argument. It has national as well as local implications for every coastal site around the country. Is it right, I shall ask again and again, to waste millions of gallons of water that, inland, would certainly be recycled and re-used?
  On behalf of Thanet district council, its planning officer wrote on 25 November 1997:
  "The council considers the proposal to be contrary to a wide range of policies within the Kent structure plan and the local District plan … The council would draw attention to PPG Coastal Planning where the special position of the coast is recognised and attention is drawn to the fact that:
  The coast will seldom be the most appropriate location for developments. Few developments require a coastal location and coastal locations should not be expected to accommodate new development as could be accommodated inland.
  In this context it has always been the view of the Council that the most appropriate location for the development, given the extensive size of the site and its relative isolation, should be a further extension of Weatherlees".
  However, Southern Water's assessment of the two sites, while giving a "very good" and "good" rating to Weatherlees on planning, environmental and land issues, as against only "average" at Foreness, had given a "very good" financial rating to Foreness and a "very poor" financial rating to Weatherlees. In short, it had become clear that finance was overriding all other considerations.
  The then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), wrote on 6 January 1998 that
  "the way we use water is an important environmental issue and the Government is committed to the sustainable use of this resource.
  The Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulations (1994) already place water companies under a duty to re-use waste water wherever appropriate".
  In July 1998, I wrote to the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), asking him to receive a small delegation from the Foreness Point environmental action group. He responded swiftly and courteously, met us and listened sympathetically to our concerns. He made it plain that he, at least, was personally concerned by the environmental issue and the prospects for the conservation and re-use of water—issues that we had raised.
  252
  Southern Water's first Foreness plan required land purchase from Thanet district council. True to the position expressed by its planning officer, the council announced on 2 October 1998 its objection to the compulsory purchase by Southern Water of
  "land at Foreness Point and the Rendezvous, Margate".
  The then leader of the council, Councillor Coppock, said on that day:
  "This has little to do with the sale of land and more to do with finding the right solutions for the 21st Century. Only this week it was reported that the Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, had named Thanet as an area of concern for discharge for sewage. This is clearly not an appropriate place for this development and the land is not up for grabs".
  I next wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on behalf of my constituents lodging formal objection to the proposed compulsory purchase order. On 5 November, I was gratified to receive a response from my friend the then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), informing me that
  "it has been decided that a local public inquiry will be held to consider Southern Water's application and the objections to it".
  As the Minister may imagine, my constituents were elated to learn that, at long last, this issue of vital national as well as local importance was to be fully and properly examined. It was plain, however, that Southern Water wished to avoid exposing the paucity and the venal nature of their arguments to public scrutiny. Southern Water wrote to me, saying:
  "As you may be aware additional treatment is now necessary … we will therefore be re-visiting our plans to incorporate the necessary treatment processes in line with Environment Agency guidelines and as a result our current compulsory purchase order at Foreness Point is no longer appropriate and we have notified the Department that we will not longer proceed with this".
  Therefore, the long-awaited public inquiry fell through. However, by that time, concerns over the future of water provision for domestic, industrial and agricultural use were increasing throughout east Kent and beyond.
  Pfizers, the major pharmaceutical company based at Sandwich, had raised the issue, with other structural matters, with Thanet district council in relation to its future investment plans. Farmers were reporting a shortage of water to wash potatoes for delivery to supermarkets. The spectre of a massive house-building programme was raising its head, and serious environmental concerns were being expressed about the salination of the River Stour, as decreasing water flows led to salt water encroaching higher upstream at high tide.
  On 3 September 1999, Southern Water's new plan for an even larger scheme at Foreness became clear. In a letter, it stated:
  "We are about to submit a new planning application to Kent County Council to install further treatment at Margate Wastewater Works. To house our new equipment we are proposing to extend our Margate Wastewater Works underground".
  At a public exhibition held at Foreness Point, on 14 October 1999, it became clear that a second chamber—as large again as the existing one—would be required; that the site would cover 10 acres; that the task would entail massive earthworks, excavation and disruption over a number of years; that millions of gallons of high-quality effluent would still be wasted daily; and that Southern Water still intended to pump raw sewage, during summer bathing season storms and winter storms, through a 300 m outfall into the sea.

  253
  There was, fleetingly, some sign that Southern Water's management was beginning to listen. In response to questions, Southern's project manager said:
  "Our preferred option is now Weatherlees … we expect to apply for a discharge licence for the Stour next week".
  However, on 25 October, Southern backtracked, saying in response to my inquires:
  "Developing Weatherlees was reconsidered when research indicated that there was some spare physical capacity which would allow the site to provide the full treatment required for Margate and Broadstairs flows. We made an informal approach to the EA"—
  the Environment Agency—
  "and the response was so firmly negative that we concluded it would be pointless to pursue the matter particularly"—
  and here we go again—
  "since it would involve an economic premium over the Foreness Point option".
  The Environment Agency, charged with the protection of the environment and its resources, has to its eternal shame once again failed thoroughly to investigate a situation and is instead now sheltering behind the argument that
  "we have no discharge licence application from Southern Water to respond to".
  Southern Water's own publication, "Working Together to save Water", states:
  "We are now using more water than ever before. Compared to only a decade ago more homes are using washing machines and dishwashers and gardening as a hobby is far more popular. These factors are compounded by a steady increase in population.
  Added to these man-made challenges are the natural ones. Most scientists are now predicting that the climate change will increase the chance of long hot summers and shorter, warmer winters in the South East. It is generally believed that there will be more exceptionally dry summers like 1995.
  If we do not reduce the growth in demand for water pressure on the environment will increase as we need to take more from underground sources and rivers or build more reservoirs.
  We at Southern Water take a long-term view and believe that everyone should have enough water for their essential needs for the future.
  The development of new sources of supply is often costly in both environmental and economic terms and, therefore, it makes sense to make best use of existing resources before developing new ones".
  One of those existing resources is the potential for recycling effluent.
  How can it be right, in this day and age, to continue to pump millions of gallons of water into the sea all around the coast of the United Kingdom in the face of the warning that I have just read from Southern Water? Is this to be a long-term or a short-term view?
  I began by saying that in 1989 I opened the futuristic treatment plant at Foreness. Since that time Governments and the European Union have changed the rules several times. How long will it be before the EU, recognising that we can no longer go on wasting water, bans sea outfalls entirely?
  Will the new proposals themselves be obsolete in a few years and after yet more disruption, leaving us to look inland again and say "I told you so"?
  I believe that the Minister is sympathetic to this cause. I believe that, in the national interest, the time is right to hold a full public inquiry into the science, the technology
  254
  and the long-term environmental impact of the continued use of sea outfalls matched against the opportunity for the recycling of effluent.
  It is not a local matter. We have the opportunity to reach a benchmark decision and take a quantum jump into a future for which our children and our grandchildren will bless us as the climate changes.
  I believe that Southern Water, and indeed all water companies serving coastal areas, that have enjoyed a proud record of innovation in the past, should abandon what is essentially a 19th century system of outfalls and blaze a trail for tomorrow's technology.
  It is clear that Kent county council, while not seeking to shirk its planning responsibilities, has come to recognise that this is not just a local issue, but a national one and would welcome a decision based upon a thorough examination of the facts.
  I urge the Minister to call in this application swiftly and equally swiftly to instigate an inquiry so that we can get on with the real job of protecting our environment and providing enough water for the needs of the future that Southern Water and I agree that "everyone should have".
  10.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) put his case forcefully and has obviously taken a long-term interest in the matter. I have listened with care to his arguments.
  Let me begin by assuring the hon. Gentleman that the Government aim to achieve the highest possible environmental standards consistent with ensuring value for money. We reversed the policy of the previous Government, which could have allowed sewage to continue being discharged into our coastal waters after receiving only primary treatment. Instead, we told water companies in England and Wales that we would require all significant coastal discharges to receive a minimum of secondary treatment. We asked them to install secondary treatment at relevant discharges, including Margate and Broadstairs, as soon as practicable.
  We also have a well-established policy to protect identified bathing waters. We have announced a programme for England and Wales designed to raise consistent compliance with the mandatory standards in the EU bathing waters directive to 97 per cent. by 2005, and to achieve a significant improvement in compliance with guideline standards, particularly at major holiday resorts.
  As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are a number of bathing beaches along the Thanet coast, including up to eight beaches, from St. Mildred's Bay to Broadstairs, that are affected by the existing discharges at Margate and Broadstairs.
  The policy framework means that wherever the treatment works serving the joint catchment of Margate and Broadstairs is eventually located, the standards of treatment applied will ensure that people living there will have a cleaner, safer environment that protects their beaches and the sea from pollution. That is a substantial gain under all circumstances and we should not lose sight of it.

  255
  The choice of location of a sewage treatment works serving Margate and Broadstairs is not a matter for Government at this stage. It is a matter for the commercial judgment of Southern Water Services, subject to planning controls and regulation by the Environment Agency. Well-established procedures are already in place for public consultation and scrutiny of the proposals.
  The processes—obtaining planning permission, compulsory purchase of land, and obtaining a discharge consent—are subject to public consultation and appeal procedures, including, ultimately, the possibility of appeal to the Secretary of State, should the applications be refused. The Government also encourage water companies to engage in full consultation with local communities about any proposals for new development.
  The House will appreciate that it would be wrong for me to make any comment at this stage on specific proposals that might ultimately come before the Secretary of State for determination, but it may be helpful if I set out my general appreciation of the current situation. In so doing, I shall attempt to respond to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
  Southern Water's original intention was to upgrade a treatment works at Foreness point to combine the two existing flows from Margate and Broadstairs. In the light of the Government's requirement for higher levels of treatment, Southern Water revised its original proposals. Those will now require more land—although I understand that there will be no permanent loss of public open space—and additional plant and machinery. The company has applied for planning permission on that basis. I understand that Kent county council will shortly consider that planning application.
  The scheme that is now proposed at Foreness point will deliver top of the range levels of treatment, including ultra violet disinfection. The Environment Agency predicts that the new levels of treatment will allow bathing waters in the area to comply with guideline standards under the EU bathing waters directive. It is wrong to imply that raw sewage would be discharged from the new works. It is true that storm overflows, which operate during periods of exceptional rainfall, will be retained, but those would be needed for any scheme, irrespective of its location. They will operate to standards specified by the agency that are designed to protect bathing beaches in the area.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that there is a better alternative for treatment and disposal of sewage from Margate and Broadstairs, at Weatherlees. He has asked for the Secretary of State to call in the planning application to explore more fully the relative merits of the two possible locations.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend has raised a point on which I have common cause with the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).
  Mr. Gale: This is out of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. It is not out of order for the Minister to give way to an intervention. If the hon. Member who seeks to intervene had wished to contribute to the debate before the Minister started speaking, the hon. Gentleman would have had to seek permission. He is allowed to intervene and it is up to the Minister whether he gives way.
  Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to you for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for North Thanet will
  256
  be aware that I have common cause with him on certain points of this matter and, in fact, it was my influence with Thanet district council, as a district councillor before 1999, that led to its opposition to the original scheme. I have an open mind about the current proposals, but Weatherlees is in my constituency and my key question now is—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should add to my earlier remarks the observation that interventions should be extremely brief.
  Dr. Ladyman: I shall endeavour to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Environment Agency tells me that it is an open question as to whether the effluent that would go into Weatherlees would cause any harm, but is certain that the effluent that has been proposed for Foreness point would cause no harm. That is the point on which I require clarification.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister should now respond.
  Mr. Mullin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall come to the question of effluent in a moment. The Secretary of State can call in planning applications if he considers that they raise planning issues of more than local importance, but the question of re-use of waste water, while undoubtedly important, is not a planning issue. The Secretary of State would be acting outside his powers to use the planning system to explore that matter. It is for the water company to decide which proposals to put before the planning authorities and the regulator.
  Southern Water has discussed informally with the Environment Agency the alternative option of diverting the flow from Margate and Broadstairs to Weatherlees. The hon. Member for North Thanet has suggested that the Environment Agency is not doing its job, because it has not carried out a formal appraisal of the alternative scheme at Weatherlees. In the absence of a formal application for discharge consent and of the scientific information that would come with that, the Environment Agency cannot make a full assessment of the treatment standards that would have to apply. However, it has made some clear and, I consider, persuasive points about the considerations that would apply.
  First, the River Stour already carries a very heavy effluent load arising from other treatment works that discharge into it. The plant at Weatherlees already serves a population equivalent to about 89,000 people. The agency considers that those loads already are close to the maximum that can be carried without a risk of environmental impact. Adding the sewage from Margate and Broadstairs would more than double the existing load at Weatherlees. If true, that would seem to be fatal to the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  Secondly, the Stour estuary is an environmentally sensitive area. There is potential for impact on bathing beaches nearby, which Weatherlees was originally constructed to protect.
  The treatment standards for a plant at Weatherlees would need to be more stringent than at Foreness Point to achieve the same level of protection for the receiving waters. Even well-treated effluent contains micropollutants which, if not dispersed, can have adverse effects on organisms in the receiving water.

  257
  The Government share the hon. Gentleman's concern to encourage beneficial use of waste water, as does the Environment Agency. In fact, that has already been achieved for several sewage treatment works in the area, but there are difficulties in this case. Water discharged at Weatherlees would add to the volume of fresh water in the estuary but, as I have explained, it would also add to the pollution load there.
  If it were to be used for abstraction purposes, the sewage would have to be piped five miles or so up river to be discharged above the abstraction point. That would be in addition to the six miles or so of pipes that would need to be constructed to bring the sewage to Weatherlees
  258
  from Margate and Broadstairs. I readily concede that that is not an impossible task, but it would add to the expense and complexity of the scheme.
  As I said, the choice of location rests in the first instance with Southern Water. The company has told me and the Environment Agency that Foreness Point is its preferred option and that it has decided not to pursue the option of Weatherlees. It will be necessary to test the acceptability of these revised proposals, remembering that they will deliver a higher level of treatment.
  In my view, the right option—and I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for North Thanet—is to allow this process to run its course without further delay.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]

Objective 1 Funding
Motion made, and question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Dowd.]
10 am
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): I welcome this opportunity to debate a subject of great importance to the four regions.
Mr. Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) expects the Minister to reply and that no Minister is present, is it appropriate to continue?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no question of order about who is present. It is entirely a matter of courtesy to the proceedings that a Minister be present. [Interruption.] The Minister is now here.
Mr. George: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that the Minister is now present for a debate of extreme importance for the four regions that have won objective 1 status. So much depends on our work in this Chamber, and on our work with colleagues in the European Commission and our partners in these four poorest regions of the United Kingdom. We must make the most of this opportunity, because it is the best in our lifetime that these regions will have to pull themselves up.
I congratulate all those involved in securing objective 1 status for the four regions, including the Government, Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament, councils and campaigners. Above all, I congratulate the people of the regions who have continued their work, often in the knowledge that little or no heed was paid to their poverty. The people of Cornwall are used to being envied for their environment, their community and their sense of place and identity, but they are also accustomed to their poverty being ignored. We welcome the fact that at last it is recognised that the region of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly is deserving of additional financial aid to bring it into line with the level of gross domestic product enjoyed by the rest of the country and Europe.
I realise that putting together single programming documents is a challenging exercise, and I congratulate the four regions and the Government Departments that have undertaken the gargantuan task of preparing them and getting them off to Europe on schedule. The Minister has acknowledged that the Government inherited a legacy of confusion and complexity: I and other hon. Members want to deal with that issue in the debate. The fault lies partly with European systems, but is also related to the separation of Departments and the failure of a joined-up government approach to this important matter. Putting together the pieces of the
2WH
objective 1 jigsaw has involved a great deal of work: it is a much less simple task than many other economic development projects have been.
I want the debate to be conducted in a constructive environment. Many hon. Members who represent constituencies in the four regions want to speak on this subject of all-party concern. Properly raising concerns about match funding and its complexities is not scaremongering. Questioning the sources of all available public match funding does not imply that objective 1 will fold: it would be inappropriate to portray that as a doomsday scenario. Equally, however, it would be irresponsible to be complacent. There is some concern that much planning is based more on hope than on certainty.
I have conveyed a message to the Minister so that he is fully aware of questions that I wish to raise in a constructive spirit. I seek clarification of matched funding arrangements, the extent of central and regional co-ordination—in the terminology of joined-up government, the joined-upness of the system—and the extent to which local partners in objective 1 regions may decide their future for themselves, which involves the decision-making procedure.
I have some experience of that process, as I was involved, on behalf of the voluntary sector, in the last objective 5b programme in the south-west, which largely involved Cornwall, but included parts of Devon and Somerset. That experience was pretty unedifying, as the programme started a year late. Total funding for the programme came from Europe, along with all measures, and amounted to £177.6 million. However, the total paid up until the end of 1999 was £71.2 million—a mere 40 per cent. of the EU finance available for that region. We must improve our performance considerably if the objective 1 region of Cornwall is to spend £314 million over a seven-year period and work within the financial programme regulations, which are, appropriately, much stricter.
More money has yet to be claimed, and existing commitments have yet to be fulfilled. However, the prospect for spending the full amount of objective 5b funds is poor. Of most concern is the difficulty of securing public match funding, which partly accounts for the slowness of the programme and the problem of initiating projects. Government bodies and quangos came up with only £15 million, which is 19 per cent. of the match funding, or 10 per cent. of all funding for the 5b process. Most worrying, by far the largest public match-fund contributor was the national lottery—a source that did not exist when the programme was first put together. Lottery sources represent 54 per cent. of total match funding for the Cornwall objective 5b programme.
Of equal concern is the fact that the original intention behind the objective 1 and 5b programmes was strategy-driven. A strategy is devised which those programmes are designed to deliver. My experience was that that turned out to be a six-month bidding round involving spending on a first-come, first-served basis. The Government should increase the extent to which they allow objective 1 regions to take decisions to implement their own strategies, and those decisions should not be overruled. Such regions should have proper support from Government in identifying match funds to develop their strategies.

3WH
It is impossible for normal well-adjusted humans—of whom there are some outside this place—not to be shocked by the almost unbelievable, impenetrable complexity, red tape and gobbledegook surrounding such schemes. I shall argue that that may choke and suffocate initiatives and deny the very people for whom funds are intended. European funding programmes are probably for those who are pushy, articulate and can afford consultants; such people will find their way through these programmes. However, the socially excluded, who do not have such resources and abilities, will find it difficult to enter the system, let alone get through the application process and bring a worthy initiative to fruition. That is a matter of great concern, and the Government can do a great deal about it.
In my opening remarks, I have concentrated mainly on Cornwall and the Scilly Isles because I know that part of the country best. Other hon. Members will want to speak about areas in their constituencies. However, to secure objective 1 status, Cornwall had to go through an important process of disaggregating itself from the unreal and synthetic objective 5b region to which it was previously attached. Geographically, historically, culturally, constitutionally, communally and economically, Cornwall is an entity in its own right. It does not want to cut itself off from the rest of the world, but rather to include itself in the celebration of the diversity of cultures, peoples and religions throughout the British Isles and Europe.
The key issue is whether what was self-evident to Cornwall and the Scilly Isles is accepted by others, especially given that successive Governments have previously failed to recognise Cornwall's obvious distinctiveness. I congratulate the Government on accepting Cornwall's case to be a European region in its own right, although it is a pity that they did not go further and allow Cornwall to have a regional development agency. However, we shall not go over that argument now.
Once objective 1 is achieved, all the relevant regions will face the challenge of financial and programme discipline—particularly the new challenge of straight-line funding over the seven-year period, which means having to commit an agreed one seventh of the financial year's funds and spend it within two years of making the commitment. Under the objective 5b programme in the past, there was much carry-over of finance from one year to the next. It is helpful to have more discipline, but it brings additional pressure on those who have to deliver the programmes. The Minister recognises that, and I am sure that the partners on the ground are aware of it too.
I have congratulated everyone on the successful campaign for Cornwall's acceptance as a distinct region. There is now the much more challenging job of making the most of the opportunity—collating plans, framing strategies and producing and lodging the single programme document.
Match funding remains a major concern. Having considered all five priorities in the Cornish programme, it is clear that problems remain in drawing on spending under the EAGGF—there are many acronyms and other unique terms relating to European funding.
4WH
European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund moneys will not be drawn down entirely, as funds available from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other finances will be required to fulfil the farm diversification and competitiveness strategy.
As to the European social fund, I think that Department for Education and Employment funding and other sources of finance may be sufficient. I am yet to be entirely convinced, but they may be enough to fulfil that part of the programme. Some people are optimistic that there will be enough collective public match funding to support community regeneration and infrastructure measures, largely through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and from other sources. That seems more a hope than a certainty for the next seven years.
The priority to develop small and medium-sized enterprises is important to an area such as Cornwall, which has almost 20,000 businesses, of which almost 15,000 employ five or fewer people. Those are micro-businesses and they must grow if the economy of Cornwall is to grow. Small businesses will provide the basis for growth, so it is vital to support the enterprise culture—in Cornwall, but doubtless also in west Wales, the valleys and other regions.
We need to ensure that matching MAFF and DTI funding is available. The DTI's enterprise fund would be an important source, but the total amount available next year is £250,000. That sum is available not only to Cornwall, but to the Government's so-called South West regional development agency area. Cornwall represents less than 10 per cent. of the population of that area, so our notional fair share of that money would be a little under £25,000, which would not go very far to kick-start the economy of Cornwall.
Many funds are operated on a regional basis, and the programme operates on the wholly optimistic notion that Cornwall has to secure more than its fair share of national and regional funding. Whatever level of match funding Cornwall achieves under 5b, we must at least double it under objective 1. The communities of south-west England will understandably take the view that Cornwall already has the benefit of objective 1 funds, and will ask why it should have a disproportionate slice of the available regional funding cake. The Minister may wish to offer advice on how to reassure our friends and colleagues in the south-west region that we are not taking more than our fair share to fulfil our objective 1 programme.
Indeed, in a letter to me dated 5 January the Prime Minister wrote:
"The principle of the applicant arranging the funding package is an important element in ensuring local ownership and commitment."
I am sure that that is right. But how does the applicant arrange the funding package when significant portions of the match funding are not in place? It is clear from the Prime Minister's letter that the Government prefer not to agree to a draw-down rate of £1 for £1, but want a lower percentage of UK contribution. Added to that are the complexities of the system that I have already outlined.
Let us assume for a moment that there are sufficient public match funds, although I still have a rather jaundiced view of the system's ability to operate and

5WH
deliver the finance to get the projects off the ground. There is not just the European finance—the four funds: the EAGGF, the European regional development fund, the European social fund and the financial instrument for fisheries guidance—but many little pots of funding within each of the four Government Departments, which must all be tapped to make that funding available. Any objective observer of the process would quickly conclude that one needs to be articulate and pushy and have a paid consultant to have any chance of getting through this system, but that is really not the way forward. Frankly, one needs a PhD in gobbledegook to get through the system. Rather than simply sitting back and adding to the complexity by including departmental complexities, the Government should take a handle on the matter and start to see the problems of European funding from an applicant's point of view.
Mr. John Healey: I applaud the approach that the hon. Gentleman is taking to this issue, which is extremely important to all our four objective 1 areas. I apologise because I must leave to attend a Standing Committee, so I shall not be able to hear his full contribution. Does he agree that the problem of the complexity of the system and the access for local partnerships to central Government sources of match funding requires a cultural change and a change of understanding in Whitehall? The objective 1 programme should be seen not as just another European source of funding for local projects, but as something that will bring economic restructuring to our areas. Whitehall must also see that objective 1 in our four areas can help the pursuit of Government objectives and policies as well as local objectives and policies.
Mr. George: That was a helpful intervention. There is a shared interest in making sure that objective 1 succeeds. The Government have an interest in making sure that the wealth generated in this country is enjoyed by all equally as far as possible, and that the four regions that have been identified as outstandingly poor are given an opportunity to bring themselves up at least to the average enjoyed by the rest of the country. It is in the shared interests of all hon. Members to ensure that that happens. Hon. Members from objective 1 regions know that we share the Government's interest in making the objective 1 programme succeed.
I shall conclude my speech, because it is important that other hon. Members who want to speak have ample time to do so. We must recognise that the point of the exercise is to give an essential lift to the economies of the four poorest regions, not to justify a more complex and impenetrable bureaucracy. We need to overcome the barriers that applicants experience. We need greater certainty about the funds. We need a more applicant and project-centred process. We need a joined-up government approach to the problem. We need greater evidence that the four Departments are coming together strategically. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has proposed in the all-party objective 1 group that a Cabinet Committee should co-ordinate the approach to the issue.
Brittany has a single application form for European funding and regional funding. That makes it considerably easier for applicants for objective 1 status to respond to the complexities of the process. In France,
6WH
the départements face those complexities and the préfet, with his committee of advisers, decides that if people succeed in one fund, they succeed in the lot. That is how things should happen. Applicants should not have to complete 12, 13, 14 or 15 application forms for different financial years and different criteria.
In the next seven years, there will be a golden opportunity for objective 1 areas. It is vital that we get it right this time, because there will not be a next time. Objective 1 regions deserve the Government's full support. Applicants deserve an applicant-friendly system. I urge the Minister to respond to the genuine fears—we are not scaremongering—that we in the objective 1 regions might fail to make full use of the opportunity provided by objective 1 funds in the next seven years.
10.23 am
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on securing this important Adjournment debate. It is important because it comes at a critical time when the draft single programming document for objective 1 areas is being considered in Brussels. We have a small amount of invaluable time in which to resolve some of the practical issues that have emerged. They must be resolved if we are to take full advantage of the objective 1 funds for which so many people have worked so hard.
In Merseyside, this issue is especially important because we are coming to the end of the highly successful first objective 1 programme. That programme has successfully safeguarded jobs, secured additional employment and brought new investment to Merseyside. It has introduced innovations to support small businesses—especially the Merseyside special investment fund, which is an innovative fund investing European funds in small businesses—and major projects of cultural and employment significance, such as the conservation centre in Liverpool, which won the award of European museum of the year, the CIMS projects at Liverpool university, which invests in technology transfer, and many local programmes in areas of particular deprivation, such as Dingle, Granby and Vauxhall, which work with local people, support local resources and develop training and employment opportunities.
In considering the practical issues that we face in securing maximum advantage from the second objective 1 round, we in Merseyside want to build on our successes and make maximum use of that funding. What we have already achieved in Merseyside can be replicated in the new objective 1 areas, some of which have similar needs.
One factor is different this time. Significant changes in UK regional policy have taken place, including a much sharper focus on regional economic policy, the creation of regional development agencies with a clear remit and the development of regional economic strategies, which have now been presented for all regions. The regional economic strategy for the north-west covers matters such as the environment, business skills, transportation and general infrastructure, and I suspect that regional economic strategies for the other regions cover similar matters. A change is also taking place in the nature of

7WH
the business support offered by the UK Government. Training and enterprise councils and business links are moving to the small firms fund and the skills councils.
Changes in regional policy have taken place. We have regional development agencies and regional economic strategies, and we are sharpening up our means of delivering business support. In addition, Government offices for the regions have a new role, which is still being developed. They should become much more of a voice for the regions than for the Government operating in the regions.
Such factors are extremely important in considering financial and managerial arrangements for the new objective 1 programme. We must ensure that we maximise all available economic development resources in order to bring maximum support to objective 1 areas. To be effective, the use of European objective 1 funds must be aligned as closely as possible with the use of UK funds—whether from the public, the private or the voluntary sector—that are identified for programmes in the regional economic strategies or for local programmes. The two must work together. To make maximum use of those programmes, we need sufficient match funding and co-ordination at all levels.
In Merseyside, the main focus of the new objective 1 single programming document is business support: supporting the creation and survival of SMEs and developing the community's knowledge base and growth points in the economy, such as pharmaceuticals, leisure, work through the docks, which will have major repercussions for the Merseyside economy, new areas such as environmental technologies and spin-offs from our universities and institutions of higher education. We must consider transport, skills and infrastructure as well as investment. In Liverpool, objective 1 funding must be aligned with regeneration, especially through working with Liverpool Vision, the first urban regeneration company to be created following the Rodgers report on the regeneration of urban areas.
Although those are major issues for Merseyside and Liverpool, they also apply to the other objective 1 areas. If we try to keep European objective 1 funds in a separate box, they will not be as effective as they could be. They will be fully effective only if we develop managerial and financial arrangements and structures that will enable objective 1 funds to be used effectively with other funds that are or can be made available.
I shall refer now to specific issues on management and financial arrangements, some of which the hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned. The partners in the Merseyside objective 1 programme have come together to provide finance for a separate officer responsible to the programming committee for not only delivering the programme, but considering how it can be better assessed and made more effective. Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain the Government's views on that issue? I know that discussions have been held at Government level and beyond. It is an important issue because it relates to the establishment of the programme committee—co-ordinated with other funding bodies— as a body in its own right to assess these activities more effectively than before.
8WH
It is important to establish effective links, within the programme monitoring committee and elsewhere, between the North West regional development agency, the Government office for the north west—or their equivalents in the other objective 1 areas—and the European Commission. Such links must be developed in an organised way if they are to be effective. Such work is already happening, but I should like an assurance that it will be facilitated at Government level so that the constructive links that are developing within the area are supported nationally. Such co-ordination must be replicated at Government level. It is extremely important that the DFEE, DTI, and DETR—the major Departments involved, although there are others— work together to assist the delivery and co-ordination of the objective 1 programmes. One of the difficulties we encountered in the previous programme was the lack of co-ordination; some of the long delays frequently encountered in putting together and delivering the objective 1 and objective 2 programmes arose because different Departments interpreted Commission guidelines differently, to the detriment of the programme. I ask the Government to address that central issue.
The issue of match funding has been raised. I ask the Minister for an assurance that there will be maximum flexibility in identifying match funding so that we get maximum benefit from the objective 1 programme. Would selective assistance from the DTI, for example, count as match funding? Will there be support for the venture capital funds that some of the regional development agencies are setting up, and which the North West regional development agency is considering, and will they be used to support match funding? Will the Government be as flexible as possible with regard to their programmes and related programmes to enable match funding to be made available, so that we get maximum advantage from objective 1 funds?
Budgets are important. There was a particular problem in the north-west, because the North West regional development agency inherited many of the previous programmes. Because of the limited budget it inherited, most of its funds for 2000–01 and beyond are already committed. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will reconsider the budgets of the regional development agencies, specifically in relation to objective 1 funding, to ensure flexibility? Will he also assure me that, where necessary, there will be additional funding or additional access to funding, to ensure that objective 1 money is spent as effectively as possible?
The hon. Member for St. Ives referred to a new issue that has emerged with the objective 1 programme— decommitment, to use the jargon. If the allocations for the programme in a given year are not committed by offer letter by the end of the calendar year and have not been spent within two years, the money may automatically be removed from the objective 1 area to which it has been designated.
If that is a firm rule, timing is essential. There were many delays at the beginning of the previous objective 1 programme for Merseyside. First, the Commission did not accept the single programming document put forward by Merseyside, and there were problems with policies and funding. Those difficulties were eventually resolved, the programme is now fully committed and the

9WH
funds will be fully spent. However, the new decommitment rule means that if such delays occur again the money will be lost. Our debate is timely because it is important that the problems of match funding, management arrangements and Government co-ordination are resolved now.
My hon. Friend the Minister has a long history of understanding European funding problems. I know that he is deeply committed to regional policy and to European funding for the regions. I ask him to consider sympathetically the points that have been raised in this morning's debate. Their resolution will have maximum impact on the United Kingdom's poorest regions. European funding was hard fought for, particularly by the present Government. By resolving these issues, he will bring maximum value to the regions and make the Government's regional policies fully effective.
10.36 am
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on securing this timely debate. It is important that those of us who represent the four regions that have secured objective 1 funding should have common cause. The details may be different from one area to another, but the principles that we are debating today—what we want to secure for our areas—are identical. It is right and proper that we should all pull in the same direction; that will ensure that the programmes are delivered in such a way as to achieve maximum benefit.
Large parts of Wales are designated as objective 1 areas. That is a reflection of our failure over the years to attain economic regeneration. The extent of the problem is shown by the fact that, out of a total population of 2.9 million, 1.9 million people in Wales get less than 75 per cent. of the average per capita income of the European Union. The problem affects not only the old coalfield areas—one can well understand that the running down of the coal industry has caused income per head to fall here—but the rural west and north-west, and a large part of north Wales, which has suffered rural deprivation and the running down of some of the historic centres on the coast that used to generate economic wealth.
Taking all that together, the immense challenge is to get the gross domestic product per head up to something approaching the European or UK average. The objective 1 programme gives us a God-sent opportunity, but it is available only between now and 2006, perhaps with an overspill for a year or two more as the programme runs down. We shall not have this opportunity again, because countries from eastern Europe will have joined the European Union and will start making demands on its regional resources. We must make the most of this opportunity.
I pay tribute to the work undertaken by former Ministers in the Welsh Office in securing the programme for Wales. For many years, people campaigned to get the nomenclature of units of territorial statistics II—NUTS—map changed to reflect the reality of the country's social deprivation. In their time at the Welsh Office, the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), as Secretary of State for Wales, and the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), as his deputy, faced a tremendous battle to secure that funding: that it has
10WH
been done is great. The objective in winning the battle is to make the programme work, and we face several problems in Wales. Questions about structures for managing the programmes and the generation of interest in new projects, which is vital, are largely matters for the National Assembly for Wales, and I must pursue them with my other hat on.
The fundamental question that faces the National Assembly and those involved in the project is about funding, as has been mentioned by the hon. Members for St. Ives and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). We in north Wales have watched with great interest Liverpool's progress and the benefits that it has secured from the programme, and we wish Merseyside well with the next part of the project. Both those hon. Members referred to funding, matched funding and the availability of finance. The situation is slightly different in Wales, because the Barnett formula defines our available funding. A rolling programme agreed by the Welsh Office and the Treasury is updated from year to year.
The expenditure available to us was defined in the Welsh Office spending programme more than a year ago, before Wales was accorded objective 1 status. In that rolling programme, the total managed expenditure for Wales in 2000–01 was £7,908 million. No provision in that figure was made for objective 1, as it was some months before that had been cleared by the European Union. Under the National Assembly and the office of the Secretary of State, who remains in Westminster, the budget for next year will be £7,909 million, which is within £1 million of the original budget. There is no additional money whatever in the budget for Wales for 2000–01 to reflect the additional expenditure necessary with regard to objective 1.
The figures are similar under the current expenditure plans for 2001–02. The original budget for Wales published more than a year ago was £8,334 million for that year, and the updated figure published a few weeks ago by Edwina Hart, the Assembly's Finance Secretary, was £8,335 million. Again, that is within £1 million. For the year after next, no additional money has been included in the budget for Wales to take account of objective 1.
Hon. Members have touched on additionality—the projects to be provided by objective 1 money will be additional to what would have otherwise taken place. That argument is not new. It was used by members of the Labour party involved in the fight in the early '90s when Bruce Millan was a Commissioner in Brussels and the focus was on the RECHAR programme. A famous victory was secured then.
A document provided by the Coalfield Communities Campaign, which has been heavily involved in areas of England and Wales, states:
"In an agreement signed in 1992, the government agreed to introduce procedures that would ensure that EU grants led to extra spending in the places they were intended to assist."
That is what we expect. In Cornwall, Merseyside, South Yorkshire—I noted with interest the positive comments made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey)—and Wales, we expect additional expenditure, but our budgets do not have the facility for that. If we have to divert money from programmes already published as part of our budget for Wales so

11WH
as to provide matched funding for European expenditure, less money will be available for the programmes than was originally foreseen.
We are not talking about small amounts of money. In Wales, we are talking about match funding of about £170 million to £180 million a year. Graham Meadows, a senior officer in charge of such programmes in the European Union, told us that that match funding must come from the public sector. That was confirmed in a regional meeting of the National Assembly in Rhy1 in September—I see that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) is present. Civil servants from the Welsh Office confirmed that the information they had been given by Brussels was that the match funding for the new programme had to come from the public sector, not the private sector. That is on record, having been stated in Brussels by Graham Meadows to MEPs, and by civil servants in meetings in Wales.
If the match funding has to be found from the public sector and there is no additional provision whatever in our budget in Wales, where will the money come from? Something must be done to find it. It is not simply a problem for 2000–01. I accept that there will be a delay in expenditure, and that projects started in that year may not fully need their cash flow expenditure until the following year. Therefore, the figure needed in 2000–01 may be below £170 million, but we need additional money.
On 23 November, I received a parliamentary answer from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which stated:
"The responsibility for identifying match funding from the many sources available in the public and private sectors is a matter for project applicants in these areas."—[Official Report, 26 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 211W.]
Central Government are washing their hands of the need to provide match funding, and are labouring under the misapprehension that private sector money can provide it. That is not the message that we have had, clearly and categorically, from Brussels and from civil servants in the National Assembly.
As we work within a global figure defined by the Barnett formula in Wales, we must be assured that a mechanism has been authorised for public expenditure survey cover for the additional money from the European Union for objective 1 purposes. We need additional match funding to ensure that genuinely additional projects will be pursued in Wales, and we need additional PES cover for the half the money for those projects that comes from Brussels.
So far, we have been told that the Government will not let Wales down, and I hope that we can bank on that commitment. I am glad to hear hon. Members, especially those on the Government Benches, reinforcing that hope. If we can trust that commitment, we shall be very happy indeed, but we want to know how it will met.
My local authority has passed me a copy of a letter that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who is in the Chamber, received from the Prime Minister. In the context of objective 1 spending in relation to Cornwall—I guess that his comments are equally applicable to other areas—the Prime Minister said:
12WH
"There has been considerable speculation that the UK Government will make additional public resources available to these areas in order to provide a further source of match funding for projects under the programme. However, such match funding will continue to be the responsibility of the grant applicant and will be largely derived from the existing domestic programmes available to the area … I cannot guarantee that more public funding will be available".
If more public funding is not available, there will be cuts in expenditure in Wales on health and education to provide the money necessary for match funding for the European programme. Frankly, that is not acceptable. The areas in Wales that are entitled to the money are areas of social deprivation. The objective of the programme is to overcome that deprivation with self-regenerative economic growth. It is unacceptable that social programmes should have to be cut to maximise the benefit that we receive from the European Union.
When the Minister winds up the debate, I hope that he will give a categorical assurance—not simply for Wales but for Merseyside, South Yorkshire and Cornwall as well—that there will be additional match funding so that projects can be genuinely additional. There must also be PES cover, so that the funds from Brussels will be over and above the expenditure programme that has been approved so far.
10.49 am
Ms Candy Atherton: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on securing the debate. I am glad that he has not followed the doomsday scenario adopted by some of his hon. Friends, who seem more interested in cheap headlines today than in Cornwall's prosperity tomorrow.
Mr. Duncan: Oh, that is a good line.
Ms Atherton: It is a true line.
The people of Cornwall and those of other objective 1 regions have been given a vital opportunity, and everyone must do whatever they can to maximise the benefits. I am confident that those who have worked so hard to win this opportunity will ensure that that happens. The Labour Government who won the additional funding will ensure that the poorest regions benefit most. That is why I welcome the opportunity of suggesting how that can be done.
A little history is required because some hon. Members do not remember how Cornwall won objective 1 status in the first place. Two years ago, the county had as much chance of winning objective 1 status as Manchester United has of winning the world FIFA cup—it was not even in the sphere of possibility. Several events assisted our campaign, notably the sad end of tin mining in Cornwall, which highlighted all too dramatically the plight that the region faced.
My hon. Friend the Minister assisted in what became a long campaign within Government to point out the needs of the county. Even colleagues from the north of England failed to understand the endemic nature of Cornwall's poverty. I am pleased to say, however, that many Ministers listened, and when the Prime Minister met me and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devenport (Mr. Jamieson), Cornwall suddenly became a runner. The Prime Minister instructed civil servants to

13WH
make the case for Cornwall to be separated from Devon for statistical purposes. To my intense joy, within a few weeks the case was won in Europe. The poorest region in the UK now stood at the front of the list of achieving objective 1.
Mr. Duncan: Will the hon. Lady confirm that the bid on behalf of Cornwall had been set in motion by the Conservative Government before the general election?
Ms Atherton: I am astonished: all of us knew at that time that Cornwall was not even in the running. However, I am delighted to hear that we have the support of the Conservatives, and I can confirm that the key statistical separation from Devon was achieved not by the previous Conservative Government, but by the present Labour Government.
When I heard the news about the statistical separation, I danced around my living room for ages while an electrician looked on aghast as I celebrated what I immediately recognised as a great opportunity. That night the gloom merchants were out: they said that Cornwall would be left out; that the Labour Government would not confer assisted area status; and that, at the final hour, Cornwall would be denied funding. But, hey presto, we did it. We now hear the same soothsayers predicting that the Government will not match fund objective 1. Balderdash! Much work remains to be done on many fronts—in central and local government—and we now have an opportunity to discuss it. It is important for the Government to establish mechanisms to maximise the benefits of the objective 1 programme. The form that such mechanisms should take should be considered urgently in the weeks ahead.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade for a letter sent to me last night, which outlines ways in which partnerships can access match funding. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has agreed to meet the all-party objective 1 group. The Minister for Trade may also agree to participate to help to achieve joined-up government. We will be able to discuss funding mechanisms and establish the best way forward. As others have argued, there is an excellent case for joined-up government in the administration of the objective 1 programme. That is vital. Departments must work together to establish the compatibility of various sources of funding and to ensure that the programme is administered effectively. Those Departments must work with Government offices for the regions and the RDAs. "Joined-up" must refer to the regions as well as to the centre.
On the specific question of match funding, regional partnerships must identify and access sources of funding; there are, rightly, no blank cheques. We should examine ways of accessing these sources effectively. Equally, we should decide which funding sources are compatible with European guidance—we need assistance to ensure flexibility from Departments. We must not allow projects to be frustrated by bureaucratic barriers or regulations, or become bogged down waiting for decisions.
Only last week, a local businessman asked me for advice about whether retrospective funding was available for an exciting project that his company was
14WH
developing. I want clear guidelines from the Government on how such information will be given and when. I and other members of the all-party objective 1 group have put these points to Ministers in the past few weeks. We are now waiting for answers. We need to hit the ground running and to ensure that arrangements are established as soon as possible. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister shares my sentiments.
I am pleased to say that I know of several exciting and innovative projects being developed in Cornwall that will make a genuine difference to people's lives. Despite all that I have said, there is an exciting feeling that objective 1 can work for the county and do what it was designed to do—make a real difference to one of the hardest-hit areas of the country. We can make Cornwall a can-do rather than a can't-do county.
Unfortunately, I occasionally have to respond to ill-conceived stories that objective 1 is under threat and that this will be a wasted opportunity. Before Christmas, a story was sent by certain Conservative Members to local papers claiming that the Government refused to match-fund this programme. I am at a loss to understand what they were talking about. Opposition Members had taken a letter from the Prime Minister, which was referred to a little while ago, and spun their own somewhat eccentric interpretation. They decided that the Prime Minister has said that there would be no objective 1 funding for Cornwall, and they hit the "Six O'clock News" saying as much. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), whom I am delighted to see here, appeared prominently in those television programmes. However, so great was his concern that he failed to mention the letter and his anxieties in the two hours that he spent with me in the run-up to the programmes. He then hit the television stations when it was impossible to check the veracity of the story. Not content with talking down the eclipse, on objective 1 the hon. Gentleman seems to want to be known as the Member of Parliament for Truro, St. Austell and Doom. Jeremiah mark 2!
What was the hon. Gentleman thinking of when he stated that people in Government Departments would be instructed to put down the telephone on anyone who spoke with a Cornish accent, and that the funding of local councils would be withdrawn? In truth, he and other hon. Members had decided to misinterpret a statement from the Prime Minister that said nothing new.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Atherton: No. I am making a specific point about Cornwall, and I wish to keep to it.
Mr. George: Will the hon. Lady give way to one of her local Members?
Ms Atherton: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he insists.
Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. History is being rewritten during the valuable minutes in which we should be pressing the Minister about where match funding should be identified. Instead, we are getting into

15WH
a ridiculous spat over an extreme, untrue story. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should be urging the Minister to identify ways in which the programme could move forward?
Ms Atherton: We have spent much of the past hour raising those issues. Just before Christmas, there was some rewriting of history, which should be put on record because many people in Cornwall were greatly disturbed by what was said. The hon. Gentleman knows that much confidence was lost, and many people working on good projects became disheartened. Those people came to us as their Members of Parliament to ask what was happening.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the hon. Lady believe, as her statements at the time suggested, that the Government should be trusted to deliver the match funding required, given the Prime Minister's statement that he will not guarantee that funding? That is what the letter said, but the hon. Lady asks us to take it on trust that the funding will be provided. However, our debate suggests that hon. Members do not believe that to be the case. We want to win guarantees from the Minister that the Prime Minister would not give.
Ms Atherton: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's question. We do not take the matter on trust. However, many of the Labour Government's initiatives—such as health action zones, education action zones, and an imminent development of which the hon. Gentleman is aware—reveal a track record of commitment to Cornwall. The hon. Gentleman and others were not 100 per cent. convinced that the Government would come up with the objective 1 programme and fight their case at the Berlin summit. However, the Government did exactly that. People should consider how Ministers have operated and worked for Cornwall, and give praise where it is due.
That does not mean that I do not want answers from Ministers. I have met Ministers and shall continue to work and fight with them in order to make the case for the county of Cornwall. I repeat: a Labour Government fought for Cornwall to get objective 1 status, and a Labour Government will give a commitment to making match funding work.
11.1 am
Mr. Chris Ruane: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on securing this debate on objective 1 funding. I should like to stress the importance of such funding to the area that I represent, and to discuss match funding.
The exact opposite of the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) confronted my county when it tried to be included in the bid from west Wales and the valleys. We had to attach ourselves to that bid, whereas my hon. Friend had to divest herself of the burdensome Devonshire aspect.
I should like to mention the main players who secured the inclusion of my constituency and county in the west Wales and valleys bid. I pay tribute to the Cardiff
16WH
Business School for providing the up-to-date statistics that set the ball rolling. Old statistics based on the eight counties in Wales did not allow Denbighshire and Conwy to participate in the bid. However, new statistics supplied by the Cardiff business school on a 22-county basis gave a true reflection of poverty across Wales.
I also pay tribute to Huw Vaughan Thomas, chief executive of Denbighshire county council, who supplied local Members of Parliament with those statistics, which were used by the then Minister at the Welsh Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), to assess the position. Throughout Wales people were saying, "Do not change the map at the eleventh hour. Do not jeopardise things for Wales." However, the Minister took into account arguments for and against our inclusion, and used his decision-making power to ensure that Denbighshire and Conwy were allowed to be part of the bid.
I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for providing the additional information that I believe swung the Minister into making the correct decision to include Denbighshire and Conwy's population of 250,000 in the bid.
Opposition parties have not given sufficient credit to the Prime Minister for the role he played in Berlin in securing objective 1 funding for four UK regions. He flew to Hawarden in north Wales and announced the news at the Labour party conference in Llandudno. Insufficient tribute has been paid to the Prime Minister for that: he would not fly to Berlin and secure funding for the UK, only to scupper that funding on his return, as Opposition Members are suggesting.
It is right for hon. Members to raise the important issue of match funding, which, however, must be kept in perspective. A fine balance is required for match funding and creating the energy and enthusiasm that is necessary to make a success of objective 1. There is a danger of talking down Wales, turning off the business community and stifling the energy and enthusiasm that are the necessary catalysts for successful objective 1 projects in Wales and, indeed, in the rest of the United Kingdom. We should encourage our local business people, as well as United Kingdom and international investors, to invest in Wales.
The case for match funding can be made and it is right that it should be discussed openly in Parliament, but it should be kept in perspective. I am making representations. In the past six months, I have met the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister for the Cabinet Office face to face to put the case for Wales and the United Kingdom to get proper match funding. That is how things should be done. We must go forward united. I know that there are many opportunities for Opposition parties to make cheap political points. You are in a privileged position, but I ask you to consider that privilege carefully.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember the conventions of the House. The Chair does not have to consider anything other than whether protocol and the Standing Orders are observed.
Mr. Ruane: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) referred to the need to match national strategy with the local strategies that have been developed in the single

17WH
programming documents. I concur with that. The Government's main aim is to combat social exclusion and eradicate the poverty that occurred in the 66 constituencies in the objective 1 regions of the United Kingdom during 18 years of Tory rule. We are developing national strategies on social exclusion, education, the economy and the environment. They should be seamless and fit in with the local strategies that have been developed. We must work together without scoring party political points, and present a united front to Ministers during the critical spending review. If we present our case cogently with facts, figures and passion, we shall be successful in achieving match funding.
11.7 am
Mr. Alan Duncan: I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for speaking through a slight veil of snuffles today, but in the circumstances I think that I have been let off lightly. May I take this opportunity to welcome the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)? All hon. Members will be pleased to see him on his feet, fighting fit.
This is the first occasion on which I have spoken in this Room, and I shall endeavour to adhere to the forms of the House in what I think is a failing experiment of an experimental Chamber. None the less, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) has raised an important issue, but it is proving its importance only inasmuch as he has shown, as have all those who have contributed to the debate, how unsatisfactory is the state of affairs. We are examining a shambolic system. It is a bureaucratic nightmare, and it is not working. The hon. Member for St. Ives showed that very well; his main thesis was that people must be articulate, pushy and be able to afford a consultant just to reach first base—I might put in a bid. The system is surrounded by bureaucratic muddle. A D.Phil in gobbledegook is needed just to submit an application. That is not how such a system should work. The Minister will have to explain in detail how he will unravel the mess and introduce coherence and cogency to a process for which we in the House should have to answer.
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): As usual.
Mr. Duncan: We await the Minister's clarification with some trepidation.
We have the absurdity of the hon. Member for St. Ives saying that Cornwall is struggling to spend £314 million. We also have the nonsensical lack of clarity on match funding. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) has made a plea for what she calls flexibility in match funding, which looks like a plea to get the maximum out of Europe with the minimum out of her Government. That is what her definition of flexbility seems to be.
We have witnessed the spat between the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and Liberal Democrat Members about whether she bragged that her Government would provide match funding. The basis on which the money is spent seems to be in a complete mess. We believe that the system is utterly flawed, but I do not blame anyone for taking the money if it is available. If there is a pot of gold waiting to be
18WH
used, anyone representing the interests of their constituents will try to find a way of diverting it their way. It is a bit like Dudley Moore at the end of the film "Arthur" saying, "I'm not stupid. I took the money." If the system is offering funds, any responsible Member of Parliament will try to obtain them.
If we step back from the system and look at what is happening, we can see how it is taking on an absurd identity. We are in the realms of the absurd. We are net contributors to the European Union. We pay billions into the EU. It gives money back and claims the credit and then, having returned to us money that was ours in the first place, demands that the Government put in more money. We have this extraordinary merry-go-round of taxpayers' money going into contributions, coming back to us and then being spent only partly by us. It is mostly spent by the EU in a way that we cannot properly decipher and for which the House no longer appears able to be properly responsible.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I am confused by what the hon. Member is saying and would be grateful for some clarification. A moment ago he was trying to lay claim to having put in the original bid under the previous Government. Now he appears to be saying that it is so much of a shambles that it should never have happened in the beginning. Would he have fought as hard as the present Government have fought to get objective 1 status, particularly for Cornwall?
Mr. Duncan: We made the bid because the system was there. If the system is there, one uses it to get the best one can for Britain. The whole system now deserves better examination. Labour has had 18 years to think about it, but it does not appear to have thought about it at all. The merry-go-round of money going from us to the EU and back again is looking increasingly absurd. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon, with his £170 million match funding in Wales, now says that he wants more public spending. In addition to the money being taxed and going there and coming back, we have further pressure to compound the burden on the taxpayer in order to double the money, or at least significantly add to it, and to spend it in these areas.
My point is simply that we are elected to the House of Commons to look after the interests of Britain. If it were genuinely additional money I could see the point, but given that it is ours in the first place, the House of Commons should decide within the boundaries of the United Kingdom how its money, raised from its taxpayers, is spent on its citizens.
Mr. Ruane: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether that was the system under the previous Government?
Mr. Duncan: Well, that was the benefit of my original thought. We should not just accept the status quo. We should consider whether the system is working, and the debate has proved today is that it is not working. We should decide whether this merry-go-round system makes sense any more, and I seriously question whether it does.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Duncan: No. I want to conclude as I want to leave the Minister some time and I am eating into it already.

19WH
He is going to need it. I shall ask him some specific questions. What criteria were used to draw up the map? What were the political criteria? What criteria will be used in deciding how to spend the money? What will be the role of the RDAs, in their interaction with business and the regional offices of the DTI, in deciding and administering that expenditure? Perhaps the Minister can give us a detailed explanation of how the match funding system will work.
11.15 am
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): I apologise for my late arrival—I arrived as Big Ben was striking the 10th note of 10 o'clock. I walked from the Ministry—we do not use the transport provided any more—but there were many visitors in London this morning and the traffic lights were against me. I am also suffering from the cold that is doing the rounds.
The contribution of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) was unfortunate and showed how far the Opposition are from public opinion. The House makes those decisions. The hon. Gentleman ought to reflect seriously on what the British public said in May 1997 in response to such extremism, because the Tory party is becoming even more extreme. The hon. Gentleman demonstrated a marked ignorance on the subject under consideration—which explains his comments about the sitting. Hon. Members present have an in-depth knowledge of the subject—which, judging from the hon. Gentleman's contribution, the Opposition clearly do not.
I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on his choice of subject and on the interest that he has taken in European structural funds. He said that he was an expert on the matter before entering the House. European structural funds are a real and tangible benefit of our membership of the European Union. Indeed, for many people they are the most tangible benefit, contributing to a better environment, more jobs and better training. I am therefore delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given us the opportunity to debate aspects of their impact on the UK.
The hon. Member for St. Ives made several points specific to Cornwall and its objective 1 programme. Before addressing them, I remind hon Members of some of the essential features of European structural funds as they affect the UK. There are four such funds, the first of which is the European regional development fund, which reduces the gap between the levels of development and living standards of the various regions and the extent to which the least-favoured regions lag behind. The second is the European social fund, which helps to develop employment by promoting employability, the business spirit and equal opportunities and by investing in human resources. The third is the European guidance and guarantee section of the agricultural fund, which helps to preserve the link between agriculture and land, improving and supporting the competitiveness of agriculture, retaining population in the countryside and preserving and maintaining the environment. We believe that that is vital, especially in the context of the debate about the urban renaissance and encroachment on greenbelt and greenfield sites. The fourth is the financial instrument for fisheries guidance, which helps
20WH
to achieve a sustainable balance between fisheries resources and their exploitation, to modernise the fishing industry and to revitalise areas dependent on fishing.
A separate cohesion fund exists to help the four member states—Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain— whose per capita GNP is below 90 per cent. of the European average. The operation of structural funds has been somewhat complex—as has been demonstrated this morning. I am glad to say that in the last renegotiation the Government achieved some simplification, although complexities remain. The number of objectives has been reduced in practice from seven to three. On UK allocations for the funds, which will be in place for the next seven years, we can expect to receive about £11 billion, which is, as I said earlier, a tangible benefit of EU membership.
As has already been mentioned, the fact that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer secured such a good deal for the UK at the negotiation of the new round of structural funds at the European Council in Berlin in March 1999 shows the success of the Government's policy. It presents a marked contrast with what the official Opposition have said this morning, and shows that constructive engagement works in dealing with the EU. The result was a package that is affordable and fair to the UK as a whole and to all the regions. Despite the reduction of population coverage by one third for objective 2 areas, the overall package produced an increase in the total population covered by geographical objectives from 24 million to 26.8 million. The UK's total allocation in euros has increased by 18 per cent.
The regional programmes are developed and managed primarily by the regions themselves. To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), I hope that the structures that are put in place will be flexible enough to deliver what people want in the regions. Successive revisions of structural funds have increased the role of local partnerships in designing and implementing programmes. Everyone—with the possible exception of the official Opposition—with a serious interest in European structural funds welcomes that development. It is the partnerships that know their regions best. They are committed to them and are best placed to identify projects that will make a genuine impact in their regions. The local partnership typically comprises representation from local authorities, local and regional development bodies, education bodies, chambers of commerce, voluntary organisations and others. In England, regional Government offices have a vital role to play in the management of programmes.
RDAs have already been mentioned. I emphasise the importance of devolution and the introduction of RDAs in England. Devolved Administrations are responsible for programmes in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In England, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is the lead Department for objective 1 and 2 programmes, while the Department of Trade and Industry has an overall co-ordinating role and represents the entire UK in negotiations with the European Commission on structural funds in general.

21WH
In England, RDAs have been closely involved in designing the new objective 1 programmes and in ensuring that programmes are consistent with their regional economic strategies. RDAs in the south-west contributed substantially to the objective 1 plan for Cornwall, and I hope that such informed development can continue, not only in Cornwall but in other areas.
The Government's role during the programming period is, nationally, to monitor programmes, their expenditure and the effect of exchange rate movements—the Commission makes all commitments in euros—to provide advice and guidance to regional partners on technical matters, to help to resolve problems between Departments and the Commission, to act as the channel through which payments from Brussels are made and to verify that money is spent properly, in accordance with fund rules.
The Commission's proposals for improved and more transparent financial control management in structural funds are extremely welcome. The UK has consistently and rigorously pursued better financial management and accountability of all European expenditure: we are all European taxpayers, and it is vital that our taxes are well spent and properly accounted for and that genuine value for money is achieved.
I turn now to the funding of programmes, the matter in which hon. Members have most interest. As has already been mentioned, several hon. Members have asked about match funding in the debate and in correspondence with the Government on the matter from the Prime Minister down. I am pleased to have the opportunity to try to explain as clearly as possible how the system of match funding will work, because some misunderstanding has arisen.
Structural funds account for only a proportion of the cost of a project. The remainder must be found from national sources. Match funding may be obtained from central Government or local government, from other organisations such as development bodies, or from the voluntary sector, and may include a variable element from the private sector. [Interruption] I am glad that it was your pager that sounded, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and not anyone else's.
It is important to note that regulations allow grants of up to 75 per cent. for objective 1 areas. However, the English objective 1 programmes have chosen to apply for support from the funds equivalent only to match funding from the public sector. The addition of private sector match funding has resulted in average grant rates of below 50 per cent. That increases the overall size of programmes, because, although the overall allocation from the funds is fixed, the programmes have to find proportionally more match funding. I stress that that was the decision of the regional partnerships.
Mr. Andrew George rose—
Mr. Caborn: I shall give way in a moment.
I am saying not that 75 per cent, would have been achieved, but that regulations allow for more than 50 per cent. The objective 1 areas decided to go for 50:50 on
22WH
match funding. We should consider what would happen to the rest of the people in the region if the 50 per cent. that is public money were taken out of the match funding. Of £100 expenditure, £45 comes from the EU, £45 is match funding and £10 is from the private sector. If the private sector wants to provide £15, should one reduce the £45 of match funding from the public sector to £40, liberating that £5 to be spent somewhere else in the region, or should it be additional to that funding, which would allow us to continue to expand the programme in that objective 1 area?
When setting up the regional development agencies on behalf of the Government, I tried to get the RDAs to look holistically at their regions, and to consider using finance, wherever it came from, to deliver a strategy. I believe that the way in which match funding is being developed militates against that.
Mr. George: I am somewhat at a loss, not knowing whether the Minister is atempting to shift the responsibility for that decision on to the partnerships in each of the four regions. The Government signed off those programmes when they went to the Commission in November. I presume that the Treasury and Government Departments agreed to the funding profiles within those programmes.
Mr. Caborn: That is absolutely true, but I and my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, drew it to the attention of those who were making applications that there could be problems with match funding. However, because it was a regional decision, we said that we would live with it. It must be accepted that the programme, which accounts for about 10 per cent. of what it spent, is additional to what has already been put in to those regions.
I appreciate the problems, but the money is additional to the programmes now going on. In terms of match funding, it will therefore be easy. Block grants cannot be made, because they would not follow the particular schemes for which match funding was required and which would be additional to that spending. However, I and my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and in the Treasury are prepared to consider whether to produce a new list. It is in our interests to ensure match funding to achieve a bigger take, but the decision is taken by the regions. That is what devolution of power is about. Regional decisions are now determining the level of match funding that will have to be raised. We believe that the money is there. We are prepared to reconsider regional selective assistance, which we were asked to do, and other assistance, and come back to the hon. Gentleman.
Unfortunately, time has caught up with us. There is much more to put on the record, but there has been a bit of in-fighting among hon. Members so I have been unable to give a full explanation. If hon. Members write to me, I shall respond to them. If they wish to promote another debate, I shall be more than willing to come to this Dispatch Box or the other at any time and debate the subject with the official Opposition.

Poverty (London)
11.30 am
Mr. Frank Dobson: I welcome this opportunity to draw attention to the level and extent of poverty in London and to ways of combating it.
London is the largest city in western Europe. It is a major international centre of finance and communications and our capital city—a city of immense dynamism and prosperity. For that reason, it has for too long been easy for people to ignore the extent and depth of poverty here. The largest concentrations of poverty and deprivation in Britain are here in the capital city. We have deprived neighbourhoods cheek by jowl with some of the richest neighbourhoods in the world. The City of London is probably the most prosperous square mile in the world, and is next to Hackney and Tower Hamlets, not far from Newham, and across the river from Southwark, where many people live in abject poverty.
The comparisons and contrasts to be found in the capital city read like comparisons between the first world and the third world. Infant mortality in Hackney is 10 times as high as in the London borough of Kingston. Someone living in Newham is twice as likely to die before age 75 as someone living in the London borough of Bromley, about 10 miles away. One quarter of all the families in Tower Hamlets live in overcrowded conditions. Half the children in inner London are entitled to free school meals: all this in the capital city of one of the world's leading economies.
The Government, I am glad to say, have an anti-poverty strategy. We need to ensure that the resources devoted to combating poverty are made appropriately available in London. In London we have the machinery and the commitment to pursue that strategy and make it work. That is a job for the new mayor and assembly. It will be necessary to draw up a strategy to tackle poverty, but that alone is not good enough; we must ensure that the strategy is carried out, so that while everyone in London works to make our city a cleaner, healthier, safer and more prosperous place, we must also give top priority to helping the worst-off families and worst-off areas.
Some London neighbourhoods have an unholy combination of high unemployment and low wages and poor working conditions for the people who have a job, high homelessness or, where there is a home, poor housing, high crime and disorder, and high environmental pollution. A few neighbourhoods have the whole rotten lot of those characteristics. Hamlet says:
"When sorrows come, they come not in single spies
But in battalions."
The battalions are raging through quite a few neighbourhoods in this city.
That unholy mixture gives rise to deprivation, despair and debt. It is estimated that about 300,000 Londoners turn to legal moneylenders, but many more turn to loan sharks. These are the lowest of the low because they victimise people who are already victims. They put poor families in double and treble jeopardy. The legal moneylenders are no better financially because some of them charge real interest rates of 200 to 900 per cent.
24WH
We must save people from accruing such levels of debt. One way of doing so is to promote credit unions, which have a vital role—and could have a bigger role— in helping families. That amounts to a good old traditional socialist way for people to club together to help one another, paying in when they can afford it so that people can borrow when they need it. I am usually in favour of creating employment, but if that would help to put loan sharks out of business, I would be happy to dance on their graves.
We need a combined effort, with credit unions offering alternatives and the police and council trading standards working together to help to save people from the loan sharks. When it comes to legal moneylenders, the Office of Fair Trading should look again at the case for maximum interest rates. I do not wish to appear too much like a class warrior, but it remains the case that the poorer people are, the higher interest rates they have to pay. If people working at the Office of Fair Trading were themselves faced with 200 to 900 per cent. interest rates, they might see more merit in setting a statutory boundary to their proposals.
Most people, unless they are very well off, need to borrow at certain times. Poor people are often so desperate that they have to borrow small sums. A poor family might need to borrow in order to buy clothes for the children at the start of a school term or school year, or kit them out for football or swimming, or even to buy a new pair of shoes. Holidays and home improvements are other examples which credit unions can help with. However, the best way of getting people in deprived areas out of the circle of debt and despair is to get them a job. I have always believed that those who want a job should be able to gain one and that, if they are working for a living, they should be paid a living wage. People should be able to work their way out of poverty. It is not true of everyone, I know, but most people who could do a job would like to have one: they would rather receive money through wages than through benefits. I want a London at work, not a London on benefits.
All over the city as I speak, business people, the Confederation of British Industry, the chambers of commerce, trade unions, the London First organisation, Labour councils and voluntary organisations are all working to make London a more attractive place in which to invest. We need new investors in jobs here. We also need to ensure that when existing firms opt for major investment in new equipment, they do so here rather than going to a green-field site somewhere outside this great city. Such firms want more skilled staff, fewer transport delays and less crime. They want their staff to have better access to decent housing and education. They are unlikely to be attracted by the proposals of one of my rivals for the Labour nomination for mayor who advocates a special London corporation tax. Imposing additional costs on London businesses is the last way to encourage people to invest for the first time or to reinvest in this area.
The mayor and the authority have a massive contribution to make to tackling poverty. As I explained, that will include reducing crime and disorder, improving the transport system and better targeting public funding for regeneration. Our promise to establish a Metropolitan police authority should improve the effectiveness of the Metropolitan police in tackling crime and disorder. Our transport proposals

25WH
for London should bring about improvements and our proposals to establish a London development agency should mean that priorities for regeneration better reflect Londoners' needs.
All our proposals can help London to retain existing jobs and create new ones. We must use London's strengths to tackle its weaknesses. London has huge advantages—that cannot be denied. It is a major centre of communications at a time when our language dominates world communications. London is a major centre for creative industries. Its universities, colleges, research centres and medical schools are coming up with new ideas and initiatives which, if we could lock on to them, could create new jobs with a future in this city. We must do that: we must get jobs and businesses and offer better training.
London is a largely prosperous city in which, officially, about 250,000 people are out of work. They are mainly men and many are young. A hugely disproportionate number of those who are out of work are black and Asian young people. Black people and Asians are twice as likely to be unemployed as other Londoners. That is wrong. Unemployment is not evenly spread: in some London constituencies, 20 per cent. of the male population are out of work; in some wards, it is 40 per cent. In other constituencies, however, unemployment is less than 2 per cent.
Everyone wants London to be cleaner, safer, healthier and more prosperous. Anyone interested in representing London or being the mayor of London—even Lord Archer before his untimely demise—would subscribe to that idea. However, there is a further aspect if one is a socialist and a member of the Labour party: London must be a fairer place. It will be fairer, with prosperity shared properly, only if we recognise the need for that and introduce positive policies to bring it into being.
That is why I propose to establish a medical officer of health for London, who is nothing to do with the national health service and reports to the mayor and the assembly. Health is important in itself, but it is also a major indicator of poverty: ill health is a product of poverty. I want a medical officer of health for London, to monitor the capital's health, identifying in particular those areas in which people are least healthy, which are the places in which people are least wealthy.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: My right hon. Friend mentioned inner London's problems. May I—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. This is a 30-minute debate. Without arrangements with the Chairman, interventions are against the rules. There has been no indication that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is willing to give way.
Mr. Dobson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall certainly attempt to deal with the matter that my hon. Friend may have wished to raise. Poverty-stricken neighbourhoods are not confined to inner London. Boroughs such as Newham or Brent—which few are
26WH
aware are in outer London—are, as a whole, deprived. There are also pockets of poverty throughout the capital, which we must tackle, wherever they are.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Had I known that that was predetermined, I might have been prepared for the event.
Mr. Dobson: It was not predetermined. However, I was aware of the matter that my hon. Friend was likely to raise, which was a logical step from what I was already saying.
The medical officer of health would tackle those things that are systematically making people ill, which include not having a job, being on low wages, having poor working conditions, having nowhere to live or nowhere decent to live and suffering from high levels of crime, disorder and environmental pollution. We must tackle all those issues. That is not a function of the national health service, except as almost a sideline; it is a function of many other organisations in this city. We must bring them together to ensure that we reduce poverty and its evil impact on people's hopes, prospects and health.
Poverty in this city has grown; the inequalities of wealth in this country have grown; and the fact that the inequalities between neighbourhoods have grown at the same time has frequently been ignored. The contrasts have become more grotesque and demeaning for our city and our country. We must reduce the inequalities, partly for the benefit of those who are suffering in the worst-off neighbourhoods, but partly for the benefit of us all.
Some people have warned me that I should not talk about tackling inequality because the idea is perhaps unfashionable and unacceptable to those who are comfortably off, but that has never been my view of my fellow citizens. Those who are badly off want to be better off, but most decent people who are comfortably off do not like the idea that fellow citizens live in deplorable conditions, do not have jobs, are on low wages, have poor working conditions, are subject to high levels of crime and disorder and live in a polluted environment. I have always believed that most decent people want everyone to have a decent standard of living and a proper chance to play his or her part as a fully active citizen in our society and in this city.
It has been the proud effort of the Labour party in London for 100 years to try to tackle poverty. We have achieved enormous success in that the general level is so much better than it used to be, but the inequalities between the worst-off areas and the best-off are simply unsustainable—to use a fashionable word. We cannot have a sound and decent society, or a sound and decent city, unless we tackle those inequalities. Together with many colleagues here, I look forward to working in partnership with people all over London to bring about the changes that we all want.
11.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on seeking and securing this important debate. He has made a characteristically

27WH
trenchant speech full of detail and practical proposals on how to tackle poverty in the capital. Many of his proposals are on issues that the Government are tackling because he raised them in Cabinet when he was in the Government. He raised the real problem of the misery caused by loan sharks who bear down on poor people. The social exclusion unit has an action team on financial exclusion because of the lead that he gave in the Government. He is right to emphasise that the best escape route from poverty for the vast majority of people of working age is to find work. That is why London needs the kind of leadership that produces an environment in which jobs are created and opportunities are provided.
In addressing the problem of poverty in the capital, my right hon. Friend is right to stress the capital's strengths. It is a great financial centre, a home to business and a global leader in communications, arts and culture. It is one of the truly great cities, and because it has those strengths it has the ability, with the right leadership, to provide a solution to the problem of poverty. The strategy to deal with poverty in the capital will be one of the key issues in the election for London's mayor. Tackling poverty is obviously important to the one household in three in inner London that depends on means-tested benefits.
The problem is not simply for the inner city. If we pull back the net curtains in the suburbs or in prosperous parts of the inner city, we find poverty there, too. My right hon. Friend may represent an inner-London seat, but he has a long track record of sticking up for people on low incomes throughout the capital, as I know because I lived for a long time in Camden, in his constituency. He raised such issues when he was leader of Camden council, on behalf of both the people of Camden and Londoners as a whole. When he was first elected to it, the London borough of Camden was the only council in the capital that provided free travel to pensioners. Through his work, he spread travel concessions Londonwide. He did that even though people from Camden paid for a large part of it through the London equalisation scheme, because it was the right thing to do. It was right for pensioners throughout the capital, including in outer London, to have the benefits that they had in Camden.
Cutting poverty is not only an issue for the poor, because the existence of poverty in the capital imposes costs on people who are not poor. There are the direct costs of providing services for the poor, and indirect costs such as the quality of education provided in London's schools, the state of public open spaces and the fear of crime. Although the vast majority of the poor are decent, law-abiding citizens, crime in the capital costs people on higher incomes through their insurance premiums. It is in the interest of all Londoners, rich and poor alike, to use the capital's strengths to reduce the number of people living in poverty.
When people look back in years to come at the Conservative Government in the last decades of the 20th century, one thing will stand out dramatically: the alarming increase in child poverty. When the Conservatives took office in 1979, one child in 10 lived in a family in poverty. By 1997, one child in three lived in a household on less than half the average income after
28WH
housing costs. In London, because of high rents and the high cost of living, the situation is much worse even than that: 44 per cent.—almost half of all the children in London, or 680,000 children—live in families with less than half the average income.
Children born into poor families are much more likely to be poor throughout their lives and to die in poverty. They are also more likely to die earlier. When my right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Health, he published a report, "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", which made it clear that a young male born in social classes 1 and 2 was likely to live five years longer than someone born in social classes 4 and 5.
Last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a pledge to the nation that we would seek to eradicate child poverty within a generation. It will not be easy to do so. When he published our proposals, people were aghast at the clarity with which we set out the indicators, but we believe that it can be done. Indeed, my Department is making a contribution through the reforms that it is making to the benefits system—not least, after years of its being frozen under the Conservatives, we have introduced the largest ever increase in child benefit. From April this year, parents will receive £15 a week for the first child and £10 a week for any others.
The Department of Social Security cannot eliminate poverty on its own. If we simply increase benefits, we shall lock more people into the poverty trap. The Conservative Government were extremely good at doing that: they doubled expenditure on benefits in real terms, yet they more than doubled the number of people locked out of work and into poverty. All Departments have a part to play, including the Departments for Education and Employment, of Health and of Social Security.
Nowhere is there a better example of that than in the Department of Health. The report "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" makes it quite clear that the most disadvantaged are those who suffer most from poor health. Poor health is linked to community factors such as poverty, low wages, unemployment, poor education, substandard housing, pollution and crime. To tackle poverty, we need a community response: the sort of response that has been provided by the health action zones. For instance, in Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, the "How's the Baby Feeding?" project is providing a partnership between the NHS and local people. Local mothers are providing guidance to other parents on feeding their children.
The health action zone in east London and the City has built a partnership with private sector sponsors such as Canary Wharf Ltd. and some pharmaceutical companies. It is addressing the issue of ethnic diversity in London by ensuring that health services are available in the 50 different languages spoken in the east of London. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security launched his poverty strategy at the Bromley-by-Bow centre, which links health services with other community support.
The Brent health action zone provides food co-operatives, welfare benefits advice and improvements to the school health service. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras not only talks about poverty; he has a track record over many years of

29WH
tackling the problems of poverty within the capital. I cannot think of anyone better to lead an effective and sustained assault on poverty in the capital. His track record shows that. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is strongly committed to eradicating child poverty, and he is keen that someone with a track record such as that of my right hon. Friend should lead such a strategy in London.
If we are really to achieve our goal of eradicating child poverty, we need such an assault because 18 per cent. of all the children in Britain living in poverty live in the capital. If we do not tackle the problem there, we shall not achieve our national objective. We need to be clear why such an increase in poverty took place under the Conservative Government. It was primarily because they permitted such a huge increase—it more than doubled—in the number of families of working age in which no one had a job. We must reverse that trend.
We have made a start. We are reversing that trend with the new deal that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security helped to introduce immediately after the election. The new deal has already enabled 200,000 people to move from welfare to work, 30,000 of whom live in the capital. We have made an important start in the two and a half years since we formed the Government, but much more needs to be done. Of the 20 most deprived communities in Britain, 13 are in London. Three of the 10 local authorities with the highest unemployment rates are in the capital.
To tackle those problems, we need to create jobs. We need to create the conditions that encourage businesses to create jobs. That will not be helped by the proposal to levy a higher rate of corporation tax on businesses in London than on those elsewhere in the country. It will be helped by the constructive partnerships that my right hon. Friend proposes and that he has a track record of leading in the capital over many years.

Aircraft Noise (Gatwick)
12 noon
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am sorry not to have been present for more of the previous debate, introduced by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Having spent many years working for the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in the Child Poverty Action Group and many years working in Brixton and Peckham, I am well aware of how Londoners often fail to get child care, mental health and other services to which they are richly entitled. I also recognise the importance of cultural, as well as economic and social, regeneration.
I raise a subject of growing concern to not only my constitutents but those throughout the south-east. After I had the opportunity and privilege to address the House on the subject, many colleagues said that their constituents give a high priority to the question of aircraft noise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and my hon. Friends the Members for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) and for Horsham (Mr. Maude) all asked me to say that it involves not only the people of South-West Surrey. It is causing mounting concern and growing anger throughout the area.
Benjamin Disraeli said that increased means and increased leisure are the two great civilisers of mankind. That may be the case—later today, for example, I shall open an international tourism and hospitality conference at Surrey university—but increased means and increased leisure, as well as the greater prosperity and regeneration of the south-east, are causing a massive expansion in air traffic, with the concomitant noise pollution. A great deal of noise is generated by the inexorable increase in air travel.
I am the first to say that the ever-lowering cost of air transport is another remarkable example of the democratisation of goods in our society. What was once a luxury for an elite few is now a way of life for many. What was once the jet set is now everyday set. We now have marvellous opportunities to reach all parts of the globe—but a growing price is being paid in terms of the effect on the environment and, above all, of noise pollution.
The chairman of British Airways, Lord Marshall, speaking on behalf of the industry at a conference of Ministers from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry, said:
"It is abundantly clear to us that aviation growth, which we believe is crucial to UK economic growth, must be achieved within a sustainable environment context."
He went on to concede:
"I admit freely that the aviation industry, in the past, has not been as sympathetic to community or environmental concerns as it could have been."
While airlines advertise their opportunities with great enthusiasm, there is another reminder of the ubiquity of air travel: the roar of the jet engine. Whatever the benefits of the technological revolution, which must not be underestimated, we need to ensure that it does not threaten our traditional and more serene way of life,

31WH
which often finds its best expression in rural England. Every day, the home counties fear urbanisation, the erosion of the green belt and the pressure for development, which affects constituencies throughout the south-east. The pressure of growing aircraft noise is therefore all the more oppressive. For those in the countryside who happen to live on a flight path of major domestic and international routes, aircraft noise serves as a subtle reminder, every other minute, of the paradox of the opportunities for growth and prosperity on the one hand and the pressures on the environment and the quality of life on the other.
During the summer of 1997, residents in my constituency noticed a sudden and dramatic increase in the number of low-flying commercial planes approaching Gatwick airport, passing directly over villages and causing considerable noise disturbance. That has resulted in significant distress in a quiet rural area where previously aircraft noise has been only occasional, although near Dunsfold aerodrome residents agree that British Aerospace planes have not been a problem as flying and testing times are highly regulated and restricted, and intrusive for perhaps only an hour or two each week. As a result of those residents' complaints in 1997, Alfold parish council began talking to the British Airports Authority and air traffic control. The parish council chairman, Dr. Jenny Masding, was invited to sit on the Gatwick airport consultative committee. A resident for nearly 30 years, Roger Duckworth, wrote:
"there has been a huge increase in the number of aircraft passing over on their way to and from, Heathrow, Gatwick and Farnborough at a relatively low level and overflying aircraft going elsewhere. As a result, there are very few times in the day when I am not subject to the noise of at least one commercial aircraft. As one passes the next approaches."
His observation is instructive because it reflects so many of my constituents' comments. As a Member of Parliament for 16 years, I can tell the Minister that this is a new preoccupation. I have never heard such a volume and intensity of concern and complaint as I have over the past couple of years.
Noise disturbance from air traffic has continued and worsened since 1997, at times making life intolerable. The main problem is incoming aircraft when Gatwick airport is either operating in easterly mode—when the wind blows from the east—or is very still, as occurs in several different weather conditions. Figures from the BAA show that such conditions prevail for 45 to 50 per cent. of the time. Arriving aircraft fly level and low at relatively high power settings from 4 am onwards, which may continue all day until late evening.
Dr. Jenny Masding, the Alford parish council chairman, wrote to me:
"In the early mornings until mid day and again in the evenings the frequency is often one plane every two to three minutes. The effect on our quality of life has been disastrous. Sleep is impossible from 5 a.m. and often difficult before midnight. The noise is intrusive during the day ruining outdoor leisure pursuits and any pleasure in the use of gardens. In addition to this extreme problem of incoming aircraft, for the last year we now have outbound aircraft over flying parts of the villages when the wind is westerly. The numbers of these outgoing planes are increasing and at a lower level so that they are ever more intrusive."
32WH
That issue was brought to my attention by a remarkable, tireless and energetic group called the quieter skies campaign over a year ago. Bridget Bloom of the campaign has co-ordinated the efforts and given voice to members in Dunsfold and the surrounding area. Her dedication and professionalism have been greatly appreciated and respected by her neighbours and certainly by myself as the local Member of Parliament.
In passing, I would like to recognise the work of the British Airports Authority at Gatwick. Richard Hilton, for example, has attended meetings in my constituency and listened to the community's concerns. As a result, he is well acquainted with the problem and has provided valuable insight and information on the subject. The flight evaluation unit has made data available and always treats inquiries from me or my constituents with great courtesy.
I was worried about several radio programmes asking me whether I was critical of the BAA. I am not remotely critical; I am merely asking the Minister to strengthen its arm to tighten the guidelines and follow up several specific measures. BAA Gatwick is a private limited company and, as such, can only influence, not determine, operating policies. Only the Minister—I am delighted, as he knows, to see him here today—can create policy on such crucial matters as aircraft routes, speeds, altitudes, flight paths and time slots. I thank him very much for being with us today and for taking time to respond to the debate.
Everyone's goal is to find solutions that are acceptable to the airline industry, air traffic control and those affected on the ground. The key is to craft an approach that does not stymie London's growth as an international city, the development of the south-east region or Gatwick's emergence as an international hub. Our approach must be sensitive to safety considerations—for both the airborne and the earthbound—and, most importantly, we need new guidelines to decrease the current unacceptable level, frequency and duration of noise pollution.
Complaints and concerns have been increasing, as I have already stated. The Surrey Advertiser has been an excellent chronicler of complaints in that regard. On 12 November, it printed a letter from Mr. Woodward of Dunsfold:
"Over several months, the level of low-flying aircraft from Gatwick has increased dramatically; indeed, the increased level far exceeds the national growth in traffic volume … To demonstrate why we feel so aggrieved, on Sunday October 24, between 4 am and 6 am, 30 aircraft flew directly overhead … one aircraft every four minutes. Some were flying well below 3,000 ft. … Noise pollution and disruption of sleep seriously affects the well-being of people and it is therefore the responsibility of the authorities concerned to take appropriate action to improve the current intolerable situation."
I entirely agree with that sentiment.
On 14 October, Peter Bugge, another Dunsfold resident and a former pilot—there are a great many of them around—recorded 11 out of 39 aircraft passing overhead between 4 am and midday at or below 3,000 ft. That analysis was provided by the BAA.
In another letter, Colin Hall said:
"It is clear that once tranquil rural areas now have aircraft much closer to them—in larger numbers, at lower heights, generating higher levels of noise—than ever before."

33WH
Dr. Jenny Masding, the chairman of Alfold parish council, has been active in trying to achieve a constructive dialogue and increase the attention that the subject receives. She said:
"The level of concern, anger and desperation felt by Alfold residents is increasing. A village consultation exercise was carried out in 1998 to assess what residents were concerned about and what actions they would like to see taken. A large percentage of the comments received on environmental issues were concerns about noise pollution from aircraft. The parish council receives regular desperate calls from residents concerning sleep problems."
The problem is different from any that I have seen during the past 16 years. As a result of that concern, the council organised a public meeting with the BAA in December 1999, and about 100 local people attended. The level of distress, anger and desperation expressed at that meeting was high and impressed, even perhaps distressed, some of the BAA staff.
In summary, the impact of Gatwick airport on the quality of life in Alfold, Dunsfold and many other villages is extremely alarming, especially as the BAA plans to increase turnover from 27 million to 40 million passengers in only five years. The frequency of night arrivals and the height at which they fly over the area is unacceptable, causing significant sleep problems. The tranquility and rest that people would like in their own homes and gardens are severely at risk. As well as the intrusion and stress that noise pollution causes, many people are worried about the adverse affect on property values of such developments.
The group with which I have had discussions has given much constructive and detailed thought to the matter. It has produced several specific and practical proposals, to which I hope that the Minister, with the BAA at Gatwick and air traffic control, will be able to give a positive response. First, on the routes of arriving and departing aircraft, terminal air traffic control requires aircraft departing Gatwick to follow clearly defined noise preferential routes up to a level of 3,000 ft. I understand that the level is 4,000 ft at Heathrow. When aircraft reach that level, ATC at West Drayton has adopted a policy of diverting aircraft on to their direct route even though they have not reached the end of the NPR. To raise the minimum vectoring level to 5,000 ft and require aircraft to follow NPRs strictly before vectoring off would lead to a significant reduction in ground noise. Clearly, we must ensure that aircraft follow their NPRs with greater attention. There is a mounting lack of confidence in the enforcement of NPRs. What can be done? What are the sanctions for aircraft disregarding NPRs?
Secondly, on the speed of arriving and departing aircraft, the ground noise from jet engines and body drag is significantly increased as the departing aircraft accelerate. Under an International Civil Aviation Organisation requirement, all aircraft should restrict their speed to 250 knots when below 10,000 ft. Although air traffic controllers in many countries insist on that requirement, it seems that the British standard has been more relaxed. We believe that it is crucial that those standards are incorporated in British air traffic service rules. The 10,000 ft level would bring the United Kingdom into compliance with European Union and other international controllers. I strongly urge the Government to adopt a policy that would require
34WH
aircraft to adhere to the 250-knot limit while below 10,000 ft. What encouragement can the Minister offer? How can enforcement be strengthened?
Thirdly, on altitude levels, the quieter skies campaign suggests that policies should be adopted to extend and clarify the altitude levels of arriving aircraft. I understand that aircraft must reduce their height to 3,000 ft 10 miles from the runway in order to establish a final descent path. It has come to my attention that some aircraft are at or below that altitude well before 10 miles from the runway. To avoid increased noise caused by aircraft flying at low altitude, I suggest that all air carriers abide by the continuous descent procedure promulgated in "Air Pilot". I understand that aircraft could regulate their descent from 15,000 ft to avoid level flight at low levels over open countryside. That would reduce the impact of noise, especially in the early hours of the morning, and would have a major ameliorating impact on my constituents.
I gave the Minister my points in advance so that he could reflect on them. My fourth point relates to night flying. The rapid expansion in passenger traffic at Gatwick and the restricted number of slots available mean that it is only a matter of time before the airlines begin to request more take-offs and landing times, especially at night. At Heathrow, a limit has been set on the number of aircraft movements permitted between 11 pm and 6 am, which is fewer than that set for Gatwick. It would be greatly appreciated if Gatwick were to introduce equally restrictive policies. Only the Minister can enforce such a change. Surely the Gatwick area should be at least as protected as Heathrow.
Some might argue that such proposals may lead to increased fuel costs and higher ticket prices for consumers. It should be noted, however, that fuel and overall costs could be reduced as a result of such proposals. The relative cost either way is relatively insignificant in comparison with the real danger of the emergence of hostility and resentment against air travel in the area.
There has always been good co-operation and partnership with the people at Gatwick. This is a test point. The challenge that we face is how to combine social and economic growth with sustainable development, and how to expand opportunities without jeopardising the quality of life for others. The British countryside is admired the world over for its beauty, tranquillity and peacefulness. I urge the Minister to help to find a way forward.
12.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) for raising what is, as she said, an important issue not only for her own constituents but for anyone who lives near an airport. As she fairly acknowledges, air traffic has brought many benefits, although it also has a considerable downside. I shall do my best to reassure her on some of the points that she raised. She may want to follow up some of them by correspondence, as I anticipate that the problem will not go away.
Having holidayed four years in succession at Northchapel in West Sussex, just a little south of the right hon. Lady's constituency, I am familiar with some

35WH
of the area and some of the beautiful countryside in and around it. We must try to minimise the impact of airports on the environment. At the same time, our policies must and do take account of the economic benefits of a strong and competitive airline industry and we must provide sufficient airport capacity where it is economically and environmentally justified. One of the difficulties that we face is that everyone likes the convenience of airports but no one likes the inconvenience of living near one. One of the difficult tasks that the Government and other authorities must face is how to reconcile those sometimes not entirely reconcilable feelings.
The Civil Aviation Act 1982 empowers the Secretary of State to impose requirements on the operators of Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted airports, and on aircraft using those airports, for the purpose of limiting or mitigating the effects of noise. The requirements imposed include departure noise limits, night restrictions, noise preferential routes for departures, and regulations for the management of arriving aircraft, some of which I shall outline.
A noise and track monitoring advisory group monitors the operation of the noise and track-keeping system, the core of which has recently been replaced by a more modern computer system. The group includes representatives from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and from the airport, consultative committee members and local authority officers representing the local community. National Air Traffic Services and the airlines are also involved. Gatwick also convenes a flight operations performance committee—there is quite a lot of jargon in this subject—known to its friends as Flopsy. The airline people and air traffic controllers on it examine technical issues.
At Gatwick the general trend, contrary to widespread belief, has been a diminution of daytime noise over the years as older, noisier aircraft have been replaced by quieter ones, despite a large increase in the volume of traffic. The annual noise contour reports, produced on behalf of my Department, tell the story. They show the equivalent continuous sound level experienced on the ground between 7 am and 11 pm during the busiest summer months. Over the past 20 years, the area of the 57-decibel Gatwick contour has more than halved. South-West Surrey, for example, now lies outside that contour and the level of noise experienced there should be lower. Gatwick operates towards the east in daytime, about 25 per cent. of the time on a long-run average. That can vary a good deal annually. In 1995, easterly operations were as high as 47 per cent., but that was exceptional. In 1998, the proportion was only 14 per cent.
Since 1968, my Department and its predecessors have stipulated noise preferential routes for aircraft departing from Gatwick. These routes are designed to avoid built-up areas and so minimise disturbance. However, it must be accepted that some dispersion from the noise preferential routes centre line is inevitable because of navigational tolerance, aircraft characteristics and, not least, weather, especially wind. In practice, that means that there may legitimately be a swathe of tracks of up to 1.5 km on either side of the
36WH
nominal route. Compliance with this swathe has been improving: over 95 per cent. of departures in 1998–99 complied. Although deviations are not subject at present to financial sanctions, the causes of significant off-track flying are investigated thoroughly. The right hon. Lady and her constituents may be assured that considerable efforts have been and will continue to be made, by the airport and by airlines and controllers in co-operation, to improve compliance.
Once an aircraft departing Gatwick has reached 3,000 ft, air traffic control may, if traffic conditions permit, assign it a more direct course to its destination. That, as the right hon. Lady explained, is called vectoring. It is intended to speed up the flow of traffic, giving the benefit of being able to clear an area quicker and at a higher altitude. As a result there may be greater track dispersion once the required height has been achieved; but the amount of noise experienced by people on the ground will be relatively less than it would be at lower altitudes closer to the airport. The possibility, which she mentioned, of raising the Gatwick vectoring altitude to 4,000 ft is under consideration, but I am afraid there is no possibility in the short term of raising it to 5,000 ft, which is what she asked for; there is, she will be glad to hear, some movement on that point. In December, the release altitude for westerly departures turning east was raised to 4,000 ft. The possibility of a similar relaxation for easterly departures is also under continuing consideration.
The South-West Surrey constituency is around 15 to 25 miles to the west of Gatwick. It is inevitable that it will experience overflights. Two departure routes overfly the area when the airport is operating towards the west. Departures from Heathrow and elsewhere will also overfly, normally at a much higher altitude. Overflight at altitudes of 4,000 ft and more is a fact of life over a very large proportion of the south-east. We are not complacent and seek improvements where possible, but the noise heard on the ground must be taken in perspective with that from other sources that are regrettably endemic to modern life.
The right hon. Lady raised the issue of speed restrictions. There is, as she noted, an International Civil Aviation Organisation recommendation—not, incidentally a requirement—that a standard limit of 250 knots should apply below about 10,000 ft. That limit may be lifted tactically by air traffic control, as is done as a matter of common practice. That can be beneficial overall, helping aircraft to climb and clear the area more rapidly. The lifting of the limit by air traffic control does not, however, absolve pilots from responsibility to use speed and power settings consistent with the achievement of noise abatement procedures such as the noise preferential routes.
Arrivals—inbound aircraft—unlike departures, do not follow fixed routes all the way from home to touchdown, because that would remove the flexibility needed to direct aircraft to the final approach track while ensuring safe operation. Maximising the use of continuous descent approach procedures is of prime importance in reducing noise impact. Pilots at Gatwick are requested to use continuous descent as best they can, but air traffic control constraints—in particular, the need to maintain clearance from Heathrow departures—mean that 100 per cent. adherence is not always possible.

37WH
At night there is an additional requirement not to join the extended runway centre line below 3,000 ft—closer than 10 nautical miles from touchdown. I accept that that may bring more traffic over the Dunsfold-Alford area, but the rule benefits other areas that would otherwise be overflown more noisily and at a lower altitude. The Department's Aircraft Noise Advisory Committee recently concluded a study of arrivals noise that re-emphasised the importance of continuous descent: a technical report will be published shortly and a code of practice is being developed.
On night restrictions, we appreciate that noise from aircraft can be particularly disturbing at night. We operate a night restrictions policy limiting the number of aircraft that can take off and land between 11.30 pm and 6 am, backed by a quota system in which noisier aircraft count more than quiet aircraft, and the very noisiest are already precluded from operating at night.
The night restrictions regime is reviewed every five years or so, through public consultation. Following the 1998 consultations, the present night restrictions came into force on 31 October 1999 and will continue until summer 2004. I understand the wish of the right hon. Lady and others for a reduction to Heathrow levels of the movements and quota limits at Gatwick, but the Government had to make a balanced judgment, bearing in mind the different nature of Gatwick operations. Nevertheless, the former Minister for Transport in London, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), announced a progressive reduction in the Gatwick night quota, starting with the noisiest aircraft. I hope that that gives some small comfort to the right hon. Lady's constituents.
As to the possible expansion that was announced last March, a study of airport issues in the south-east and east of England, including, of course, Gatwick, will assess the economic, environmental and social impacts and we shall balance these before reaching a view about what additional capacity should be provided, at a particular site, or at all. This is not a blanket commitment to meet demand and then mitigate the environmental effects.
Much work has already been done to minimise the impact of Gatwick airport on the communities around it. We believe that more can be done: work on the wider policies is continuing, and in detail, so as to help to improve environmental performance. In the next few years we shall establish a framework to guide the development of airports for many years ahead. We shall work closely with all interested parties, including the communities affected by the airport operations, to achieve that. I am conscious that I have not been able to meet all the suggestions—many of them reasonable— from the right hon. Lady, but this is an on-going process and I look forward to a dialogue with her on the subject in the months ahead.

Human Genome Project
12.28 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: It is my view that the human genome research project will transform medical practice in the next 10 to 20 years. The nature of the changes will be dependent on those working in health care delivery and on the public's reception of the new health technologies. Hon. Members recognise that of course the future of health care is linked not only to research but to the future and functions of the national health service, with its on-going ethical and public debates.
The human genome project is being carried out at five main centres, one of which is the Sanger institute in Cambridge. In the next two or three years, the project will lay bare the total genomic information, which is the sequence of DNA written in an alphabet of four letters throughout our 24 pairs of chromosomes. That feat may be compared with unravelling the sequence of words, letter by letter, of 200 volumes of Hansard: the equivalent of two Parliaments' worth. There will be redundancy in both programmes: there will be many DNA sequences of whose function we will be ignorant, but that is also true of some of the words in Hansard.
DNA sequencing involves new technologies and partnerships across the world—naturally, there are arguments between scientists and boffins—and round-the-clock working using high technology. The results of that have been described as revoluntionary by scientists around the world and its implications equated with the discovery of the wheel. As DNA defines much of what we are, it promises to open up new vistas of understanding and activity in the pharmaceutical industry and health services. It will, for example, open up the possibility of molecular diagnosis of known genetic diseases, such as cancer, Alzheimer's and arthritis. No doubt, genes for other diseases will be discovered in the next few years.
That will be a huge advance, as we shall be able to target drug therapies on an individual's specific molecular genetic defect. Drug design will be specific for each molecular fault, which will be a major change in approach to the treatment of diseases with multiple molecular causes, such as childhood leukaemias, which may have 15 different genetic clauses. There will be sub-classes of patients and potential patients who may be treated as a sub-population. We will be able to target individual populations, with a drug unique to their specific molecular aberration. That drug will be an effective, rational treatment, in contrast to the irrational sledgehammer treatments in medicine today, which have attendant side effects.
A microchip containing people's molecular disease profile will be available to them, should they require it. Those who are clinically normal will be able to predict illnesses to which they are clinically predisposed. Growing knowledge of genetic and environmental interactions, such as the effect of smoking on health and whether people have the gene for lung cancer, will allow people to say, "I'd better not smoke, as I have the gene for lung cancer." People will have such knowledge long before a lung cancer develops.

39WH
Other examples of environmental pressures are bad housing and the quality of diet, which affect social groups unequally. There are social class differences in being subjected to different sorts of environment. Preventive measures and the effects of environmental factors will feature much more prominently, as they will interact with genetic knowledge. Health is not isolated from the circumstances or environment in which people live.
The human genome project and the information generated by it will herald a health service in which patients are more knowledgeable. Combined with advances in telecommunications—with the internet, websites and so on—that will force on us another aspect of health care delivery. Doctors will have to be trained to cope with patient demands and new knowledge, and will be required to interact with other health service groups in order to translate such knowledge into treatments. Regional counselling services will not be competent to meet that large demand and more locally organised services will be needed, perhaps on a city-by-city basis. The James Justice Robertson model—I do not know whether that is the right way round, or whether it should be James Robertson Justice, as I am from the wrong side of the tracks and unused to doub-barrelled names—will become a thing of the past.
Teaching and training in genetics and counselling will be the consequences of the human genome project and will have to be on the medical curriculum. Continued learning by the same cohort of medical students will be essential as we learn how gene products interact and understand further intricacies of multiple gene interactions, for example in brain disease and even IQ. More understanding and less pontification should be the hallmark of the new doctor, and partnership between the higher education sector and the health sector should become the order of the day. New doctors for the new millennium, some might say.
A result of the human genome project will almost certainly be to reveal the closeness between DNA sequences or genes among certain organisms, which will be uncomfortable for many of us. The small DNA changes required to shift from ape to man will revise the debate between Church and science. We are already witnessing that in Kansas, where anti-evolutionary forces now operate in the education sector.
On the darker side of the revolution, however, are the activities of Celera Genomics, a private laboratory in the United States, which is hellbent on patenting every part of the human genome, thereby preventing free public access to important information for health care. Other companies are marketing their genetic markers for, for example, breast cancer. They sell them at astronomical prices and hide behind their patent protections. There must be some presidential and prime ministerial intervention at a high level to ensure that the behaviour of multinational companies, which are capitalist buccaneers, does not usurp such a large step forward for mankind. If J. Craig Venter is allowed to get away with his project, it will affect the partnerships developing between drug companies, charities and Governments to make information about the human genome freely available to the world through the bio-informatics system.
40WH
In another dark corner is the role of the insurance companies and their so-called right to know, which is being strongly debated and raises deep worries. The genome project will increase knowledge, and issues such as the availability of mortgages, health insurance, life insurance policies and long-term health care allowances cannot miss the scrutiny of the insurance companies. It does not take much imagination to see how those companies might use information about predisposition to diseases.
There is also the prospect that individuals might refuse genetic tests if they feel that they will be discriminated against or lose the chance to receive health care facilities. In the history of health care in the United States, there are many examples of companies discriminating in their hire and fire policies against groups of individuals who are susceptible to, for example, certain chemicals, as they might go to court and seek compensation. The same problem could arise with new genetic testing. Employers might be tempted to insist on such testing to "improve" their work force.
Government policies will clearly have a direct and indirect effect on those issues. For example, no significant practical changes in health delivery will occur without an effective method of disseminating information throughout the health service. At the same time, the public will be drawn into the debate through the media, and advantages and problems will receive the scrutiny of our unbiased press.
Many professionals in the national health service see the changes as a threat, and that suspicion is allied with the enormous strain that they are under, which is currently highlighted by the flu. There was absolute meltdown on the issue of genetically modified organisms, and the public turned against what can be argued to be a bona fide science that may have positive effects on food production. If the Government are not to repeat that meltdown, they must start to engineer technologically driven changes in the health service.
The ethical and legal questions need to be addressed, and I can touch on only some of them. I am afraid that the health trusts are unresponsive to the changes, and there is certainly no evidence that the Government have budgeted for the retraining programme, new equipment or a public debate on the issue. Nor, as I understand it, have they budgeted for new research investment in the project as it takes off into other horizons.
The case for a long-term health care strategy incorporating those problems is unarguable. If evidence-based decision making in the health service is to result in therapeutic effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, the human genome project must be tied together with primary care services and health technology assessments. There is currently a great divide between genetic knowledge and clinical practice. Only Government can organise beyond the fragments that make up our health service. With the human genome project, we can move the debate away from the misery of discussing the rationing of health care resources to a real debate on the evolution of rational care. Do the Government have such a strategy?
Genome research will turn medicine on its head. Diagnosis will depend on genetic tests. Patients will ask what chances they have of becoming ill, and we need to plan the restructuring of the national health service before the project comes to fruition.
12.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): It is entirely appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) should have chosen the human genome project and its effects on health as one of the first topics for debate at the start of the new millennium. He suggests that the results of that work will be as revolutionary as the discovery of the wheel. He is right. The scientific and technological achievements so far associated with the human genome project are arguably some of the finest to have been seen in the previous millennium—and the potential is greater still.
The human genome project has many implications for health and many applications in health care in the broadest sense, and my hon. Friend traced some of its potential benefits and effects. During the next five to 10 years, we expect to see the development and introduction of some innovative modern technology, including new and improved ways of diagnosing disease earlier and more accurately. Indeed, as he said, we shall be able to identify genetic predisposition to some diseases. For example, we may be able to predict susceptibility to coronary heart disease and design tailored preventive strategies to help people to reduce their personal risk.
Information from the human genome project will also be used to develop new drugs and therapies. We shall then be better placed to target those drugs and therapies to individuals whose genetic profile makes them better able to respond to particular treatments, and with a lower risk of side effects. That is the expanding area of pharmacogenomics, in which drugs will be made to suit people's individual metabolisms and the severity of their disease. That will obviously help us to target our precious drug resources to the most beneficial areas—to where they can make the greatest difference.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, we shall also be able to unravel some of the relationships between the genetic and environmental causes of disease and to identify the combination of life style and environmental changes that will help to reduce ill health. That opens the door to the development of new public health strategies that will benefit the entire population.
The potential of the human genome project cannot be overestimated. The Government's job is to harness that potential. My hon. Friend is certainly right to say that the genetic revolution is likely to change the focus of health care from diagnosis and treatment towards detection and prevention. It will also force us to embrace new ways of thinking about public health care in general. It also means new operating methods for the NHS. The important question is what the Government should do to ensure that the project delivers maximum health benefit.
Several factors need to be considered. I shall try to respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend, although not necessarily in order. First, we need to encourage an environment that will support the development of those new, safe and cost-effective technologies, drugs and diagnostic tests. Secondly, we need to be sure that the NHS can use those new drugs and treatments in the most efficient way. Thirdly, as my hon. Friend said, we need a work force who can keep up with those rapid developments and turn them into
42WH
practical benefits for patients. Fourthly, we must establish a proper ethical framework to allow us to respond to the genetic revolution and to answer the complex ethical, legal and social challenges that scientific progess will throw up.
I shall run through the Government's approach in each of those four areas. We do not yet have all the answers, but we have the foundations of a strategy to respond to the opportunities and challenges presented by the human genome project. We need to encourage the development of new treatments and technologies to benefit human health. The pharmaceutical industry has already made a considerable investment in sequencing the human genome. It clearly believes that more rational approaches to drug design will be developed and that additional cellular targets for therapeutic intervention will be identified.
To make effective progress in this work, scientists could benefit from access to databases linking genetic profiles to health records. It is worth noting that public and private health care funders are currently considering the creation of a genetic database of about 500,000 individuals for prospective genetic research. Participation will be entirely voluntary, and electronic access to NHS records will be needed to ensure efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Ethical considerations can never be far from our minds as we consider the proposals. Even with an entirely voluntary database, proposals to give wider access to detailed patient records and tissue archives must take into account the complex issues of consent, confidentiality, privacy and public acceptability. My hon. Friend is right to say that there must be a properly informed public debate on such issues before we can progress.
My hon. Friend raised concerns about patenting the human genome. I certainly agree that patenting every part of the human genome would be unwarranted and undesirable. Fortunately, the aim of the human genome project is to make nucleotide sequence information immediately and freely available to the international research community without fees, patents or other limitations.
Encouraging widespread research is not enough. We need to ensure that new developments that offer real benefits to patients can be actively promoted and used by the NHS, while ensuring that public safety is not compromised. We already have, of course, a well-developed regulatory system, with the Medicines Control Agency—a world leader in the speed and thoroughness of its assessments. In future, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will also have a role to play. Its role includes the appraisal of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of innovative treatments and the development of clinical guidelines to help their effective introduction across the NHS. Along with and supporting NICE, two key systems are in place to help the NHS to respond to the challenge that my hon. Friend describes.
First, the national horizon scanning centre at the university of Birmingham, which is funded through the NHS research and development programme, identifies significant new developments that could impact on health and the treatment of disease. My hon. Friend is right to point out that early intelligence of those

43WH
developments means that better strategies can be planned and implemented when they are ready to be taken by the NHS. The national horizon scanning centre is maintaining a watching brief on the outputs of the human genome project and assessing likely impacts.
The second system is the health technology assessment programme—an NHS research and development programme that selects mature technologies and interventions of current importance to the NHS and assesses their effectiveness. Such research and development feeds into NICE, allowing it to provide the guidelines across the NHS to enable the smooth take-up of those new technologies and interventions as they are developed.
My hon. Friend talked about work force issues and training doctors to keep up with progress in genetics. He is right to say that all the knowledge in the world is a fat lot of use if we do not have the trained staff to put it into practice so that patients gain the benefit of the new information. It takes significant time to train professionals to deliver specialist services.
My hon. Friend talked about new doctors for the new millennium. I would go wider and talk about new health care workers for a new millennium, because we need to recognise the implications and requirements right across the NHS work force, not simply for doctors. At present, medically qualified personnel represent the first port of call for the provision of specialist genetic services, but that may not always be the case as the genetic revolution begins to extend the role of nurses and other health care professionals into areas traditionally occupied by doctors.
All professional groups—whether doctors, nurses, genetic counsellors, scientists or others—will need education and training in the new genetics. New courses will be needed. New programmes of continuing professional development will need to be put in place so that people are up to date with the new developments and the advantages that they can bring. That means good dialogue between those in the NHS who need the courses and training and those in higher and further education who may provide them. Such dialogue exists, but the genetic revolution highlights the need to extend it and ensure that we are able to respond swiftly to rapid developments and change.
We must ensure that the right number of professionals is given access to all the pre and post-registration courses that they need. We must further develop the world-class centres that exist in the United Kingdom for teaching and researching genetics and for delivering high-quality genetic services.
The technical and logistical challenges posed by the human genome project are considerable, but we should not forget perhaps the most important issues: the ethical questions that rapid scientific progress in this field inevitably produces. For example, we need to have an open debate on informed consent. Confidentiality for patients is critical. Public trust in NHS professionals and institutions must not be undermined in any way. The question of who is authorised to release or gain access to genetic information raises complex ethical issues and must be subject to well-informed public
44WH
debate. The right of individuals to know and understand their genetic profile may be paramount, but such matters have implications for blood relatives and children.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to the potential for genetic information to be used unfairly to discriminate, perhaps for insurance or employment purposes. Those are serious concerns, and we shall need to be vigilant to safeguard people against unfair discrimination as the technology develops. Insurance and employment matters have been the subjects of reports from the Human Genetics Advisory Committee. In the case of insurance, especially as the range of available tests grows, we are concerned that there should be no unfair discrimination on the basis of genetic test results. We need an appropriate regulatory framework to ensure that people are not deterred from having the tests that they need on health grounds simply because of concerns about insurance-related issues.
That is why we have established the Genetics and Insurance Committee, on which patients and the insurance industry are represented. That committee is drawing up a procedure for evaluating scientific and actuarial evidence on specific genetic tests. Similarly, we are concerned to ensure that there is no unfair discrimination in employment on the basis of genetic testing. The Government expect to respond shortly to the report of the Human Genetic Advisory Committee.
It is likely that the new Human Genetics Commission will return to those issues. The commission's role is to analyse current and potential developments in human genetics and to advise Ministers on their likely impact on human health and health care and on their social, ethical, legal and economic implications. It will advise on the strategic priorities for research and for the delivery of genetic services by the NHS. Finally, and perhaps crucially, it will consult the public and other stakeholders to encourage debate and facilitate the development of better public knowledge and understanding of the many complex issues related to the outputs of the human genome project and its effects on health.
My hon. Friend is right to say that information from the new human genome project will force us to embrace new ways of thinking about public health, the prevention of ill health and health care delivery across the NHS. All those involved in the provision of medical service will be affected, whether they are part of the caring professions, part of the academic sectors, or part of the commercial sectors that serve them. The public should be able to gain an improved understanding of health and the causes of disease, so changing their expectations of health care.
These are exciting times and partnerships between all the key players in the public and private sectors will be essential to respond to the challenges and opportunities that will flow from the human genome project. We need to work together to promote research and scientific progress and to ensure that we have a competent health care work force to deliver the genetic services of the future. Most importantly of all, we all must engage in a public debate on the benefits, risks and consequences of the human genome project and all its spin-offs.

45WH
That represents a continuing and expanding agenda, and we certainly do not yet have all the answers. I hope that I can rely on my hon. Friend's support for the strategies that we need to develop and on his contribution to the Department of Health's development of strategies to respond to the human
46WH
genome project in future. We must ensure that the project's outputs can and will be used to improve the health and well-being of the citizens of this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to One o'clock.

TREASURY

  National Savings Agency
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the National Savings Agency by March 2000. [104622]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Following a prior options review in 1995, National Savings became a next steps agency in 1996. The Government announced then that the next five-yearly review would take place by March 2000.

  I have asked my officials to set this review in motion. It will be conducted in accordance with the latest guidance from the Cabinet Office's Modernising Public Services Group.

  The terms of reference of the review are: to review the performance of National Savings since it became an agency in 1996, and to advise Treasury Ministers on the options for the future status of National Savings, with a view to securing the best outcome for the public sector and for the wider economy.

  In considering these options, the review will take into account the views of affected stakeholders and assess the implications for:

  the net cost/benefit to the public sector and to the UK economy as a whole;

  the Government's wider funding policy objectives;

  developments in the wider public sector, including the "Modernising Government" White Paper;

  the retail savings market, including the impact of new technology;

  the wider policies of the Government, including its policy on savings and on social exclusion;

  National Savings' business relationships, including the outsourcing contract with Siemens Business Services and its contract with Post Office Counters Ltd.;

  the staff of National Savings;

  the need for, and requirements of, legislation; and

  the speed with which change can be implemented.

  Once this first phase of the analysis is complete, and the outcome agreed, the second phase of the review will build on the earlier analysis to identify where changes are needed to improve future delivery of Government objectives, and to determine how best to implement those changes.

  The review will be conducted by the Treasury working in collaboration with National Savings. The first phase will conclude by March 2000.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Bilateral Concordat
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the bilateral concordat between the Department of Social Security and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales. [104452]

  Mr. Darling
  I am pleased to announce that the First Secretary and I have agreed the text of the concordat between the Department of Social Security and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales. Copies of the concordat have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and the text will be available on the DSS website in both English and Welsh.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from Salisbury District Council about the future of sub-post offices. [104118]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  None.

  Objective 2 Status
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received on the criteria for granting Objective 2 status. [103288]

  Mr. Caborn
  Following the submission of our proposed Objective 2 areas to the European Commission in October, we received a few representations from MPs and local authorities requesting further details on the criteria used. In addition, the Isle of Wight has brought judicial review proceedings challenging the Objective 2 proposals submitted to the European Commission.

  Postal Services Commission
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultation with industry will be undertaken in the appointment of(a) the members, (b) the Chairman and (c) the Chief Executive of the Postal Services Commission. [104181]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Chairman and ordinary members of the Postal Services Commission are being appointed in accordance with the Code of Practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. For the Chief Executive post civil service procedures are being used.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from(a) trade unions and (b) former workers in the nuclear power industry about health and safety risks in relation to outsourcing. [104147]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There have been none.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many production incidents were reported at Magnox and advanced gas-cooled reactors in 1999; how many reactors had to be shut down; and for what length of time. [104137]
  109W
  Mrs. Liddell
  There are 35 reactors operating at 16 nuclear power stations across Great Britain. During 1999, production was interrupted by unplanned shutdowns (either automatic or by power station operators) on 78 occasions. All except 15 of these were for 10 days or less. The remainder ranged from 10 to 259 days.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff have been shed by the nuclear power industry since its privatisation; and what reports he has received from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in respect of(a) Magnox and (b) advanced gas-cooled reactors visited in 1999 concerning the (i) number of redundancies and (ii) adequacy of training of employed contractors. [104136]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Since the privatisation of British Energy in 1996, it has shed just over 1,000 jobs. The Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate have not published any reports on either redundancies or the adequacy of training of employed contractors. I understand that the Health and Safety Executive will shortly be publishing its safety management audit of British Energy.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he has taken in response to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate's findings on the impact of staff redundancies on the safety of the nuclear power industry; and if he will make a statement. [104146]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have not received any report from the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate on the impact of staff redundancies on safety in the nuclear power industry.

  SMART Budget
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the gross funding allocated by the Government for the SMART budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–00. [103221]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 20 December 1999]: The budgets for the SMART programme excluding the winding down of Regional Enterprise Grants and the transfer of residual commitments from the Department of Environment to DTI were as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98

  23.9

  1998–99

  27.3

  1999–2000

  31.6

  Coal (Imports)
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what tonnage of imported steam coal was landed at Hunterston Port in Ayrshire, Scotland in the years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99; and in which countries it originated, giving the tonnages for each country. [102605]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: Information on imports of coal by port and country of origin are available only for trade from outside the EC. Similar information on intra-EC trade is not collected.
  110W
  Data on steam coal imports into Hunterston are not recorded separately. However, imports into Greenock Port which includes Hunterston are available and are set out as follows, together with imports through all Scottish ports.

  Steam coal imports from outside the EC

  Million tonnes

  Port

  Country of origin

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Greenock1

  Australia

  —

  0.3

  0 7

  Colombia

  0.7

  0.9

  1.0

  South Africa

  0.1

  0.3

  1.0

  Others2

  0.1

  —

  —

  Total

  0.8

  1.5

  2.7

  All Scottish ports

  Australia

  —

  0.3

  0.7

  Colombia

  0.7

  0.9

  1.0

  South Africa

  0.1

  0.3

  1.0

  Others2

  0.1

  —

  —

  Total

  0.9

  1.5

  2.7

  All UK ports

  8.4

  10.1

  12.2

  1 Greenock includes the following ports: Annan, Barcaldine, Campbeltown, Faslane, Finnart, Furnace, Garlieston, Hunterston, Islay, Oban, Palnackie, Stranraer.

  2Others are Indonesia, Poland and the United States of America

  3Less than 50,000 tonnes

  4Nil

PRIME MINISTER

  Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to review the application of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in respect of the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee; [104112]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999, Official Report, column 353W, concerning attendance at the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee on 13 December, what steps he plans to take in respect of persons disclosing information about attendance at Joint Cabinet Committees to the Press. [104117]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no such plans.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister how many breaches of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information have been identified in respect of the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee since its inception. [104115]

  The Prime Minister
  None. The code would be breached only by a refusal to disclose information which should properly be made public.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  SRB (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of the Single Regeneration Budget in tackling disadvantage in the West Midlands. [103266]
  111W
  Ms Armstrong
  There has not been a central Government evaluation of the impact of the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) in the West Midlands. However, the national evaluation of the first two rounds of the SRB includes case studies on two West Midlands SRB partnerships—the West Midlands Industrial Club and Regenerating Wolverhampton.

  Nature Conservation
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to afford greater protection to sites of importance for nature conservation; and if he will make a statement. [103267]

  Mr. Meacher
  In line with proposals in the Government's Framework for Action on Sites of Special Scientific Interest, officials have set up a Local Sites Review Group, comprising a wide range of interested bodies. This will consider the issues associated with the identification, protection and management of local sites and report its conclusions early this year.

  East Coast Main Line
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has in respect of the upgrading of the east coast main line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen. [103268]

  Mr. Hill
  There are no plans at present. However, we have asked the Franchising Director to replace passenger franchises that expire within the next three to four years in order to generate new investment and service improvements. Discussions for a new Great North Eastern Railways franchise, including future infrastructure and service requirements for the entire East Coast Main Line, will be starting soon with Seacontainers the current operator and Virgin Rail Group in conjunction with Stagecoach.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on what measures he proposes to take to upgrade the east coast main line service between Edinburgh and Aberdeen. [103284]

  Mr. Hill
  There are no plans at present. However, we have asked the Franchising Director to replace passenger franchises that expire within the next three to four years in order to generate new investment and service improvements. Discussions for a new Great North Eastern Railways franchise, including future infrastructure and service requirements for the entire East Coast Main Line, will be starting soon with the current operator and any other interested parties.

  Waste Disposal (East Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on waste disposal, with particular reference to East Sussex. [103269]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government's policy for sustainable waste management, including waste disposal, is set out in the draft national waste strategy, "A Way With Waste". The final version will be published shortly and we expect local authorities throughout England to have regard to its 112W
  goals in developing strategies for managing waste in their areas. I understand plans are being developed in East Sussex to meet the goals set out in "A Way With Waste", and I welcome this.

  Rough Sleepers
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on how he intends to reduce the number of rough sleepers on the streets. [103271]

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to ensure that people do not have to sleep rough on the streets. [103275]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 15 December, we published the Government's strategy for reducing the numbers of rough sleepers in England by at least two thirds by 2002. Copies of the document "Coming in from the Cold" are available in the Library.

  London Underground
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the latest estimated date for the finalisation of the Government's plans for London Underground. [103272]

  Mr. Hill
  London Underground has made good progress in developing the public private partnership: bids for the deep-tube lines are due back in March; expressions of interest for the sub-surface lines are due later this month; (and those for the property partnership are due in February). We have consistently made clear that we will not be bound by specific dates for the completion of the PPP.

  Regeneration Programmes
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what support he is providing to encourage local people to take an active part in regeneration programmes. [103273]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We are working with the relevant national, regional and local bodies to encourage local people to take an active part in the regeneration of their local communities. We are providing funding support, in particular for capacity building and community involvement, through our domestic regeneration programmes and European Structural Funds in eligible areas.

  Coalfield Areas
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to regenerate former coalfield areas. [103274]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  On 1 December 1998 at the second Coalfields Conference in Peterlee, County Durham, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a 10 year programme to regenerate coalfield communities with an investment package of £354 million over three years. A fuller breakdown of this investment and further steps to
  113W
  be taken are set out in "Making the Difference—A new Start for England's Coalfield Communities: The Government's Response to the Coalfields Task Force Report".

  The Deputy Prime Minister published a further report at the third Coalfields Conference in Wigan on 18 October 1999, in less than a year since Peterlee, setting out progress on delivery of the recommendations of the Coalfields Task Force. Copies of both these documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of the Single Regeneration Budget in combating disadvantage. [103276]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Analysis from the interim national evaluation of the first two rounds of the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) has shown that the initiative is delivering a good mix of economic, social, community and environmental benefits in deprived areas. Taking into account the severity of the problems in SRB partnership areas, these benefits are being delivered cost effectively.

  Eastern Regional Development Agency
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from the Eastern Regional Development Agency. [103277]

  Ms Armstrong
  The East of England Development Agency (EEDA) has submitted its strategy for the East of England, "Moving Forward" and its Corporate Plan. It has also commented on draft Planning Policy Guidance 11 and on Round 6 of the Single Regeneration Budget.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his proposals to improve the Planning Inspectorate's service to the public. [103278]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Planning Inspectorate strives continuously to improve its service to the public. They have dramatically improved handling times for deciding planning appeals and are well on the way to achieving the Public Service Agreement targets which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in March 1999. Improvements to the procedure for processing planning appeals will be implemented during 2000–01. A consultation paper on proposals to improve the processing of enforcement appeals was published last month. The Inspectorate are converting all of their guidance leaflets into Plain English and have been awarded seven crystal marks by the Plain English Campaign. The Inspectorate will continue to invest in new IT systems and will be relaunching their website shortly.

  Housing
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage local planning authorities to build new homes in existing town centres. [103279]
  114W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We are revising our planning policy guidance on housing (PPG3) to encourage more housing to be provided in town centres and the conversion and reuse of buildings not currently in housing use, and the re-use of premises above shops. We have commissioned research to identify the impediments to mixed-use and housing developments in town centres, the results of which will be published later this year.

  Train Overcrowding
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he next plans to meet the Health and Safety Executive to discuss train overcrowding. [103280]

  Mr. Hill
  I have no plans to discuss train overcrowding with the Health and Safety Executive, who regard this issue as primarily one of passenger comfort and not safety.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on improving innovation and quality in the construction industry. [103281]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We are working closely with clients and the supply side to improve the performance of the construction industry by stimulating innovation and process improvement along the lines recommended in Sir John Egan's report "Rethinking Construction".

  Demonstration projects to a value of around £3 billion have been put forward covering almost every aspect of construction by local authorities, housing associations, central Government Departments and agencies and by many private sector clients and suppliers.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of(a) proposals from the airlines for the corporate restructuring of the NATS and (b) the prospect of achieving consensus on such proposals across the wider air transport industry. [103282]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government have not received any formal proposals from the airlines about the restructuring of NATS. The NATS PPP will be put in place following a competitive tender process and, should they choose to bid, any proposal from the airlines will be considered as part of that process. The responses to our consultation on the NATS PPP show that there is broad support for the Government' s proposals from the aviation industry.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on climate change. [103283]

  Mr. Meacher
  Climate change remains high on the Government's agenda and we are pressing ahead with the development of an ambitious UK climate change programme, a draft of which will be published shortly for
  115W
  consultation. We have already introduced many new and innovative policies that will reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases.

  Passenger Information
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on measures taken to provide the travelling public with a one-stop national passenger information system. [103285]

  Mr. Hill
  The national public transport information system is being developed by partnerships of transport operators and local authorities.

  Government have provided Supplementary Credit Approvals to local authorities of £1 million in 1998–99 and £3.3 million in 1999–2000 to assist with the capital requirements of the project.

  The service is expected to be introduced progressively throughout Great Britain during 2000.

  Planning System (Competition)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on taking account of competition issues within the planning system. [103286]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The planning system is expected to be positive in promoting competition while ensuring the protection of the environment and amenity. It is required to treat all applications for planning consent even-handedly and to determine them on their planning merits.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his Department's policy to discourage the development of playing fields currently being used for sport. [103287]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Planning Policy Guidance note 17: Sport and Recreation already emphasises the special significance of playing fields and that they should normally be protected. The Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields)(England) Direction 1998 requires referral to the Secretary of State of planning applications for development of local authority-owned playing fields or those currently, or in the previous five years, in educational use, where Sport England has objected but the local planning authority is minded to grant permission. The Secretary of State then has the opportunity to call in the application for his own determination.

  School Crossing Patrols
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the powers of school crossing patrols. [103289]
  116W
  Mr. Hill
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced on 18 November 1998 that School Crossing Patrols would be given increased powers so that they can help any child or adult across the road and that the time restrictions on when they can operate will be removed.

  The proposal to extend the powers of school crossing patrols was included in our White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone". It is a clear commitment. We will implement this proposal when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  Local Authority Purchases (Inflation Rate)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the current rate of inflation for the basket of goods and services purchased by local authorities. [103259]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Employee costs account for more than half of local authorities' costs, and this year's pay settlements affecting local authorities are in the region of 2 to 3.6 per cent. Local authorities will continue to benefit from the low inflation and stable economy being delivered by the good economic management this Government provides as well as the predictability that the three year settlement has provided.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received from industry and business concerning the effects of the climate change levy [103270]

  Mr. Meacher
  We receive many representations from business on the climate change levy and have been taking these into consideration in our development of detailed proposals. We have also issued a number of consultation papers, the latest—which invites comments on the Government's proposals for a £150 million business energy efficiency programme and tax relief scheme for investment in energy saving technologies—was published on 9 December 1999. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Trams (Croydon)
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to issue an exemption order for the fleet of trams to be introduced into service in Croydon in respect of the provisions of the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998. [104620]

  Mr. Hill
  As my predecessor explained in her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 167W, we are expecting to receive a number of exemption applications from train and tram operating companies whose designs for new rail vehicles were well advanced prior to the 1998 Regulations coming into force.
  117W
  We have received an application from Tramtrack Croydon Ltd. relating to the new trams they wish to introduce on Croydon Tramlink. The exemptions have been discussed with our statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. An exemption Order relating to the exemption of these trams was laid in Parliament yesterday. Copies are available from the Library.

  The exemptions will not prevent disabled people from using the new trams or trains. Indeed, we believe that their introduction will make a significant contribution to improving mobility opportunities for disabled people.

  Authority

  Value £

  Title of Bid

  Bath and NE Somerset

  801,127

  Enhanced Bus Services

  Buckinghamshire

  985,000

  Easybus Project

  Cheshire

  632,388

  Demand Responsive Rural Community Transport Strategy

  Cornwall

  100,000

  The Helston-Redruth Branch Line Bus Service

  57,270

  The Gorran and District Ring-and-Ride Service

  Cumbria

  722,000

  Cumbrian Connexion

  Derbyshire

  155,000

  Public Transport Information Technology

  Devon

  640,000

  Buses are Cool

  East Riding

  423,300

  MediBus Network

  East Sussex

  102,000

  North Lewes District Rural Taxibus Partnership

  Gloucestershire

  998,900

  IMPACT—Improving Accessible Transport

  Greater Manchester

  312,000

  Rural Transport Operators

  Hampshire

  169,457

  Fully Integrated Brockenhurst

  Herefordshire

  78,000

  Home Hopper

  Hertfordshire

  107,000

  Accessible Taxis Rural Areas Partnership

  180,000

  Multi-purpose Accessible Vehicles in Rural Areas

  Kent

  381,000

  Swale Unified Network (SUN)

  Lancashire

  106,733

  Rural Intelligent Bus Stop System

  280,999

  Garstang "Super 8" Variable Route Minibus Service

  Lincolnshire

  940,962

  Spalding-Kings Lynn

  680,687

  Lincoln-Boston

  Merseyside

  12,600

  Satellite Tracking and Communications Equipment

  Norfolk

  478,800

  Quality Bus Partnership (Kings Lynn-Hunstanton)

  North Lincolnshire

  88,095

  Brigg Bus Stop Infrastructure Improvements

  North Yorkshire

  43,200

  Whixley Area Community Transport Project

  Northamptonshire

  221,850

  East Northants Community Bus and Trailer Project

  204,550

  Cross County Quality Bus Partnership

  61,550

  Wellinborough Rural Door-to-Door Service

  Northumberland

  74,000

  Access to Journey Planner

  Oxfordshire

  62,192

  Cotswold Line Taxi-Bus Interchange

  229,100

  Wheelchair Accessible Express Coach Feeder and Dial-a-Ride Service in South Oxfordshire

  426,000

  Cherwell Valley Taxi-Bus Scheme

  285,000

  Integrated Rural Taxi-Bus Links to Bicester North Railway Station

  Redcar and Cleveland

  5,000

  Minibus Turning Circle

  Shropshire

  21,600

  Bike-Bus Demonstration Project

  21,900

  Community Transport Information System

  Somerset

  90,823

  West Somerset Social Car Scheme

  25,582

  Wells—Priddy Postbus

  225,195

  Continuation of Mendip Flexibus Funding

  South Gloucestershire

  540,300

  Strategic Interchange and Local Access Hubs

  South Yorkshire

  40,478

  Hampole and Skelbrooke

  1,342,275

  South Rotherham Transport Strategy

  Staffordshire

  117,500

  Gnosall Community Links

  Stockton on Tees

  12,000

  Bus Facilities at Yarm Station

  Suffolk

  305,122

  Wheels Within Wheels

  Telford and Wrekin

  174,000

  Rural Transport Links—The Wrekin Rider

  Torbay

  142,990

  South Devon Hospital Hopper Bus

  Tyne and Wear

  361,550

  Transpods

  Warrington

  60,000

  Car Share Co-ordinator

  Warwickshire

  155,088

  Flexi Bus Routes

  West Berkshire

  75,700

  Taxi-Bus

  West Sussex

  218,000

  Demanding Public Transport

  West Yorkshire

  208,928

  Denby Dale

  Wiltshire

  642,450

  Trans-Wilts Express

  453,160

  Royal United Hospital Demand Responsive Taxi-Bus service

  58,000

  Wigglybus

  Worcestershire

  404,049

  Route Enhancement: Service 382

  36,500

  Bus Passenger Escort Scheme

  58 Schemes

  16,778,950

  Rural Bus Challenge 1999
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the results of the 1999 Rural Bus Challenge competition. [104623]

  Mr. Prescott
  I am pleased to announce today approval of the 58 projects listed below which were submitted as bids by local authorities in this competition. This follows careful consideration of a total of 124 bids submitted by authorities. Funding for the successful bids will total £16.78 million. A Special Grant Report under Section 88b of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 will be put forward for Parliamentary approval as soon as possible.

  Garden Composters
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evidence he has obtained as to whether councils which have provided, free, subsidised or cost price garden composters have ensured the equipment has been used for 12 months or longer. [104294]

  Ms Armstrong
  None. This is a matter for individual councils.

  Fluorescent Lights
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of used fluorescent lights from Government buildings are recycled. [104293]

  Mr. Meacher
  The percentage is small. Only some 25,000 fluorescent tubes have been recycled under the Government-wide call off contract which the Disposal Sales Agency awarded to Biffa Waste Services Limited in June 1998. The potential market was estimated at 800,000 tubes a year. But contracts of this nature take time to bed down. The extra cost of recycling is deterring some premises managers from using the contract. Others are bound by existing contracts and must wait until they expire. The time intervals for replacing tubes can also vary between two and several years depending on circumstances. There are also logistical considerations such as storage space. Efforts continue to encourage managers to use the contract.

  Commonhold Legislation
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce commonhold legislation. [104264]

  Mr. Mullin
  As was announced in the gracious speech given on 17 November 1999,Official Report, columns 4–7, the Government will be publishing a draft joint Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill for consultation during this session. The Commonhold aspects of the draft Bill are the responsibility of my right hon. noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

  Footpath Network
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to include the pedestrian footpath network in London within the scope of his report on improving rights of way in England and Wales. [104261]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our consultation paper, "Improving Rights of Way in England and Wales", was sent to all the local authorities in London and a number of London organisations. We are considering their responses carefully, together with almost 2000 others, in preparing new legislation on rights of way.

  Tenants
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has given to local authorities about improving the quality of life of their tenants through estate management. [104052]
  120W
  Mr. Mullin
  This Department has been represented on several of the policy action teams (PATs) set up in response to the Social Exclusion Unit's report "Bringing Britain together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal", including PAT 5 on Housing Management and PAT 8 on Anti-social Behaviour. PAT 5 found that good housing management is crucial in ensuring that tenants in social housing enjoy a high quality of life. The work of both teams will feed into the Social Exclusion Unit's overall strategy on neighbourhood renewal, to be published later this year.

  The quality of life for tenants can be greatly improved by involving tenants more effectively and more thoroughly in the management of their homes, including tenant management if that is what the tenants themselves want. From April this year all councils will be introducing tenant participation compacts. This Department published guidance for local authorities in June last year to help them develop, implement and review their local compacts.

  We are also broadening our programme of grants paid under section 16 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 to promote and develop greater participation. Guidance on the full range of grants available for this purpose will be published in the spring.

  Under Best Value, local authorities will need to review their housing services, including those relating to estate management, with a view to securing improvements, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. This Department will shortly be publishing guidance for local housing authorities on the application of Best Value to housing.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what administrative measures are available to enforce tenancy agreements between local authorities and their tenants. [104053]

  Mr. Mullin
  Tenancy agreements set out both the rights, and responsibilities, of tenants. Local authorities should ensure that their agreements are clear and unambiguous, so that there can be no doubt about the standards expected and the circumstances in which the authority will take action if there are problems. In the event of a breach of a tenancy agreement, local authorities may wish to begin possession proceedings using the grounds set out in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 (as amended by the Housing Act 1996).

  Local authorities may, alternatively, wish to seek an injunction against the tenant concerned to prevent further breaches of the tenancy agreement. The 1996 Act enables the courts to attach a power of arrest to such an injunction if there is violence, or a threat of violence.

  Environmental Schemes
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria were applied in determining how many and which environment schemes would be deleted from proposals put to him by the Environment Agency and South West Water; under what statutory authority that decision was made; whether the criteria relating to pollution of the water environment are the same in every region; and if he will make a statement. [104161]
  121W
  Mr. Mullin
  Proposals for investment by water companies in schemes to protect and improve the environment in England were put to the Secretary of State by the Environment Agency as part of the Periodic Review of water company price limits. This is a non-statutory process, led by Ofwat, which sets the price framework by reference, among other factors, to foreseen investment needs over the forthcoming pricing period, in this case 2000–05.

  The Director General of Ofwat requested guidance from Ministers about the level of investment which companies should be required to make to achieve environmental objectives within this period. We were advised in that task by the Environment Agency, which put forward a list of specific proposals for consideration. A large proportion of these arose from the need to meet statutory water quality standards, many of them arising from European legislation. All these schemes were included in the programme as a matter of course. On other parts of the programme, principally schemes to improve river water quality and those to improve intermittent sewage discharges, it was possible for the Government to exercise a degree of discretion over the timing or the nature of the objectives.

  In "Raising the Quality", which was published in September 1998, we indicated a general aim to eliminate at least half the existing shortfall in compliance with river quality objectives by 2005 and to accelerate the rate of improvement for intermittent discharges, so that at least two thirds of remaining unsatisfactory discharges would be improved by 2005. Within these national objectives, however, the Government made clear it would take a view on the pace of investment for particular companies taking account of the need to avoid unacceptable impacts on water prices in different parts of the country, and to reflect local environmental priorities.

  In the south west, where customers were already experiencing water bills considerably higher than for any other water company, and which already had the highest rate of compliance with river quality objectives in England, we decided to undertake a lower proportion of investment to meet river quality objectives and improve intermittent discharges than elsewhere. These decisions were based on assessments of the costs and benefits of the investment schemes concerned. However, the south west will still benefit from a substantial environmental programme, which includes further improvements to protect bathing waters and shellfish waters, key priorities for the region.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions over a 10 year period that would be achieved by replacing two 1,200 MW coal-fired power stations with two gas-fired power stations of the same capacity. [104274]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department estimates that replacing two 1,200 MW coal fired power stations by two gas fired power stations of the same capacity would save about 75 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over a ten year period, assuming the power stations would operate on base load.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Political Parties (Donations)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to ensure that large donations to political parties are declared. [104183]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Part IV of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill will give effect to our manifesto commitment to require the disclosure of large donations made to political parties. The registered treasurer of a political party will be required to report to the Electoral Commission, on a quarterly basis, the source and amount of donations of £5,000 or more accepted by the central organisation and of £1,000 or more accepted by a constituency association or other sub-unit of the party's organisation.

  In the immediate run up to a general election, reports must be submitted on a weekly basis. All donations so reported would be included on a register of recordable donations, which will be open to public inspection.

  In addition, Part IX of the Bill amends the Companies Act 1985 so as to strengthen the requirements on companies to disclose, in the directors' report, donations to political parties which, in aggregate, exceed £200 in a financial year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to letters to the Asylum Directorate from Powell and Co., dated 17 May, 17 June, 8 July, 17 September and 19 October, concerning a constituent (Home Office reference D282723) of the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead; and if he will make a statement. [99771]

  Mrs. Roche
  [pursuant to her reply, 25 November 1999, c. 179W]: I now understand that, owing to a regrettable oversight, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate did not send a reply to the letter of 17 May from Powell and Co. There is no trace of any further letters from the solicitors. On 30 November, a final reply was sent to Powell and Co., and I wrote to my hon. Friend on 22 December.

  Car Parks
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made toward the improvement of car parks under the secured car parks scheme. [104266]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As at 31 December 1999, 544 car parks in England and Wales had achieved awards under the secured car parks scheme. Car parks with award status have shown substantial reductions in crime, with a sample showing average reductions of 70 per cent.

  Additional Government funding of £150 million over three years for closed circuit television has been made available. Improving car park security was a priority for the first round and 31 bids with a car park element (and a capital value of £3 million) were approved under fast-track procedures. In addition, an award of £1.95 million has been made to London Underground to upgrade 58 car parks to award status.

  Escaped Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women prisoners (i) have escaped from custody during their sentence in each of the last five years and (ii) have not been recaptured. [104048]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is set out in the tables. The numbers of escapes exclude recaptures within 15 minutes where no further offence has been committed. Figures are for financial years and the escape figures for 1999–2000 show the position to the end of December 1999. The recapture data are as accurate as possible, but some escapers may be recaptured or be arrested for other offences and re-enter the system without a link to the previous incident being made or reported.

  Escapes from prisons

  Number of escapers not recaptured at 31 December 1999

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  1995–96

  52

  0

  5

  0

  1996–97

  33

  0

  7

  0

  1997–98

  22

  1

  0

  0

  1998–99

  27

  1

  2

  0

  1999–2000

  21

  4

  3

  0

  Escapes from escorts

  Number of escapers not recaptured at 31 December 1999

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  1995–96

  68

  2

  6

  0

  1996–97

  98

  0

  4

  0

  1997–98

  82

  0

  22

  0

  1998–99

  57

  5

  14

  1

  1999–2000

  49

  2

  15

  0

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support he has offered to local authorities accepting asylum seekers. [104258]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government have made special grants available to local authorities to help meet unavoidable additional costs incurred in accommodating and supporting asylum seekers under the Children Act 1989 and the National Assistance Act 1948 who are not otherwise entitled to social benefit. On a weekly basis, these grants are currently up to £150 for a single adult and £220 for a family. The responsibility for the payment of these grants—except those for unaccompanied asylum seeking children—passed to the Home Office in April 1999. Home Office officials have also provided direct support over the past year to the Local Government Association (LGA) and local authorities to devise and operate arrangements to disperse asylum seekers away from those areas under most pressure.

  With effect from 1 April 2000, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides for destitute asylum seekers and their dependants to be supported and accommodated by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). Through regional consortia, local authorities will still have a key role to play in co-ordinating the provision of
  124W
  accommodation and support services to destitute asylum seekers in their area. To help achieve what is known as the enabling role, Regional Consortia will be eligible to receive up to £40,000 this year and up to £100,000 annually thereafter in grant.

  Puppy Farmers
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking in respect of unscrupulous puppy farmers. [104393]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Commercial dog breeding establishments have to be licensed by local authorities under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, as amended by the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999. It is an offence to be in breach of any of the licence conditions aimed at ensuring satisfactory welfare standards for the dogs involved. There are inspection powers for suspected unlicensed premises under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1991.

  The Home Office has recently issued guidance to local authorities about administration and enforcement of this legislation.

  Metropolitan Police (Disciplinary Hearings)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the policy of the Metropolitan Police henceforth to allow officers facing a discipline hearing the assistance, if requested, of a representative of the Black Police Association in addition to the Police Federation. [103917]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner informs me that it is Metropolitan Police policy to comply with the Police Regulations, and Home Office guidance, on disciplinary hearings.

  The Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985, which cover incidents occurring before 1 April 1999, provide that a member of a police force may assist the legal representative at the hearing. The Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999, for incidents after 1 April 1999, provide that in addition to having his or her case conducted by a legal representative, the officer may be accompanied at the hearing by a member of a police force or a friend. The role of the friend is to assist the officer in defending the case.

  If the officer asks to have more than one friend present at a misconduct hearing, the presiding officer will base any decision on representations from the officer concerned. If the request is agreed, the second friend will be acting as an observer and not a second advocate to question witnesses on behalf of the officer concerned.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from what date all members of the Metropolitan Police discipline tribunals involving accusations of racism will have had anti-racism training. [103918]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner informs me that all of his officers who are eligible to sit on police discipline tribunals as assessors under the Police Act 1996 have received training in the relevant Home Office guidance and regulations, including dealing with racially discriminatory behaviour.

DEFENCE

  DERA (PPP Proposals)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent meetings Ministers in his Department have had with members and officials of the United States Department of Defense to discuss the public private partnership proposals for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency; on what date; at which locations; which UK Ministers attended each of these meetings; which members of the United States Government attended these meetings; and for which section of the United States Department of Defense the officials who attended each meeting were working. [103182]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Since 24 August 1999, the Minister for Defence Procurement, Baroness Symons, has met with the following US representatives to discuss the DERA public private partnership proposals:

  (a) Hon. L. Buchanan, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition, on 13 September 1999 in London;

  (b) Hon. P. Hoeper, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition, on 14 September 1999 in London;

  (c) Mr. A. Money, the Assistant Secretary of Defence (C31) on 1 October, in London; and

  (d) The DoD's nominated focal point for the DERA Public Private Partnership, Dr. C. Dorman, the Chief Scientist of the Office of Naval Research, on 22 November 1999, in London.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and where British officials and military personnel met US Government officials to discuss the future of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency; and if he will list the names and job descriptions of the British participants. [103407]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 21 December 1999]: Throughout the DERA PPP process there has been substantial and widespread discussion with US Government officials, by a considerable number of British officials and military officers, at meetings in the UK, the US and in other countries during, or in the margins of, multilateral meetings.

  A full list of all meetings which may have included discussions on the future of DERA between US Government officials and British participants is not held centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. However the key meetings held specifically to discuss DERA PPP are summarised as follows:

  (a) During the 4–6 November 1998 Mr. G. H. B. Jordan, Deputy Under Secretary (Science and Technology) and Mr. T. Jagger, Director of the DERA Partnering Team briefed a targeted audience of senior DoD political appointees and officials, single service commands and laboratories and government laboratories and agencies.

  (b) Mr. C Balmer, the MOD Principal Finance Officer accompanied by Mr. Jordan, Sir John Chisholm, the Chief Executive of DERA and Mr. Jagger visited the US to brief a similar audience at the start of the consultation process, from the 3–7 May 1999.

  (c) Mr. Jagger, accompanied by members of MOD's International Research Collaboration division visited the US on 24–28 May 1999.

  126W

  (d) US DoD officials visited the UK in July and held discussions with Mr. K. Tebbit, the MOD Permanent Secretary. Mr. Balmer, Mr. Jordan, Lieutenant General Sir Edmund Burton, the then Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Systems), Mr. Jagger, Sir John Chisholm and members of their staffs.

  (e) Mr. Balmer and Mr. Jagger visited Washington during September to hold further discussions with the DoD.

  (f) The DoD's nominated focal point for DERA PPP visited the UK during 15–24 November and held discussions with Mr. Balmer, Mr. Jordan, Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham, the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Equipment Capability), Mr. J. Howe, Deputy Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency, Mr. Jagger, Sir John Chisholm and members of their staffs.

  Nancekuke Base, Cornwall
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on health problems suffered by former workers at the Nancekuke base in Cornwall. [103940]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 11 November 1999,Official Report, columns 707–08W, concerning the survey conducted by the Registrar General which showed that, up to 1969, the mortality of persons who had been employed at Nancekuke was rather less than the average for England and Wales as a whole. This report was published in full in the answer given to the former hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Pardoe) on 2 November 1970, Official Report, columns 294–95W. I also refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer concerning the review of sickness and absenteeism among persons employed at Nancekuke which did not yield any valid conclusions.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's decision to allow early release of a document concerning health risks to workers at the Nancekuke base in Cornwall during the 1950s and 1960s. [103939]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The document to which my hon. Friend refers was a report of sickness and absenteeism among persons employed at Nancekuke from 1952 to 1969. The review was conducted by the Registrar General and mentioned briefly in an answer to a question from the former hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Pardoe) on 2 November 1970,Official Report, columns 294–95W. The study, which was not classified, was among a number of papers at the Public Record Office which were authorised for early release by the Office for National Statistics in response to a request from a reporter.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from former workers at the Nancekuke base in Cornwall regarding health risks caused by their contact with poisonous substances during the 1950s and 1960s. [103938]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  One claim for compensation has been received by my Department from a former worker at Nancekuke who was accidentally exposed to Sarin GB. I am not aware of any other representations to my Department. I am, however, aware of the two other claims made through the then Department of Health and Social Security in the early 1970s.
  127W
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the report released by the Office for National Statistics concerning health risks to workers at the Nancekuke base in Cornwall during the 1950s and 1960s. [103941]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The report referred to was based on a review of sickness and absenteeism among persons employed at Nancekuke from 1952 to 1969. While the results could be taken to imply greater absence among industrial staff for some illnesses than might have been expected from the national figures available, the data were considered insufficiently robust to be used as firm evidence of increased ill-health among staff and the results were not published formally. Recent re-examination of the results supports the original conclusions concerning the inadequacy of the data.

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects to let the contract for the Type 45 Destroyer; and what the timescale is for the various elements; [103922]

  (2) when he expects to let the contract for the second Type 45 Destroyer; to whom it will be let; and what the timescale is for the various elements of the contract. [103923]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 11 January 2000:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about contract placement for the first and second Type 45 destroyers. This matter falls to me to answer within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  As you are aware, the contract to complete Preparation for Demonstration (PFD) for the Type 45 was placed with Marconi Electronic Systems (MES, now BAe SYSTEMS) on 23 November 1999. BAe SYSTEMS have also been appointed as the Prime Contractor for the Type 45 Programme. It is currently planned to place the Demonstration and First of Class Manufacture (DFM) contract with the Prime Contractor towards the end of 2000, to meet an in-service date for the first-of-class ship of 2007.
  The detailed contractual arrangements for the build of the first and subsequent ships of the class remain under consideration with the Prime Contractor and I am therefore unable to be precise about the timing of the contract for the second T45 destroyer or to whom it would be awarded. However, value for money will be the prime factor in any such arrangement and in this regard we are keen to ensure that we retain our ability to conduct effective competition for follow-on Type 45 destroyers. To this end, both Marconi Marine (YSL) Ltd and Vosper Thornycroft will be involved in the PFD contract and, subject to satisfactory progress, also in the subsequent DFM contract with a view to allowing the efficient construction of Type 45s at both yards.

  Defence Equipment Exhibition
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what actions his Department took to prevent Pakistan Ordnance Factories from exhibiting brochures at the Defence Systems Equipment International '99 Exhibition at Chertsey; [104158]
  128W
  (2) what assessment his Department made of Pakistan's ordnance factories' production, with particular reference to anti-personnel land mines, before it was invited to the Defence Systems Equipment International '99 Exhibition. [104298]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Pakistan Ordnance Factories stand at Defence Systems Equipment International '99 (DSEi99) Exhibition was reviewed by MOD officials and, at that time, no literature promoting Anti-Personnel Mines was found. No specific action was therefore required or taken to prevent the company from exhibiting brochures at DSEi99.

  Attendance of companies at the show was a matter for the organisers, DSEi Ltd., who assured HMG that they would require that all exhibitions and promotional material would comply with UK legislation, including the Landmines Act 1998, and Government policy. HM Customs and Excise are currently investigating an allegation that Pakistan Ordnance Factories referred to anti-personnel landmines in their promotional material.

  Spearfish Torpedoes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in the last six months on the mid-life of the Spearfish MoD O warshot heavyweight torpedoes; and what response he has made to suppliers concerning the performance of the torpedoes. [104110]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock dated 11 January 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what representations he has received in the last six months on the mid-life of the Spearfish MoD O warshot heavyweight torpedoes; and what response he has made to suppliers concerning the performance of the torpedoes. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The main production contract for the supply of the Spearfish Mod O warshot torpedo was placed with GEC-Marconi Ltd (now part of BAe Systems) in December 1994 and deliveries commenced in June 1999. The performance of the torpedoes is being assessed via a series of in-water Production Qualification Trials (PQTs) designed to test discrete aspects of performance within the overall performance requirements of the contract.
  BAe Systems is also currently undertaking concept studies to provide support for the SPEARFISH Mod O Heavyweight Torpedo Mid-Life Update programme. No representations have been received from any other supplier about the Mid-Life Update programme.

  Joint Rapid Reaction Force Vessels
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specification was set out in the invitation to tender for the Joint Rapid Reaction Force Roll-On-Roll-Off vessel PFI contract regarding the(a) use by bidders of UK seafarers, (b) commitment to recruitment by bidders of seafarers from traditional UK maritime communities, (c) use by bidders of non-UK seafarers, (d) commitment of bidders to the training initiatives recently announced by the Government, (e) training opportunities for officers and ratings to be provided on the vessels and (f) management of the health, safety and employment welfare of crews. [104088]
  129W
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Ivan Henderson, dated 11 January 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the specification set out in the invitation to tender for the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces Roll-on-Roll-Off vessel PFI contract. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Under PFI arrangements, it will be for bidders to provide and manage the service, including the provision of appropriately-trained crews. The invitation to tender did not cite a specification for the issues listed in the question, although bidders have been asked to price the provision of British seamen who would be eligible for call-out as Sponsored Reserves. Bidders would be free to crew the vessels as they wished when trading commercially. A decision on whether or not the MoD requires the use of Sponsored Reserves for Joint Rapid Reaction Forces operations or exercises will be taken in the light of the evaluation of the bids.

  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce the award of the PFI contract for the Joint Rapid Reaction Force Roll-On Roll-Off vessels. [104090]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Our current intention is to place a contract in summer 2000 for Roll-on Roll-off vessels to support the Joint Rapid Reaction Force.

  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans have been made to meet the needs of the armed forces in the event of any delay in(a) the awarding of the PFI contract for the Joint Rapid Reaction Force Roll-On Roll-Off vessels and (b) the delivery of the vessels. [104091]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The project is on track to achieve the placing of the contract in summer 2000. We have always planned to provide an interim service from October 2000, through charter arrangements, until the new service was available. In the event of a delay to the delivery of the vessels, these arrangements could be extended to cover the gap.

  EU Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current annual level of defence expenditure of each member state of the European Union. [100834]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC Special Branch
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officers attached to RUC

  Date

  Venue

  Purpose

  Total cost £

  10–11 June 1997

  Paris

  Tournoi de France

  1,910

  10–11 October 1997

  Rome

  England v Italy Qualifier

  2,203

  25–31 October 1997

  USA\Trinidad\Costa Rica

  World Cup Campaign for 2006 with FA

  20,434

  4–5 December 1997

  Marseilles

  World Cup Draw

  1,211

  5–18 February 1998

  Tokyo\Seoul\Bangkok

  Winter Olympics\Campaign for 2006

  21,553

  130W
  Special Branch in September joined the Special Branch in (a) each of the last 10 years, (b) the previous 15 years and (c) the previous 20 years. [101883]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: This information is not readily available and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional training(a) the police and (b) the Prison Service in Northern Ireland have been given since the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom domestic legislation. [103612]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: A committee chaired by a senior detective has been established within the RUC to examine all aspects of human rights, including training. There has already been close liaison with developments at National Police Training level and contact with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Planning is at an advanced stage for every officer and member of civilian staff to receive training prior to the full implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998.

  With regard to the Northern Ireland Prison Service, its strategy is to promote human rights awareness through training and development policies and strategies. The preservation of an individual's human rights throughout their time in prison custody is a running theme in much of the current training programme. Specifically in relation to the Human Rights Act, Prison Service senior managers and members of staff have already attended a range of training courses and seminars on human rights issues. Steps are also being taken to identify the wider extent of individual training requirements and to deliver appropriate training.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  World Cup 2006
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the official engagements carried out by Ministers in support of the England World Cup 2006 bid, indicating the cost to his Department of the support given. [103863]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government have offered their full support to the Football Association's bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2006, and various Ministers have hosted a number of receptions on behalf of the bid team. All the receptions hosted by Ministers from his Department were at the expense of the FA bid team.

  My predecessor also undertook a number of overseas visits relating to the bid where his expenses were paid for by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. These are as follows:
  131W

  Date

  Venue

  Purpose

  Total cost £

  21–23 March 1998

  Tunisia

  World Cup Campaign for 2006 with FA

  0.000

  26–29 March 1998

  Paraguay\Argentina

  World Cup Campaign for 2006 with FA

  8,786

  19–22 April 1998

  Qatar

  World Cup Campaign for 2006 with FA

  9,150

  10–11 June 1998

  France

  World Cup Campaign for 2006 with FA

  379

  10–11 July 1998

  Paris

  Reception at French Embassy by FIFA

  1,218

  27–29 August 1998

  Monte Carlo

  Salle Def Etoiles—SCMC UEFA Gala dinner

  564

  1–2 September 1998

  Switzerland

  Meeting with President Samaranch and Sepp Blatter

  964

  5–6 October 1998

  Spain

  World Cup Campaign for 2006 with FA

  1,301

  23 October 1998

  France

  Council of Europe Hearing of Bosman Ruling

  421

  1–5 November 1998

  Cameroon\Mali

  World Cup Campaign for 2006 with FA

  6,283

  12–13 November 1998

  Malta

  World Cup Campaign for 2006 with FA

  45

  17 March 1999

  Brussels

  2006 Bid Meeting

  537

  22 April-1 May 1999

  Nigeria\Botswana\Johannesburg

  World Cup Campaign for 2006 with FA

  8,922

  7–8 May 1999

  Malta

  2006 plus UK\Malta Sports Week

  1,035

  25 May-27 June 1999

  Barcelona

  Championships League Cup Final plus 2006

  294

  14–17 June 1999

  Qatar

  World Cup Campaign for 2006 with FA

  4,530

  6–13 July 1999

  Washington, USA

  2006 with Anti Doping Discussions

  11,040

  Total

  102,780

  Although most of the receptions and visits were specifically related to the 2006 bid, some also encompassed the promotion of British sport as a whole, and fulfilled the duties of the Minister for Sport in this area.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the immigration policy operated by the Gibraltar Government in relation to same sex couples; and if he will make a statement. [104107]

  Mr. Vaz
  Under the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution, the Government of Gibraltar pursue an immigration policy separate from that of the UK, subject to the constraints of EC law.

  It is not the policy of the Gibraltar Government to exempt non-EU partners of residents, same sex or otherwise, from the criteria and considerations applicable to applications for residence visas for non-EU nationals generally.

  Embassies (Running Costs)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the annual running costs of UK embassies in(a) the European Union and (b) the USA relate to (1) diplomacy, (2) business, (3) visas and (4) other activities, in the last year for which figures are available. [104086]

  Mr. Hain
  In 1997–98 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's running costs were split between (1) diplomacy, (2) commercial work, (3) visas and (4) other activities in the following way:

  Percentage

  Diplomacy

  Commercial work

  Visas

  Other activities

  European Union

  Vienna

  29

  12

  5

  54

  Brussels

  39

  28

  3

  31

  Copenhagen

  30

  27

  8

  36

  132W

  Percentage

  Diplomacy

  Commercial work

  Visas

  Other activities

  Dublin

  32

  17

  3

  48

  Helsinki

  31

  28

  1

  40

  Paris

  20

  16

  5

  59

  Bonn

  26

  2

  0.06

  72

  Athens

  18

  17

  3

  62

  Rome

  20

  9

  3

  68

  Luxembourg

  38

  12

  2

  49

  The Hague

  30

  22

  0

  47

  Lisbon

  21

  27

  5

  48

  Madrid

  22

  16

  2

  60

  Stockholm

  36

  24

  6

  34

  USA

  Washington DC

  63

  5

  1

  31

  In subsequent years breakdown of embassy activity is by FCO Objectives, in line with Resource Accounting and Budgeting.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of human rights concerns in Zimbabwe; and what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to address these. [104573]

  Mr. Hain
  Respect for human rights in Zimbabwe has improved since the low point of the Matabeleland atrocities in the 1980s. Zimbabwe has an active civil society and independent press (albeit harassed at times). However, there have been some serious lapses in the last two years which have coincided with the decline in the economic situation. The arrest and torture of the two Standard journalists in January shocked Zimbabweans as well as the international community.

  Freedom of assembly is enshrined in the Constitution. The Government have previously used emergency powers to ban strike action, although a Parliamentary Legal Committee subsequently declared the ban to be unconstitutional.
  133W
  Zimbabwe is a party to all the international human rights conventions, except the convention against torture. Torture, mainly beatings, is regularly used by the police (understaffed and lacking in training) to secure criminal convictions. There is an independent judiciary.

  Where there is evidence of human rights abuses, we raise our concerns with the Zimbabwe authorities. In addition, we actively promote freedom of expression by training journalists in the UK. Earlier this year we held a conference on media freedom in Harare. We support a number of NGOs working with the Zimbabwe police to enhance their respect for human rights. We also support good governance projects, and provide equipment and research material to NGOs working to improve people's access to law. We are encouraging the Zimbabweans to accede to the convention against torture.

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to control the export of television broadcast equipment to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [104574]

  Mr. Vaz
  As of 5 January 2000, we have introduced an amendment to the Export of Goods (Control) Order to control the export to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) of television cameras, transmitters, codecs and transposers, satellite earth stations and up-and-down link equipment and transmission link and relay equipment. All applications to export these goods will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

  We have introduced the control because of our concerns that companies based in the UK may consider supplying this equipment to the state-run television company in the FRY. This company is a propaganda tool of the Milosevic regime and has been consistently used by the regime to defend and promote its repressive policies, most recently and noticeably during the Kosovo crisis.

  Wassenaar Arrangement
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the results of the 1999 Assessment of the Wassenaar Arrangement and the role played by the UK. [104575]

  Mr. Vaz
  The 1999 Assessment of the operation of the Wassenaar Arrangement was concluded at the Arrangement's annual Plenary in Vienna on 1–3 December. The agreed public statement on the Plenary is available on the Arrangement's website (www wassenaar.org).

  We welcome the decision by Participating States to expand the scope of their reporting on their transfers of certain types of conventional arms. As a result, arms pillar reporting requirements in the Wassenaar Arrangement will now for the first time extend beyond those in the UN Registrar of Conventional Arms. We also welcome the Plenary's decisions to structure the information exchange on the basis of global and regional views—as a result of a proposal by the UK—and to mandate the introduction of a secure electronic information system. These steps will greatly increase the value and accessibility of information exchanged by Participating States.
  134W
  Despite these positive developments, we regret that proposals to include other types of arms in the reporting requirements, including small arms and light weapons, warships of 150–750 metric tonnes displacement and missiles of less than 25km range, were not agreed due to opposition from a small minority of Participating States. We also regret that the Plenary did not agree that Participating States should provide details of decisions to refuse the transfer of military equipment, or details of end-users in all denial notifications for dual-use goods. We continue to believe that these improvements would significantly enhance the ability of Participating States to identify potentially destabilising transfers or accumulation of conventional arms and dual-use goods.

  Throughout the course of the 1999 Assessment, most of which was taken forward in the Arrangement's General Working Group under UK chairmanship, the UK has been at the forefront of efforts to increase the effectiveness of the Wassenaar Arrangement. In particular we co-sponsored and lobbied in support of proposals for a substantive increase in arms pillar transparency. We will continue this year to work for the further expansion of reporting requirements, to include in particular transfers of small arms and light weapons. We will also consider the scope for expanding our existing commitment to volunteer details of our transfers of certain types of conventional arms which are not covered by the mandatory reporting requirements.

CABINET OFFICE

  Private Sector Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff were seconded from the private sector to her Department in(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the companies from which staff have been seconded. [103604]

  Mr. Stringer
  The numbers of private sector secondees to the Cabinet Office over the last three years follow.

  (a) For the period May 1997 to April 1998, five staff were seconded in from BT, Lloyds Bank plc, Marks & Spencer plc, Nat West Bank plc, and KPMG.

  (b) For the period May 1998 to April 1999, six staff were seconded in from Andersen Consulting, Marks & Spencer plc, McKinsey & Co., Nat West Bank plc, and Price Waterhouse.

  (c) From May 1999, 16 staff are, or have been, seconded in from Andersen Consulting, Barclays Bank plc, BT, Carillion, Hay Management Consultants, KPMG, Marks & Spencer plc, McKinsey & Co., Microsoft Corporation, Nat West Bank plc, Oracle plc, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Unilever, Wragge & Co. Solicitors, and Zurich Financial Services.

  Outsourcing Arrangements
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what arrangements she has made to ensure(a) the continued input of expertise and (b) the effective monitoring of the implementation of the recommendations of the review of major Government IT projects after the expiry of Anne Steward's secondment to the Government. [104243]
  135W
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The recommendations to improve the delivery of major Government IT projects being developed by the Cabinet Office review team will include a clear statement of which parts of Government will be responsible for their implementation and monitoring.

  The study team is consulting widely to draw on the range of expertise available within the Government, and in the private sector and public sector overseas, as its work progresses. It is also considering mechanisms to ensure that expertise is available to public sector projects in the future.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate her Department has made of the impact on the ability of Government Departments to assess bids for the outsourcing of their operations of having previously outsourced all or part of their IT operations. [104244]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  All Departments are required to conduct detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of any outsourcing arrangement, including its impact on all aspects of their operation.

  The team set up in the Department's Central IT Unit to review major Government IT projects is examining issues relating to the outsourcing of IT functions. The team will make recommendations to ensure that Government IT projects, including outsourcing deals, perform better in the future when it concludes its work in May 2000.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) if she will issue guidance to Government Departments on monitoring the rate of retention of staff of companies to which work has been outsourced by them in the 12 months following the date of the outsourcing; [104245]

  (2) what estimate her Department has made of the impact on the Departments' ability to employ former staff employed by an outside organisation under outsourcing arrangements if that organisation fails to renew its contract with the Department; [104247]

  (3) what employment protection applies to former staff of Government Departments who are employed by outside organisations as a result of outsourcing arrangements when the organisation concerned fails to have its contract renewed with the Department; [104246]

  (4) what guidance she issues to Government Departments concerning the terms and conditions of employment of staff who as a result of outsourcing are employed by sub-contractors of the organisation to which the relevant operation has been outsourced. [104248]

  Mr. Stringer
  I published, on Friday 7 January 2000, a "Statement of Practice for Staff Transfers in the Public Sector". This follows a public consultation undertaken last year which received widespread support.

  The Statement of Practice sets out the Government's policy for ensuring fair and consistent treatment of employees' rights where the public sector is the employer or client in a contracting-out or subsequent retendering situation. The guidance does not require Departments to monitor the rate of retention following a transfer. The approach adopted in the "Statement of Practice", which has the support of unions, public and private sector
  136W
  employers and contractors, is to utilise the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)—TUPE—Regulations which give individual employment protection rights to employees affected by the relevant transfer.

  Contracting-out and subsequent retendering will all be conducted on the basis that staff will transfer and TUPE should apply, unless there are genuinely exceptional reasons not to do so. Under TUPE, an employee's contract is carried across from the transferring employer along with his or her accrued period of service. Terms and conditions of employment cannot be made less beneficial as part of this process and employees cannot normally be lawfully dismissed where the reason is the transfer. Under this approach, staff of Government Departments should transfer to a contractor with TUPE protections and, where a contract is not renewed (by either the contractor or contracting authority), former staff of Government should transfer with TUPE protections to the new contractor. Similar considerations would also apply to sub-contracting.

  Copies of "Statement of Practice for Staff Transfers in the Public Sector" are in the Libraries of the House.

HEALTH

  Embryology
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans Her Majesty's Government have to propose legislation to prevent the setting up of commercial establishments purporting to select the sex of a baby by embryology. [99751]

  Yvette Cooper
  Any treatment involving the use of human embryos outside the body is governed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The Act provides that such treatment cannot take place without a licence issued by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA).

  In January 1993 the HFEA issued a public consultation document on the issues raised by sex selection and the ways of achieving it using assisted conception techniques. Following the consultation, the HFEA decided that licensed infertility clinics could carry out sex selection for medical reasons only in cases where a woman risked having a child with a life-threatening, sex-linked disease. Sex selection for social reasons is not permitted.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of regional variations in the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer; and if he will make a statement. [99872]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are aware of regional variations in the diagnosis, treatment and survival of cancers, including prostate cancer. Data have been published in the report by the Office For National Statistics "Cancer Survival Trends" which provides evidence that cancer survival in adults in England and Wales is generally lower among patients in more deprived groups than those in more affluent groups. Equity of access was a founding principle of the National Health Service and is central to
  137W
  Government policy. It is one of the main aims of the new health strategy set out in the White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation".

  Professor Mike Richards, the National Cancer Director, will spearhead the drive to modernise all aspects of cancer care, including addressing regional variations in survival rates. His role will be to ensure people in this country have faster, fairer cancer care. He will work in partnership with doctors, nurses, general practitioners, other health professionals and the voluntary sector to improve prevention and modernise cancer services to help ensure equitable access to high-quality cancer care.

  By December 2000 all urgent GP referrals of suspected prostate cancer should be seen by a consultant within two weeks of referral. Work is under way to develop national standards and performance indicators for rollout from April 2000, and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be commissioning outcomes guidance on four further cancer sites over the next two years. Urological cancers (including prostate cancer) will be the first of these.

  E.coli
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the reported outbreaks within the UK over the last year of E coli 0157 poisoning. [100203]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on reported outbreaks of E.Coli 0157 within England and Wales have been collected by the Public Health Laboratory Service since 1992. The table gives details of all general outbreaks of E.Coli 0157 infection in England and Wales reported to the PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre and Laboratory of Enteric Pathogens in the period November 1998-October 1999 (inclusive). However, the PHLS can only provide data for England and Wales.

  Information on data for Northern Ireland and Scotland should be sought from their respective administrations.

  Year

  Month

  Region

  Place of outbreak

  1998

  November

  West Midlands

  Hospital

  1999

  February

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Community (Dairy)

  1999

  March

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Community (Retailer)

  1999

  April

  Trent

  Farm

  1999

  May

  North West

  Community (Dairy)

  1999

  May

  South East

  Community (Butcher)

  1999

  May

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Hospital

  1999

  May

  Wales

  Farm

  1999

  July

  Trent

  Prison

  1999

  July

  North West

  Public House

  1999

  July

  Wales

  Camp Site

  1999

  August

  South West

  Beach

  1999

  August

  Wales

  Community (Butcher)

  1999

  September

  South East

  Restaurant

  1999

  September

  North West

  Nursing Home

  1999

  September

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Community

  1999

  October

  London

  Nursery

  Note:

  All data are provisional.

  Borderline Products
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's assessment of the public response to the Medicines Control Agency's proposals for classifying borderline products, as published in its consultation letter MLX 249. [100254]
  138W
  Yvette Cooper
  As a result of the public response to the consultation proposals, we announced on 16 July that changes would be made. The three principal changes are as follows:the draft regulations will include an express requirement for full disclosures of the reasons for the Medicines Control Agency's provisional and final determinations;
  the review panel to look at the MCA's provisional determinations and advise the licensing authority—the licensing authority will be independent of the MCA;
  if a final determination is challenged, the MCA will have to prove in any criminal proceedings that the product is a medicinal product.

  NHS Expenditure (Barnet)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure on all national health services in the borough of Barnet in each of the last five years. [100215]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: The information is not available in the format requested. Information on expenditure on National Health Service services is not collected by borough.

  Expenditure figures for Barnet Health Authority for 1996–97 to 1998–99 are available as follows. Before 1996–97 funding was allocated to Family Health Services Authorities and HA' s separately. Comparable figures are not available. The figure for 1996–97 includes drugs expenditure. Since 1997–98 the majority of drugs expenditure has been accounted for by the Prescription Pricing Authority and cannot be identified by HA. For consistency, the figures have been adjusted to reflect this.

  £000

  Year

  HA total expenditure1, 2

  HA expenditure (adjusted)3

  1996–97

  210,456

  193,573

  1997–98

  209,238

  208,437

  1998–99 (provisional)

  209,462

  208,671

  1 Figures are taken from HA annual accounts which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in each year. Comparisons between years may be distorted by expenditure carried over from the previous year.

  2 These are not the total amounts spent on health care. General dental services expenditure is separately accounted for and cannot be analysed by HA over the three years.

  3 Figures have been reduced by the amount of non-cash limited prescribing expenditure accounted for by the HA in each year.

  Oncology Drug Expenditure
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made in assessing the report on the level of oncology drug expenditure in the United Kingdom by the Campaign for Effective and Rational Treatment, and if he will make a statement; [100596]

  (2) if he will begin to collate data from health authorities on their spending on oncology drugs; and if he will make a statement. [100595]

  Yvette Cooper
  Professor Mike Richards, the National Cancer Director, will shortly begin to collate data on the provision of chemotherapy and will be discussing with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence the need to
  139W
  make available, early, clear guidance on the effectiveness of new and emerging cancer drugs. Professor Richards has already started to meet key professional groups to discuss how they can best work with him to start to address the challenging cancer agenda and is planning to meet the Campaign for Effective and Rational Treatment early in the new year.

  Malnutrition
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to meet the British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition to discuss the public health aspects of malnutrition. [100632]

  Yvette Cooper
  I am aware of several letters from hon. Members enclosing invitations to meet the British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. I will reply to these shortly.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of malnutrition among hospital patients in the United Kingdom. [100630]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of admissions to National Health Service hospitals in England with a diagnosis of malnutrition during the financial year 1997–98 was 6,293.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost saving of early detection and treatment of malnutrition among hospital patients. [100631]

  Yvette Cooper
  In 1992 the King's Fund reported that nutritional support of malnourished patients could lead to reduced complication rates and reduced length of hospital stay. They estimated that this might lead to a saving of up to £266 million annually in Britain.

  Birth Weights
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) babies born by in-vitro fertilisation and (b) other babies, in each of the last 20 years, weighed (i) over 3,000 g, (ii) over 2,500 g but less than 3,000 g, (iii) over 2,000 g but less than 2,500 g and (iv) less than 2,000 g. [100814]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information that is available has been placed in the Library.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the relative cost-effectiveness of treating cold-related illnesses through the eradication of fuel poverty via energy efficiency improvements. [100820]

  Yvette Cooper
  Through the introduction of the New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme and other initiatives, we are working to combat fuel poverty. Energy efficiency improvements are an effective means of tackling the many health problems related to cold conditions in homes. Our aim is to improve health, reduce health inequalities and ensure that vulnerable households need no longer risk ill health due to a cold home.

  Cancer (Death Rates)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanism he proposes to monitor the proposed target to reduce the death rate from cancer by 20 per cent. by 2010. [101422]

  Yvette Cooper
  The target is to reduce the death rate from all cancers among those aged under 75 years by at least 20 per cent. by the year 2010. Progress towards this target will be monitored annually using data from cancer death registrations collected and published by the Office for National Statistics.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have put in place for the taking and keeping of minutes of meetings between Ministers and people outside his Department. [102380]

  Yvette Cooper
  Decisions on the format of minutes of meetings will depend on the nature of the discussion.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each of the buildings under his Department's control how many rooms are set aside for(a) ethnic minority religious use, (b) pregnant and nursing mothers and (c) smokers. [102332]

  Yvette Cooper
  In the eleven buildings where the Department is the major Government occupier, there are no rooms set aside specifically for ethnic minority religious use. A total of three rooms are available exclusively for pregnant and nursing mothers, and 27 rooms for smokers.

  Royal Marsden and Christie Hospitals
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health(a) how many patients were treated, (b) what was the number of (i) beds and (ii) consultant surgeons and (c) what was the revenue budget for the financial year 1998–99 for (A) the Royal Marsden Hospital in London and (B) the Christie Hospital in Manchester. [102514]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The figures for the number of patients treated and the number of beds for 1998–99 are not yet available. However in view of the unique factors affecting the Royal Marsden Hospital, such as the major complex surgery undertaken, the different case mix and the higher building and capital costs, a simplistic comparison of the data for both hospitals would not produce any meaningful results.

  As at 30 September 1998, the Christie Hospital and the Royal Marsden Hospitals had 2 and 7 consultants respectively, whose first speciality was recorded in the Surgical Group. However, there are a number of consultants based in hospitals across Manchester and Salford who have operating rights at the Christie Hospital but who will not be included in the centrally collected statistics.

  The 1998–99 revenue income for the Christie Hospital is £57,347,000, and for the Royal Marsden Hospital it is £74,873,000.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional(a) oncologists and (b) other consultants specialising in the care of cancer will be recruited under his plans for treating cancer. [102768]

  Yvette Cooper
  Professor Mike Richards, the National Cancer Director, has identified the need to review the cancer workforce as his top priority. He is currently discussing workforce, skill mix, and recruitment and retention issues with professional groups to enable patients to receive faster and fairer access to cancer services.

  Needle Exchange Services
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Government-funded needle exchange services are available for drug addicts(a) in the North-West region and (b) in England and Wales. [102699]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information is not available centrally for England or the North-West region.

  Information from local sources is that there are about 45 Government-funded needle exchange schemes based in agencies in the North-West region. In addition, there are pharmacy schemes and mobile outreach teams (which may be Government-funded needle exchange services); no reliable information on these is available.

  Information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary for Wales.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities do not reduce levels of service under the Food Safety Act 1990 prior to the commencement of the Food Standards Agency's operation. [103297]

  Yvette Cooper
  Decisions on the provision of food law enforcement services are for local authorities in the light of local circumstances. Officials are involved in discussions with the local authorities' co-ordinating body on food and trading standards about the arrangements which will operate for the planning, monitoring and audit of local authority enforcement when the Food Standards Agency is established next year.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the expenditure per head of population for shire county local authorities on their public health functions under the Food Safety Act 1990 for the latest year for which figures are available. [103296]

  Yvette Cooper
  County councils do not provide public health services under the Food Safety Act 1990. Certain food law enforcement functions are the responsibility of County councils but information on such expenditure is not separately identifiable in the returns received centrally.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he gives to public analysts for setting sampling rates for samples taken for analysis under the Food Safety Act 1990. [103298]
  142W
  Yvette Cooper
  There is no central guidance on a specific level of sampling to public analysts or local authorities. Decisions on the provision of food law enforcement services are for local authorities in the light of local circumstances.

  Gamma Hydroxy Butyrate
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to raise awareness of the dangers of gamma hydroxy butyrate. [103377]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on the dangers of gamma hydroxy butyrate is included in the leaflets "The Score" (targeted at 14–16 year olds) and "D-MAG" (targeted at 16 and upwards) produced by the Health Education Authority as part of a campaign on behalf of the Department which aims to educate 11–25 year olds and parents about the dangers of drug misuse.

  In order to further raise awareness regarding the dangers and physical effects of gamma hydroxy butyrate, the Medicines Control Agency has issued briefings to Heads of Police Force Intelligence Bureaux, Trading Standard Officers and Environmental Health Officers. This action was supplemented by a series of presentations by the MCA, in conjunction with the National Criminal Intelligence Service, to the 43 regional police forces throughout the country.

  Departmental Productivity
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to increase the productivity and reduce the running costs of his Department. [103849]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department's running cost allocations for financial years covered by the comprehensive spending review (1999–2000 to 2001–02) assumed that pressures arising from price inflation would be absorbed by efficiency and productivity gains of 3.5 per cent. a year. These gains are being delivered through the Department's better quality services programme, use of its organisational development function and through a range of internal and external reviews and inspections (including peer reviews of internal resource allocation).

  "Fit for the Future?"
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the cost implications for residential homes for the elderly of the proposals contained in the consultation document, "Fit for the Future?"; and if he will make a statement. [103471]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department commissioned Laing and Buisson to work on a cost-benefit analysis of the standards to ascertain the likely burden on providers. Additional information was gathered from heads of inspection regarding the current standard of provision. Information from these studies was published in the consultation document "Fit for the Future?", together with a draft regulatory impact appraisal.

  Overhead Powerlines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to test the validity of the scientific research underlying recent studies into the link between overhead powerlines and skin cancer. [103600]
  143W
  Yvette Cooper
  In research published recently in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, scientists from Bristol University reported observations of increased deposition of natural radionuclides near power lines. The authors suggest that this might lead to an increased risk of skin cancer for people living under high voltage powerlines. This research was financed in part by the Department.

  The Department will consider the results of this study in the context of other work in this area and has asked for views from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The NRPB's Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation is reviewing the research in this area and will report in the New Year.

  Care Homes
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private nursing homes and residential homes there were in the United Kingdom in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [103836]

  Mr. Hutton
  The numbers of independent residential and nursing care homes in England at 31 March 1997 and 1998 are 26,600 and 26,700 respectively. Data for 1999 are not yet available. Information for the remainder of the United Kingdom is a matter for the relevant devolved authorities.

  Negative Pressure Therapy
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidelines he has issued to health authorities on the use of negative pressure therapy. [R] [103096]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has not issued any specific guidance on the use of negative pressure therapy.

  The most appropriate method of wound care should be determined by a clinician.

  BCG Vaccine
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if resources allocated to the BCG vaccination programme have been transferred(a) in the short term and (b) permanently to the vaccination programme for meningitis. [103396]

  Yvette Cooper
  Funding for the meningococcal Group C immunisation programme has come from a separate source to that used to fund the BCG immunisation programme. We are aware that some health workers, especially school nurses, involved in delivering BCG vaccine, are currently involved in the meningococcal Group C immunisation programme in schools. Up to £9 million of new money is being made available to health authorities to support the meningococcal Group C immunisation programme, in addition to the central purchase and supply of vaccine at no cost to health authorities.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of stocks of BCG vaccine in the NHS. [103392]

  Yvette Cooper
  BCG vaccine has been in limited supply for a number of months due to severe manufacturing problems encountered by the sole United Kingdom licensed source, Medeva Pharma Ltd. Stocks are 144W
  now being delivered. Until manufacture resumes to viable quantities, stocks are being used specifically for those at highest risk.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to give priority to Brentwood when stocks of BCG vaccine become available. [103399]

  Yvette Cooper
  While BCG vaccine is in limited supply from the manufacturer, Medeva Pharma Ltd., stocks are being used for those at highest risk. Priority of supply is made on the basis of clinical need, not geographical location. Brentwood will be treated equally with other areas according to the risk.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities do not provide BCG vaccinations as a routine procedure. [103646]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 21 December 1999]: BCG immunisation against tuberculosis at age 10–14 is nationally recommended as routine. We are aware that a small number of health authorities have not been providing routine BCG immunisation for all 10 to 14-year-olds. We do not keep records of which health authorities do not routinely immunise 10 to 14-year-olds.

  Health Services (Age Discrimination)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has in place to combat age discrimination in the provision of health services. [103244]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 December 1999]: Discrimination of any kind—whether it is on the basis of age, race or gender—is completely unacceptable in the National Health Service. Treatment should rest entirely on clinical need. We are determined to provide older people with care that meets their needs—fast, efficient and sensitive. Already we have extended the annual immunisation programme for influenza to ensure that everyone aged 75 and over can have the flu vaccine free of charge. Over the next three years we will be expanding cataract services to increase the number of cataract operations from 170,000 a year currently to 250,000 a year—this will benefit thousands of older people. From 1 April this year all people aged 60 and over are entitled to free eye tests, regardless of income or health status. We are also developing a National Service framework (NSF) for Older People. This, for the first time, will set national standards for the care of older people, driving up the quality and reducing variations in that care. The NSF will be published next year.

  Cancer Patients (Fertility Treatment)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the decision to deny women cancer patients access to their stored eggs. [103653]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 21 December 1999]: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is responsible under the terms of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 among other things for licensing decisions for the storage of human eggs. The Act provides for appeals to be made to the Authority in certain circumstances where an applicant is not satisfied with a licensing decision. I understand that an appeal will be heard by the Authority later this month.

  Musculoskeletal Conditions
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve services to people suffering from arthritis and other musculoskeletal conditions. [102840]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 December 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the comments I made during the adjournment debate on arthritis on 13 December 1999, Official Report, columns 126–30.

  High-security Hospitals (Staffing)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been in the figures for vacancies in high-security hospitals for(a) nurses, (b) nursing assistants, (c) occupational therapists, (d) forensic psychologists and (e) psychiatrists since his answer of 26 May 1999, Official Report, columns 159–60W. [104345]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally. The high-security hospitals are well advanced on a programme of full integration with the rest of the National Health Service. The integration process is now being taken forward at a local level and workforces issues are a matter for local consideration.

  Generic Drugs
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the change in the cost of generic drugs in the last year and its effect on the NHS. [104010]

  Ms Stuart
  During 1999 the Drug Tariff price of the top two hundred generic drugs dispensed in the community rose by over a third on average. On 21 December we announced additional in-year funding of £90 million to help the National Health Service manage the pressures from generic prices on health authority budgets.

  The Government have put in place a fundamental review of the way generics are supplied to the NHS to see whether existing arrangements best serve the service and to identify possible alternatives. The conclusions of the programme of work are expected by the summer.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for the future chairmanship of the Higher Education Funding Council for England. [104621]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend has appointed the current chairman, Sir Michael Checkland, to serve for a further year until 30 September 2001. We are very grateful to Sir Michael for his contribution to the work of the council over the last three years and for his willingness to continue to serve as chairman.

  Education Action Zones
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will report on the progress of the first round of education action zones. [104451]
  146W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  These zones have now been running for 12 to 16 months and the early signs are that they are doing well. The summer 1999 exam results show that the zones are raising standards in these disadvantaged areas. At Key Stage 2, there was a 6 per cent. average improvement in English and 12 per cent. improvement in maths in EAZ schools compared to national increases of 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. There was a 2 per cent. average improvement in the numbers of pupils gaining 1 GCSE A*-G grade in EAZ schools compared to a national increase of 1 per cent.

  The Comptroller and Auditor General yesterday placed in both Libraries of Parliament audited financial accounts for the 1998–99 financial year for four of the first round zones. These show that, even in their first seven months of operation, the zones attracted significant additional funding to education from the private and public sectors.

  UfI Ltd.
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the framework, including controls, within which the Department will provide financial support to UfI Ltd. [104449]

  Mr. Wicks
  UfI Ltd. is a private company limited by guarantee established by the Secretary of State in October 1998. The company is seeking charitable status. By making use of information and communications technologies it will encourage innovative and cost-effective ways to learn.

  The Department exercises a number of controls over UfI Ltd. The company's Memorandum and Articles of Association were approved by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State also has the right to appoint the Chairman and between 30 and 49 per cent. of the Board Directors/members of the company, and to approve the appointment of the Chief Executive.

  The Funding Agreement between the Secretary of State and UfI Ltd. provides for a number of checks and controls on the spending of public funds. It specifies that a Financial Plan, which sets out the company's financial proposals and reflects the guidance the Secretary of State may give UfI Ltd., shall be submitted to the Secretary of State annually. The Financial Plan must take into account guidance issued by the Secretary of State annually. The Financial Plan must be approved by the Secretary of State and it is subsequently monitored by the Department. The Financial Plan relates UfI Ltd.'s costs to its activities in the year covered by the plan. The Funding Agreement and the Financial Plan provide the basis for financial support.

  In recognition of the market in which UfI Ltd. will operate, the company will own the assets it creates (mainly intellectual property rights on learning products) and retain any receipts from the disposal of assets. The Department will take account of any income received by the company as a result of Government investment, including asset disposal proceeds, in fixing the level of future financial support. This regime will apply only so long as the company receives Government support; any such income received by the company after it has achieved financial independence will be treated as its own.
  147W
  The Funding Agreement also provides for UfI Ltd.'s intellectual property rights to be assigned to the Secretary of State if the Funding Agreement is terminated due to UfI Ltd.'s breach of contract or insolvency. The Memorandum of the company provides that if the company is wound up or dissolved the Secretary of State has a right of veto over the disposition of any remaining assets.

  Higher Education Students
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the additional annual cost of support for students attending higher education institutions in England if the support arrangements applicable in 1979, including grants uprated by inflation, were to be applied to the number of students in the 1998–99 academic year. [101950]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The student support system for English and Welsh students has changed significantly over the past 20 years and the levels of grant received by higher education students in 1979 are not known precisely. However, assuming that approximately 800,000 eligible English and Welsh students in 1998–99 received the main rates of maintenance grant for the academic year 1978–79 uplifted for inflation over 20 years, we estimate that they would receive slightly less on average in real terms than from the current loans and grant fee package.

  Expenditure on administration by LEAs in England for financial year 1997–98

  LEA number/name

  Expenditure on central management administration and service strategy and regulation costs (£000)

  Total education expenditure (£000)

  Administration as percentage of total education expenditure

  201 London, City of

  640

  3,045

  21.02

  856 Leicester City

  16,577

  144,189

  11.50

  813 North Lincolnshire

  5,227

  68,560

  7.62

  204 Hackney

  8,037

  109,663

  7.33

  320 Waltham Forest

  7,579

  104,170

  7.28

  826 Milton Keynes

  5,128

  71,491

  7.17

  202 Camden

  6,018

  85,137

  7.07

  203 Greenwich

  8,318

  119,500

  6.96

  355 Salford

  6,808

  100,302

  6.79

  213 Westminster, City of

  5,143

  79,172

  6.5

  319 Sutton

  3,825

  59,135

  6.47

  211 Tower Hamlets

  8,867

  138,041

  6.42

  305 Bromley

  4,638

  72,825

  6.37

  921 Isle of Wight

  3,233

  53,117

  6.09

  312 Hillingdon

  3,878

  64,706

  5.99

  307 Ealing

  6,576

  111,613

  5.89

  308 Enfield

  6,959

  121,535

  5.73

  922 Kent

  27,805

  490,388

  5.67

  303 Bexley

  4,780

  84,328

  5.67

  210 Southwark

  6,505

  115,502

  5.63

  825 Buckinghamshire

  10,175

  183,122

  5.56

  205 Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,631

  66,525

  5.46

  315 Merton

  3,745

  68,753

  5.45

  206 Islington

  5,222

  96,680

  5.40

  803 South Gloucestershire

  5,222

  97,604

  5.35

  837 Bournemouth

  2,252

  42,824

  5.26

  390 Gateshead

  4,343

  85,753

  5.06

  801 Bristol, City of

  7,427

  150,630

  4.93

  340 Knowsley

  3,518

  72,887

  4.83

  846 Brighton and Hove

  4,044

  84,308

  4.80

  836 Poole

  1,736

  36,198

  4.80

  393 South Tyneside

  3,208

  66,931

  4.79

  148W
  If these 800,000 eligible students had been offered a grant for maintenance and free tuition instead of the current package of a repayable loan for maintenance and private contributions towards the cost of tuition, the additional costs to the Department might have been about £660 million; and we estimate that such a system would cost about £1.6 billion more than full implementation of the new arrangements for fees and income-contingent loans applying for students starting in the current (1999–2000) academic year.

  Our student support policies share the costs of higher education more equitably between students who benefit from it and the taxpayer. That has enabled us to halt the decline in investment in higher education and helped provide for a 22 per cent. increase in cash funding by 2001–02.

  LEA Administrative Costs
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 416W, on local education authority administration costs, if he will list, for each local education authority, the percentage of its education budget spent on administration, ranked in decreasing order. [102859]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table gives, for each local education authority in England, information on administration expenditure, encompassing central management and administration and service, strategy and regulation costs, in decreasing percentage order for the financial year 1997–98.
  149W

  Expenditure on administration by LEAs in England for financial year 1997–98

  LEA number/name

  Expenditure on central management administration and service strategy and regulation costs (£000)

  Total education expenditure(£000)

  Administration as percentage of total education expenditure

  805 Hartlepool

  1,899

  39,627

  4.79

  207 Kensington and Chelsea

  2,409

  50,930

  4.73

  865 Wiltshire

  5,915

  125,183

  4.73

  212 Wandsworth

  3,823

  81,418

  4.70

  802 North Somerset

  3,502

  74,918

  4.67

  301 Barking and Dagenham

  3,782

  82,155

  4.60

  381 Calderdale

  2,882

  63,093

  4.57

  806 Middlesbrough

  2,890

  64,150

  4.51

  857 Rutland

  374

  8,377

  4.46

  845 East Sussex

  7,767

  174,200

  4.46

  209 Lewisham

  5,355

  123,671

  4 33

  841 Darlington

  1,656

  38,586

  4.29

  916 Gloucestershire

  6,431

  151,161

  4.25

  391 Newcastle upon Tyne

  5,210

  124,861

  4.17

  925 Lincolnshire

  7,965

  192,649

  4.13

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  1,887

  45,821

  4.12

  800 Bath and North East Somerset

  2,685

  65,303

  4.11

  384 Wakefield

  4,961

  123,743

  4.01

  382 Kirklees

  6,401

  160,668

  3.98

  930 Nottinghamshire

  16,335

  410,159

  3.98

  341 Liverpool

  8,431

  214,669

  3.93

  937 Warwickshire

  6,914

  176,695

  3.91

  313 Hounslow

  3,902

  100,550

  3.88

  929 Northumberland

  4,918

  127,147

  3.87

  344 Wirral

  5,324

  137,692

  3.87

  310 Harrow

  3,444

  90,658

  3.80

  931 Oxfordshire

  8,468

  224,742

  3.77

  318 Richmond upon Thames

  2,302

  61,268

  3.76

  936 Surrey

  11,662

  311,806

  3.74

  812 North East Lincolnshire

  2,573

  69,514

  3.70

  861 Stoke on Trent

  3,484

  95,220

  3.66

  420 Isles of Scilly

  48

  1,315

  3.65

  840 Durham

  7,556

  207,933

  3.63

  354 Rochdale

  3,124

  86,880

  3.60

  933 Somerset

  6,492

  182,668

  3.55

  352 Manchester

  7,160

  201,489

  3.55

  905 Cambridgeshir

  8,392

  236,410

  3.55

  373 Sheffield

  6,408

  185,078

  3.46

  357 Tameside

  2,935

  86,124

  3.41

  302 Barnet

  4,021

  118,117

  3.40

  855 Leicestershire

  7,991

  234,971

  3.40

  334 Solihull

  2,960

  87,664

  3.38

  372 Rotherham

  3,626

  108,887

  3.33

  923 Lancashire

  19,887

  600,316

  3.31

  808 Stockton on Tees

  2,562

  77,953

  3.29

  820 Bedfordshire

  4,738

  145,643

  3.25

  811 East Riding of Yorkshire

  4,057

  125,270

  3.24

  304 Brent

  2,883

  89,318

  3.23

  359 Wigan

  4,094

  127,446

  3.21

  356 Stockport

  3,434

  106,917

  3.21

  850 Hampshire

  13,474

  422,229

  3.19

  342 St. Helens

  2,519

  78,961

  3.19

  938 West Sussex

  8,767

  275,954

  3.18

  810 Kingston upon Hull, City of

  3,464

  109,040

  3.18

  831 Derby City

  2,428

  76,492

  3.17

  333 Sandwell

  4,199

  132,886

  3.16

  383 Leeds

  9,419

  298,406

  3.16

  311 Havering

  2,623

  83,266

  3 15

  821 Luton

  2,436

  77,349

  3 15

  903 Berkshire

  8,404

  267,657

  3.14

  316 Newham

  4,267

  135,924

  3.14

  336 Wolverhampton

  3,464

  112,340

  3.08

  919 Hertfordshire

  11,744

  381,000

  3.08

  306 Croydon

  3,604

  117,322

  3.07

  815 North Yorkshire

  6,894

  226,612

  3.04

  851 Portsmouth

  1,952

  64,417

  3 03

  380 Bradford

  6,516

  215,243

  3 03

  370 Barnsley

  2,555

  84,761

  3 01

  351 Bury

  2,173

  72,152

  3.01

  350 Bolton

  3,284

  110,539

  2.97

  150W

  151W

  Expenditure on administration by LEAs in England for financial year 1997–98

  LEA number/name

  Expenditure on central management administration and service strategy and regulation costs (£000)

  Total education expenditure (£000)

  Administration as percentage of total education expenditure

  309 Haringey

  3,431

  115,506

  2.97

  807 Redcar and Cleveland

  1,907

  65,203

  2.92

  332 Dudley

  3,070

  109,300

  2.81

  343 Sefton

  3,611

  129,018

  2.80

  330 Birmingham

  13,139

  474,930

  2.77

  928 Northamptonshire

  5,848

  219,386

  2.67

  866 Swindon

  1,485

  56,529

  2.63

  371 Doncaster

  3,477

  132,740

  2.62

  358 Trafford

  1,906

  73,978

  2.58

  908 Cornwall

  4,839

  191,084

  2.53

  911 Devon

  9,049

  379,671

  2.38

  317 Redbridge

  2,566

  111,188

  2.31

  835 Dorset

  3,066

  132,855

  2.31

  932 Shropshire

  3,549

  159,324

  2.23

  353 Oldham

  2,343

  106,845

  2.23

  906 Cheshire

  8,888

  409,158

  2.17

  335 Walsall

  2,258

  106,613

  2.12

  816 York,City of>

  1,359

  64,254

  2.12

  935 Suffolk>

  5,309

  255,730

  2.08

  909 Cumbria>

  3,581

  172,573

  2.08

  926 Norfolk>

  5,349

  261,104

  2.05

  830 Derbyshire>

  4,688

  246,721

  1.90

  918 Hereford and Worcester>

  4,791

  255,477

  1.88

  394 Sunderland>

  2,218

  121,571

  1.82

  331 Coventry

  2,518

  148,766

  1.69

  392 North Tyneside

  1,217

  79,219

  1.54

  915 Essex

  5,872

  423,907

  1.39

  852 Southampton

  1,058

  80,828

  1.31

  208 Lambeth

  768

  101,093

  0.76

  860 Staffordshire

  2,243

  301,949

  0.74

  Total

  678,572

  18,898,737

  3.59

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had since May 1997 relating to the 16-hour rule and further education colleges; and if he will make a statement. [103647]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 21 December 1999]: We have received a number of representations from individuals and organisations regarding further education colleges and the 16-hour study role in Jobseeker's Allowance. These were mainly in response to the White Paper "Learning to Succeed" published in July 1999, where we introduced proposals for a new system of post-16 learning which is responsive to the needs of individuals, companies and communities. The White Paper, and the Learning and Skills Council Prospectus which was published in December, set out our plans for the new Learning and Skills Council which will ensure a co-ordinated and coherent approach to post-16 learning.

  We have taken positive measures to increase the opportunities for study among unemployed people. The New Deal for Young People aged 18 to 24 forms a key part of the Government's Welfare to Work agenda and comprises four options, all of which contain an element of training. The Full-Time Education and Training Option offers opportunities for young people to study full-time in order to enhance their prospects of finding a job. In June 1998 we introduced Education and Training Opportunities under the New Deal for those aged 25 and over. These allow people unemployed for two years or more to
  152W
  undertake full-time employment-related courses for up to a year whilst continuing to receive Jobseeker's Allowance.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pesticides
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the applications received by the Pesticides Safety Directorate for the use of (i) glufosinate ammonium and (ii) glyphosate on genetically modified herbicide resistant crops, for each application giving(a) the name of the applicant, (b) the crop for which approval is sought, (c) the date the application was received and (d) the date at which the decision by the Pesticides Safety Directorate will be announced. [101749]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: At present, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, details of any application for the approval of a pesticide are not made publicly available unless and until approval itself is given. We are, however, to review the current arrangements to see if there is scope for greater openness and transparency.

  Religious Slaughter
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has
  153W
  (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the enforcement of the law with regard to (a) Halal and (b) Shechita religious slaughter; and if he will make a statement. [102257]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: No research into the enforcement of the law with regard to religious slaughter has been commissioned or evaluated by my Department.

  Enforcement of welfare at slaughter legislation, including in relation to religious slaughter, is the responsibility of the Meat Hygiene Service and the State Veterinary Service.

  Beef Sales
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the meat and meat offal products of bovine animals that were banned under the beef bones Regulations SI 1997/2959 will be eligible for sale under the draft regulations he intends to use to lift the ban on beef on the bone. [102059]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: The Beef Bones (Amendment) (England) Regulations 1999, which came into force on 17 December, permit the retail sale of all bone-in beef and beef bones for human consumption. In accordance with the advice of the Chief Medical Officers that it would not be prudent to lift the controls of manufacturing uses of bone-in beef and beef bones, these continue to apply. No information is available on the relative percentages these represent of the products banned under the original Regulations, but my primary concern is the protection of public health, based on the scientific and medical advice I receive. This significant relaxation of the beef bones controls has been warmly welcomed.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent primary quota stocks have been affected by(a) environmental change, (b) sea water temperature change, (c) fishing effort and (d) seals and other predators, in the last three years. [103667]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 December 1999]: It is not possible to distinguish the exact changes attributable to environmental change and those due to sea water temperature change alone. Any temperature-related changes will in any case not be the same for all species. Cod stocks, for example, are likely to benefit from colder conditions while sole stocks may suffer severe losses from cold sea water temperatures as happened in the winters of 1962–63 and 1995–96.

  The general increase in fishing effort over the past decades is primarily responsible for the low level of commercial stocks. However, the recent poor production of young cod stocks is likely to be attributable to a combination of low adult stock size and unusually warm sea temperatures.

  The effects of seals and other predators on fish stocks have been the subject of multispecies research in the North Sea. Here, over four million tonnes of fish are eaten annually by other fish. In comparison, fish consumption by seals is estimated at less than 200,000 tonnes of which a significant amount is young fish and sandeels.

  Farmers (Regulatory Burden)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from farmers concerning the level and cost of regulations affecting farming in(a) the UK and (b) other EU member states. [103398]

  Ms Quin
  In September 1999 we invited the NFU and other interested organisations to identify burdens that affected business. We now have reports from the three working groups we set up to look at the three priority areas and will be studying these carefully to see where we can change requirements in the UK and where we need to press for changes in Brussels. Reports on other more specific areas identified for review will become available for similar consideration over the next few weeks.

  Over-30-Months Scheme
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for changes to the Over-Thirty-Months Scheme. [103353]

  Ms Quin
  In due course (following advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee) it may be appropriate to discuss the Over-Thirty-Months Scheme with European partners on the over-thirty-month rule. In the meantime the Government's planning assumption is that the Scheme will continue for the foreseeable future.

  Livestock Slaughter Regulations
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to remove restrictions in livestock slaughter regulations; and what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of introducing an intermediate stamp to allow abattoirs to slaughter 40 units a day. [103389]

  Ms Quin
  These issues were addressed in the report of the Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group which was published on 13 December 1999. A copy is available in the Library of the House and on the MAFF internet site. The Government are now considering the Working Group's recommendations and will give its response in the new year.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase the use of information technology within the Meat Hygiene Service. [103395]

  Ms Quin
  The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) uses a large number of information technology (IT) systems as part of its everyday operations and has an ongoing IT strategy to develop and use additional systems as a means of improving efficiency.

  To this end, the MHS is currently developing a number of initiatives, one of which relates to the use of scanning technology. For example, all Hygiene Assessment System (HAS) scores contained in the HAS Supplement of the November 1999 edition of the Meat Hygiene Enforcement Report were collated for the first time by the MHS using scanning technology. The MHS now intends to extend its use of this technology to other areas.

  Abattoirs and Meat Processing Plants
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what proportion of the time official veterinary surgeons spend in abattoirs and meat processing plants they are not engaged in inspection duties. [103400]

  Ms Quin
  Only a very small proportion (estimated at around 1 per cent.) of the time spent by Official Veterinary Surgeons (OVSs) in abattoirs and meat processing plants is not engaged on inspection duties.

  The remainder and vast majority of the time charged by OVSs in abattoirs and meat processing plants is spent on carrying out statutory inspection duties or on activities which directly support them. These duties include: ante mortem and post mortem inspection and hygiene supervision; the supervision of SRM controls; the supervision of animal welfare; and associated administrative activities. The Meat Hygiene Service does not analyse time in plants below that directly chargeable to operators.

  Farm Subsidies (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total value of approved payments to Wiltshire farmers for(a) the 1998 calendar year and (b) the 1989–99 financial year; and if he will list by value

  Price

  (1) The rates for the purchase of intervention commodities for the 1999 marketing year are:

  Beef

  euro 3,475 per tonne (this is the intervention price but the maximum buying in price is determined by reference to market prices and tenders submitted)

  Cereals

  euro 119.5 per tonne (rising by monthly increments between November and May to a maximum of euro 126.9 per tonne)

  Dairy:

  Butter

  euro 2,953.8 per tonne (maximum buying in price—amount paid dependent on tender)

  Skimmed Milk Powder

  euro 2,055.2 per tonne

  (2) The rates for Private Storage Aid are:

  Pigmeat

  euro 463 per tonne (maximum)

  Sheepmeat

  euro 1,400 per tonne

  (3) In addition farmers also benefit indirectly from the following trader-based schemes designed to support the agriculture market

  Liquid Skimmed Milk for Stockfeed

  euro 58 per tonne

  Skimmed Milk Powder for Animal Feed

  euro 715.1 per tonne

  School Milk Subsidy:

  (wholemilk)

  euro 29.44 per 100kg

  (Skimmed Milk)

  euro 18.58 per 100 kg

  Casein Production Subsidy

  euro 6.42 per 100kg of Skimmed Milk

  NPO Butter

  euro 105 per 100kg

  Butter for Manufacture

  rate of aid varies depending on fat content of butter

  Aid rate for 80% fat butter between

  euro 880–920 per tonne

  82% fat butter

  euro 910–950 per tonne

  Cream

  euro 380–400 per tonne

  Flax

  euro 815.86 per HA

  Hemp

  euro 662.88 per HA

  Dehydrated Fodder

  euro 68.83 per tonne

  Fruit and Vegetable Withdrawals:

  Cauliflowers

  euro 8.38 per 100kg

  Apples

  euro 9.94 per 100kg

  Pears

  euro 9.46 per 100kg

  156W
  to Wiltshire farmers CAP schemes supporting market prices but which do not involve payments made directly to them. [102899]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 December 1999]: The total value of approved payments to Wiltshire farmers for the 1998 calendar year and the 1998–99 financial year is as follows:

  £000

  1998 Calendar

  1998–99 Financial

  Arable Area Payments Scheme

  32,116

  32,700

  Environmentally Sensitive Area

  309

  376

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  1,400

  1,348

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  2,254

  2,288

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

  180

  181

  Farm Woodland Scheme

  75

  75

  Organic Aid Scheme

  116

  140

  Nitrate Sensitive Area

  42

  42

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme

  612

  576

  Habitat

  156

  156

  Countryside Access Scheme

  2

  2

  Beef Special Premium Scheme

  3,572

  3,661

  40,834

  41,545

  CAP schemes supporting market prices which benefit UK farmers but do not involve payments made directly to them are as follows. It is not possible to record the impact of these support measures on a county basis.
  157W

  Price

  Fruit and Vegetable Operational Programme

  Assistance is payable at 50 per cent. of actual approved expenditure, subject to an annual ceiling set between 2.5–4.5 per cent. of the producer organisation's marketed production

  Starch

  euro 52.66 per tonne

  Grape Must:

  British Wine

  euro 0.2379 per kg

  Home Wine Kits

  euro 0.3103 per kg

  Hops

  euro 480/hectare

  Seeds

  Cereals

  Range euro 14.37–17.27 per Quintal

  Oilseeds

  Range euro 20.53–28.38 per Quintal

  Grasses

  Range euro 19.20–83.56 per Quintal

  Leguminous Plants

  Range euro 75.11 per Quintal

  Sugar in Chemical

  Industry

  euro 459.16 per tonne

  Sugar Storage Costs

  euro 3.30 per tonne

  Cane Refining Scheme

  euro 29.20 per tonne

  Note:

  All rates are paid in £ sterling using the Euro Conversion Rate (ECR) in force on the operative date

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the rules which(a) require and (b) allow food manufacturing companies to display the country of origin on their packaging for food sold in supermarkets; and if he will make a statement. [102190]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: (a) The Food Labelling Regulations 1996 SI No. 1996 1499 (as amended) require origin marking where failure to provide such information might mislead the purchaser to a material degree as to the food's true origin.

  The following measures contain product specific rules on origin marking:

  The Common Agricultural Policy (Wine) Regulations 1996 SI No. 696 (as amended).

  The Food Safety (Fishery Products and Live Shellfish) (Hygiene) Regulations 1998 SI No. 994.

  The Agricultural and Horticultural Act 1964 (as amended).

  The Natural Mineral Water, Spring Water and Bottled Water Regulations 1999 SI No. 1540.

  The Eggs (Marketing Standards) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 SI No. 1396.

  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1906/90 laying down the rules on poultry meat.

  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1374/98 which relates to imports under GATT.

  (b) Voluntary origin labelling must comply with rules controlling false and misleading descriptions (the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Trade Descriptions Act 1968). In the case of beef there are detailed rules in the Beef Labelling (Enforcement) Regulations 1998.

  Chlormequat
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the application of public health regulations to imports of chlormequat-sprayed pears into the UK. [103294]

  Ms Quin
  The Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 set a maximum residue level (MRL) from chlormequat in pears of 3.0 Mg/Kg. The MRL originates from an EC Directive. The general provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 also apply.
  158W
  Earlier from this year, the Government's routine monitoring programme for pesticide residues in food showed that some imported pears contained residues of chlormequat substantially above MRL. We immediately contacted the authorities in the importing countries and received assurances that they had put measures in place to ensure that future exports complied with MRL. This included a ban on the use of chlormequat in pears grown in Belgium and severe restrictions on its use in the Netherlands. We are continuing to monitor the situation and will not hesitate to take further action if necessary.

  Live Cattle Exports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live cattle were exported to European Union member states in 1999. [104255]

  Ms Quin
  None. The export of live cattle from the UK is prohibited by European Union legislation.

  Animal Health Care Costs
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the annual expenditure on veterinary and other health care for animals(a) by pet owners, (b) by farmers and (c) in total. [104252]

  Ms Quin
  The cost of veterinary medicines and other health care for animals is not controlled by European or UK law and we have made no estimate of annual expenditure in these areas. However, the National Office of Animal Health Ltd. which represents manufacturers of veterinary medicines has estimated that the UK market for animal health products is approximately £370 million in terms of sales by manufacturers and that approximately half the sales by value are of products for the treatment of farm animals. Decisions on pricing of medicinal products are matters for the companies marketing them, taking account of commercial factors such as development and production costs and anticipated volume sales. Similarly, the cost of veterinary treatment is not governed by any statutory rules but is a matter for negotiation between veterinary surgeon and client.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Lord Jenkins of Putneyasked Her Majesty's Government:
  How they reconcile their maintenance of nuclear weapons with their claim to support nuclear disarmament.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government pledged in their election manifesto to retain Trident while pressing for multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament. That policy was reaffirmed in the Strategic Defence Review. There is no contradiction in this policy. The Government have made clear that when satisfied with progress towards verifiable, balanced reductions in the nuclear arsenals of the major nuclear powers, Britain's nuclear weapons will be included in multilateral negotiations.
  Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer but I think that she will appreciate as well as I that that kind of Answer could mean a more or less permanent situation in which a government is firmly in favour of nuclear disarmament while remaining firmly armed with nuclear weapons. Is not this a somewhat unsatisfactory situation? Does my noble friend know of any reason to believe that it will ever come to a n end?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have been resolute in pursuing nuclear disarmament. But of course one of our most important criteria must be the safety of this realm. We will continue to pass our partners to work with us to bring about nuclear disarmament, but we must do so in an atmosphere of safety for this country.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect that when the new agenda resolution was passed by the General Assembly on 13th October the United Kingdom delegate explained his opposition by saying that the resolution was incompatible with a credible, minimal deterrent? Who is to be deterred from what? Is a non-nuclear attack to be deterred by threatening to turn it into a nuclear war? If the deterrent is against a nuclear attack, what was the difficulty in supporting the resolution, which was calling for progress towards multilateral disarmament?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have answered the question in relation to the new agenda on
  524
  a number of occasions. The answer that I have given in the past remains the same. I shall not tire your Lordships by its repetition.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, accepting that the United Kingdom now has a minimum nuclear deterrent, I ask the Minister whether he can tell us anything about Franco-British conversations, so far on defence co-operation, as to whether the provision of a minimum deterrent might be aided by closer Franco-British co-operation.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord anything specific. Your Lordships will know that we are working energetically with our partners. Britain is now the most transparent of all the nuclear powers. We are trying to make sure that we are keeping the numbers to the minimum possible and we are encouraging others to do the same with us.
  Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble Baroness has been fairly robust in her reply to the noble Lord. Can she give an absolute assurance that Her Majesty's Government will retain nuclear weapons so long as they are necessary for the defence of the realm?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can assure all noble Lords that Her Majesty's Government place the security of this realm at the top of their agenda. We will do nothing that would put this country in peril.
  Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does not my noble friend appreciate that if all nuclear nations give the same kinds of answers to their respective parliaments there will never ever be any nuclear disarmament?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not accept that. We are working with our partners. We have seen change; change is possible. We are leading and urging others to look creatively at what other kinds of change we can bring about for nuclear disarmament. But this is an issue on which we need others to come with us. We cannot do it on our own and we cannot put this realm in danger by so doing.

  Task Forces: Accountability
  2.39 p.m.
  Lord Roberts of Conwyasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether, and, if so, how, task forces are held accountable to Parliament.
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, task forces are accountable to Ministers; Ministers are accountable to Parliament. Those task forces classified as non-departmental public bodies are accountable direct to Parliament through their sponsoring department.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making it clear that these task forces,

  525
  unlike the much maligned quangos, are not established by Acts of Parliament and are not governed by such Acts. They are appointed by Ministers at their whim and are responsible to those Ministers. Is not the whole system open to abuse? Should not the Government make these task forces subject to parliamentary scrutiny, along with the growing army of working groups and special advisers who also spend taxpayers' money?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think the move towards task forces is a good thing. It means that, before they make decisions, Ministers can receive advice from beyond only the traditional advice available either within Whitehall or beyond Whitehall in relation to special interest groups. In principle, I believe that this is a good development. It makes for more transparent government and provides a much wider source of advice.
  Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, as regards perhaps the most recently instigated task force set up to consider near earth objects, will the Minister tell us whether we will be allowed a debate on this subject when the report is made available in approximately three months' time?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is for the Department of Trade and Industry to decide what should take place in relation to the report once it is available and it is for the usual channels to determine whether there should be a debate on the subject.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, will the Minister tell us how the Government will evaluate the work of the task forces; namely, whether their work is good, bad or indifferent? The Minister told the House that he thought task forces were a good thing. When will he know whether they are a good thing?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton?My Lords, the role of a task force is to give advice to a Minister, a department or the Government on a particular issue. The success or otherwise of a task force will be determined by the quality of the decision taken by the Minister or government department.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, for two and a half years I had the honour of serving as the vice-chairman of a government task force which completed its work just before Christmas. The chairman of that task force was a Conservative former Secretary of State. In the Football Task Force our experience was exactly as my noble and learned friend has described. We undertook a worthwhile examination of the subject and published four substantial reports. Does my noble and learned friend agree that it is desirable that the reports of task forces—in particular, our task force—should be published by the Stationery Office and made available to Members of this House and those in another place and, indeed, that the contents should be debated here in due course?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is for individual departments to determine what is done with
  526
  the results of a particular task force. However, I agree that in many cases it would be both appropriate and helpful for reports from task forces to be published.
  Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord tell the House how many task forces have been set up since 1997?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that I have just answered that question in writing in response to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. I am grateful to noble Lords for reminding me that the answer is 40. However, I should like to confirm that by reference to the Written Answer that will be published today in Hansard.
  Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, since my noble and learned friend is in such an informative frame of mind, will he also tell us what is the difference between an advisory quango and a task force?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the difference between a task force and a non-departmental public body is the permanence of the non-departmental public body. If the NDPB is intended to be permanent and to carry out permanent functions, it is not a task force, but a non-departmental public body.
  Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, is not another major difference between task forces and non-departmental public bodies—quangos—that, in the main, members of quangos are paid, while those who work on task forces give their services free and gratis?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have tried to address the fundamental difference between NPDBs and task forces. However, I am sure that those who serve on task forces are happy to serve the nation in a free capacity.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, was a task force set up for the Dome? If so, were its findings subject to public scrutiny?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Dome is certainly subject to public scrutiny. No task force was set up for the Dome, but the public will come to see it and will form their views as to whether they like it.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the Minister concede that, at the very least, task forces should be subject to a commissioner for public appointments? Will he also tell the House why the Government rejected the proposition that task forces should be subject to the rules proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Nolan?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not think that that course would be appropriate. One purpose of task forces is to enable a Minister or department to receive appropriate advice on particular issues. If task forces were subject to the kind of procedures referred to by the noble Lord, that would greatly inhibit the

  527
  ability of a Minister or a department to get access quickly and sensibly to advice from a much wider network than that available from normal sources.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister has told the House how many task forces have been created. Furthermore, he has told the House that those jobs should be finite because task forces are established to undertake a particular task. Will he also tell the House how many task fates have ceased to function and are no longer in existence because they have finished their task?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not have the precise figure to hand. However, I shall write to the noble Lord.
  Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, in an earlier reply to a supplementary question the Minister referred to transparency as regards task forces. However, he failed to give an absolute assurance that the reports of task forces will be published. How does he reconcile those two comments?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, very frequently the results of an examination by a task force will be published in effect either by the publication of a report or by publication of the consultation. That means that the wider range of consultation undertaken on behalf of the Minister becomes public.

  Guide Dogs: Carriage by Taxi
  2.47 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
  When the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 relevant to the carriage by taxis of guide dogs accompanying blind persons will be put into effect.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: (Lord Whitty): My Lords, Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act covers the carriage of guide and hearing dogs in licensed taxis. We have been unable to progress these provisions as quickly as we had hoped. However, we plan to consult on them by March.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Why have four years passed while Section 37 still has not been brought into effect by a Minister appointing a date? Is the noble Lord aware that the Disability Discrimination Act was the first on disablement ever to be introduced by a government, all the others having been the product of Private Members' Bills? Furthermore, Part V of the Act was introduced in this House and should already be helping the blind.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, we all recognise the importance of the Act and of bringing it into effect. As
  528
  regards regulations that apply to transport, we have initially directed resources to buses, coaches and railway transport. Noble Lords will be aware that regulations covering trains were introduced in 1998 and those for buses and coaches will be introduced this year. As regards taxis, for many historic reasons these are the most complex regulations, and we have run into some difficulties, in particular in relation to the question of medical exemptions for the drivers of taxis. However, I hope that the consultation will proceed within the timescale that I have outlined to the House and that within a few months we shall have a clearer picture.
  Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that bringing other private hire vehicles into this process would be much more appropriate? Will the government give an undertaking to make sure that local authorities include the provision when granting any local licence?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the regulations relating to private hire vehicles other than taxis are not covered by the Disability Discrimination Act. We are currently implementing a system of regulation for London's PHVs covered by the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. It is clearly for local authorities to make this a condition of their licensing. It would be very much in the interests of blind and other disabled people were that to be the case.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that guide dogs are so well trained that they are mostly much better behaved than the average person? Will he send a regulation to taxis drivers stating that they should accept these dogs in their cabs?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely sure with whom the noble Baroness shares taxis; however, it is clear that taxi drivers are frequently faced with problems caused by humans and, very rarely, guide dogs. The intention is to begin consultation by March, and then to make the kind of provision referred to by the noble Baroness. It is also important that we protect taxi drivers and other drivers who are subject to a medical condition which might be aggravated by dogs. I refer in particular to asthmatics.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Section 37 runs to only one page of 40 lines? There are no regulations to be drafted, the Act is clear, and there are specific exemptions for medical problems. How many taxi drivers are thought to have dog allergy problems? Surely all that is required is a certificate from a driver's GP stating that the driver has a problem.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot give an estimate of the number of drivers in that predicament. Nevertheless, we have to take such people into account, as we do in other situations. The noble Earl is correct to say that the provisions on the face of the Bill are clear and explicit, but the regulations covering

  529
  taxis in particular are some of the most complex that Parliament has ever passed. It would require some unravelling to ensure that this particular provision is there, is robust, and is observed by taxi drivers across the land.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in the process of consultation are the taxi drivers raising difficulties or objections, even though the Act includes special measures for exemptions in various circumstances and an appeal procedure?
  Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, taxi drivers in general are not raising any objection in principle to the provisions of the Act or the regulations. What they are saying is that the exemption has to be clarified and the grounds for appeal must be clear. That will be taken care of in the terms of the consultation to which I have referred.

  NHS: Resources Allocation
  2.53 p.m.
  Lord Clement-Jonesasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they believe that resources currently allocated to the National Health Service will be adequate to ensure that their targets for cancer, cardiac and mental health outcomes will be met.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government are committed to a 10-year programme to modernise the National Health Service so that there is equal access to high standards everywhere and faster and convenient services. Improvements in cancer, coronary heart disease and mental health outcomes are at the top of the Government's agenda.
  Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that brief reply. Does he agree that this is a major task, particularly in the field of cancer, when cancer survival rates are currently lower in this country than they are in Poland? Further, does he agree with the warning of Professor Sikora, of Imperial College, that, without more money, cancer services in Britain will continue to lag behind those of our European neighbours in terms of survival rates? Further, does he agree with the professor in his highlighting of a shortage of 500 cancer specialists, a backlog of some £1.2 billion in radiotherapy equipment, and the need for £170 million a year more for chemotherapy? Will Professor Richards' strategy for cancer services address those points?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful for that long question. The Government are very concerned to sort out the issues that have been mentioned in relation to cancer services and, specifically, the variations in quality and the
  530
  inconsistency in treatment and care which we inherited. We have indicated that we have a strategic programme in relation to prevention, to the implementation of Calman/Hine so that there is an effective network of cancer care throughout the country, and to ensuring that resources are made available. For instance, by 2001, an extra £230 million pounds will have been invested in cancer services and a £200 million capital programme will be under way.
  Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that there will be no rationing of cancer services for elderly patients? There have been rumours that elderly men with prostate cancer do not always receive treatment for their condition as readily as younger people. Will the Minister give an assurance that does not, and will not, occur?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. As I have said recently in this House, we will not contemplate or accept any discrimination against older people in receiving NHS services.
  Lord Patel: My Lords, is it the Government's intention to extend the successful breast screening programme to women aged over 65? If so, will it be separately and adequately funded?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are three pilot programmes examining the feasibility, evidence and outcomes of extending the programme in the way suggested by the noble Lord. When we have evaluated the outcome of the pilot schemes, we shall look to the financial consequences.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Government examine the problem of mentally ill people in prisons, and try to do something about it?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. We are concerned to improve the health outcomes of prisoners, whether in mental health or other areas of the health spectrum. There is—dare I say it?—a task force in existence which is looking at how the situation can be improved. The main component is that the National Health Service is making itself available to work in partnership with the Prison Service. Mental health services will form an important part of that process.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the main problem identified in the previous question is the creation of more beds in secure wings in mental and general hospitals?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords, there is no doubt that some prisoners would be much better accommodated in secure beds. We plan to have 300 additional secure beds in operation by 2002.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Healthcare Financial Management Association

  531
  recently published a survey indicating that 48 per cent of NHS trusts were currently in deficit, and that 37 per cent predicated that they would have to make cuts in direct service provision this year in order to balance their budget? How will the Government make sure that that does not happen?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: First, my Lords, we should take the report of the HFMA with a great deal of caution, bearing in mind its wildly exaggerated figures for the cumulative deficit of the NHS. There are some NHS trusts that are presently facing financial pressures. However, the noble Earl will know that we recently announced an injection of £134 million in-year to the NHS, specifically to meet some of the costs arising from the increase in generic drugs and, centrally, to cover the increasing cost of clinical negligence. That will be an enormous help.
  Lord Colwyn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the costs of treatment of cancer, heart disease and mental illness have increased, the positive results have declined? Is not the time now ripe for the Government to allocate serious funding for major systems of complementary medicine whose target is prevention?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree with the first part of the noble Lord's question. We are concerned to ensure that the outcomes of treatment are as positive as they can be. The development of national service frameworks, the work of the National Institute of Clinical Effectiveness and the Commission for Health Improvement is all designed, alongside local clinical governance, to improve outcomes.
  As for complementary medicine, recognise that many people find it of value. I also understand that in addition to that which is available within the private sector, many parts of the NHS are able to provide complementary medicine to NHS patients.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, my noble friend's question was directed towards resources. He subsequently mentioned the well attested lack of about 500 consultants in the cancer field. What strategies exist for correcting that loss? How long will it take and what resources will be required?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are 400 prospective consultants in the range of services that would be encompassed by cancer services coming through the system. Of course, work force issues are important, not only in relation to consultants but also in relation to nurses, radiographers and other support services. Professor Mike Richards, who has taken on the job of leading our development of cancer services, is taking it as one of his major priorities and the results of his work will then be fed into our workforce planning mechanisms.
  Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the large sum of money
  532
  he mentioned as having been allocated for those purposes is all new money? Alternatively, has some of it been allocated, as was mentioned?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, much of the resource I mentioned has come within the comprehensive spending review allocation. But the House needs to recognise that that comprehensive spending review allocation brought the NHS considerable amounts of new resources. Over the period of the comprehensive spending review, we are giving the NHS 4.9 per cent real growth. I contrast that with the last five years of the previous administration which managed only 2.7 per cent.

  Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
  3.2 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [THE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD TORDOFF) IN THE CHAIR.]
  Clause 1 [Discrimination by police and other public authorities]:
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("a") to ("to") in line 11 and insert ("public authority").
  The noble Lord said: Before I speak to this amendment, I wish to have a mild grumble about the lack of information we will have from the Government to enable us to look at the amendments to the Bill. The position is that the Minister made the statement of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights on the face of the Bill, as is required by Section 19 of the Human Rights Act. From time to time, on all sides of the House, we have sought to develop a practice whereby we obtain Ministers' reasons for their compatibility statements so that when we legislate we are clear that there will be proper compliance with the relevant convention rights.
  I wrote to the Minister before Christmas asking whether we could be provided with that kind of information by 4th January. I was told that there was no prospect of it because of Christmas and overwork. That is fair enough and I perfectly understand the administrative problems of the Home Office. However, the position is that we do not have anything like the kind of reasons from the Government to enable us, when we legislate, to be satisfied that the Human Rights Act is being properly complied with.
  In order to try to extract their reasons from the Government, what I have done is to place a note—I am afraid it is a lawyer's note—on the legal concept of indirect discrimination in the Library. It is also in the

  533
  Printed Paper Office. I gave it to the Home Secretary yesterday when he was kind enough to meet me and others. I asked that we be provided with chapter and verse before Report stage. It is obviously hopeless to seek to obtain that information at Committee stage, because it is now too late, although I have used my best endeavours to obtain it. My note identifies the particular issues.
  Last night, I bleated about all that in the debate on the Unstarred Question of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, pointing out that we would reach the stage today, unless the Government produced reasons, where we would not be properly informed. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, kindly handed me a piece of paper of his own speaking notes on the subject. I shall not take the Committee's time by reading it out but it does not adequately deal with the issues I have raised. I begin with that and it will run through our debate because from time to time on some amendments issues will arise as to whether what the Government propose to do is compatible with the guarantee of non-discrimination in the Convention on Human Rights, the right of access to the courts in Article 6 of the convention and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13.
  The Earl of Onslow: I intervene solely to assist the noble Lord. Would it not be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, could say why he has not produced the information, or why his department has not done so? Had they wanted to, undoubtedly they could have. It strikes me that this is a treatment of Parliament which is not satisfactory.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I did not want to put on further pressure than I have already because I know that a member of the noble Lord's Private Office indicated just after lunch that he had misunderstood. There has been some kind of error inside the administration. That is perfectly understandable. As long as we get the information before Report stage, not at Report stage, we will be in a better position. So if I may, I shall not pursue that further at this stage.
  I turn to Amendment No. 1 which deals with what, on the face of it, seems to be a technicality with which I can deal briefly. It seeks to define "public authorities" for the purpose of the Race Relations Act in the same way as the term is already defined in the Human Rights Act, rather than by using a prescribed list of public authorities, to be added to from time to time in a schedule.
  Unlike the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Bill and some of the devolution legislation, the Human Rights Act defines a public authority in broad terms to include any person certain of his functions or functions of a public nature. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in introducing that part of the Human Rights Bill, explained:
  "We think that it is far better to have a principle rather than a list which would be regarded as exhaustive".—[Official Report, 24/11/97; col. 796.]
  534
  He later commented at col. 808 that the principle was deliberately broad,
  "because we want to provide as much protection as possible for the rights of individuals against the misuse of power by the state".
  The Race Relations (Amendment) Bill implements one part of the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees non-discrimination in the enjoyment of other convention rights; for example, the right to education; the right to liberty without arbitrary arrest and stop and search; the right to a fair trial; the right to property, including the allocation of social security in some contexts, and so on.
  Under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act, a public authority defined in the very broad way that I have described has a duty to comply with the human rights convention as regards non-discrimination. It is therefore essential to have a definition in the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill which captures all public authorities which would be captured by the Human Rights Act 1998; otherwise, there will be a gap. If in any part of the list prescribed by Ministers under the schedule there is a public authority that is not a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act there will be a gap. Litigation will be required to try to fill the gap and—God forbid—a case may be brought before the court in Strasbourg if that gap is not properly filled. There will be a great deal of legal uncertainty. There is no reason in principle why the same definition in the Human Rights Act should not be used in this Bill.
  We may be told by the Minister that that is not the way it has been done in the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Bills because the Government want to achieve legal certainty by listing public body by public body exactly which is caught. But the price of such legal certainty is over-specificity. Unless one lists comprehensively every single public authority that exercises functions of a public nature, the Government are bound to leave out of account some bodies that are meant to be caught by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. Therefore, the purpose of this and the related amendments is to bring the definition into line with the Human Rights Act. I beg to move.
  3.15 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have sympathy with the complaint made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, at the start of his remarks about the lack of reasons from the Government about compliance with the ECHR. I should like to add two comments. No doubt in the course of the Committee stage we shall, with the assistance of the Minister, be able to draw out the reasons. I agree that that is less satisfactory than being allowed to see them in advance, but we shall attempt to do that. I should also like to express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his helpful courtesy in circulating not only the note that has been placed in the Library but also other material in support of the views that he intends to express.
  I turn to the amendment itself. At this stage I should like to put two questions to the Minister. First, why has the Home Office chosen this rather cumbersome

  535
  way to define "public authorities" in comparison with the rather neat way that is adopted in the Human Rights Act? Secondly, what is the practical difference? Who is to be left out of the one but included in the other? As to the first question, I do not believe that to follow one course of action—to set out in the schedule all the departments and so on—is merely a stylistic preference. This cumbersome formula must have been chosen deliberately, I assume by Ministers. No doubt officials advised Ministers that this was the best route to take, but from the start Ministers would have been aware of the definition in the Human Rights Act and that this matter would be controversial. It seems to me that to follow the more cumbersome route rather than the neater one suggested by the amendment is a rather odd decision.
  That leads me to the second question: the difference in practical terms. Do the Government believe that, arguably, departments, agencies or public authorities of some kind should in that way be deliberately left out of the Bill for some reason? I realise that subsection (5) provides for a future extension to cover additional departments if that should arise either from reorganisation of government, which happens all too frequently these days, or because something has been inadvertently omitted. To legislate in this way is unsatisfactory. There are now far too many statutory instruments. We have reached the stage where in most cases looking at an Act as passed by Parliament is not much use; one must look at the annotated Act with all the statutory instruments in footnotes, et cetera. There are so many statutory instruments that unless one looks at the latest version one cannot be sure that one has the law as it is. Obviously, that is good for legal publishers and those who write legal textbooks—perhaps some Members of the Committee are concerned with that—but from the point of view of the public who need to know the law and those who try to run businesses and other operations, including lawyers, but not necessarily because it is such a complex field, I do not believe that this is the most satisfactory way to compile the statute book.
  One of the differences between the two definitions is that one leaves marginal decisions in the hands of the courts if one follows the human rights route. If there is a question as to whether some body may or may not be included in the provisions, that decision will be left to the courts. That takes one back to the point about legal certainty to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred. But to achieve it in this way has other dangers. I believe that the Committee will be greatly helped if the Minister can set out the practical effects of doing it this way, in terms of the number of departments included or left out, and explain why the Government have chosen this particular route.
  Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that in any case the question of whether or not a body is a public body must be dealt with by
  536
  the courts under the Human Rights Act? If there is no difficulty under that Act, equally there cannot be under this Bill.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Any of these matters is liable to come before the courts. Under the Human Rights Act, such matters are now liable to come before the courts in this country, but they can in any case come before the courts on the Continent.
  Lord Peston: Perhaps I may be permitted to put one question for clarification so that I may follow the debate. Am I correct in understanding that at the moment we are debating only the set of public authorities which will fall within the ambit of subsequent provisions and we are not yet considering what those public authorities should do and how they should behave? We are almost artificially separating the public bodies from their modes of behaviour. Am I right to interpret the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, as dealing with that point?
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: If I may help the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that is exactly right. At the moment we are dealing with how one defines which public authorities will be liable for the extended duty rather than the scope of the duty in substance and choosing between an inclusive and an exclusive definition.
  Baroness Howells of St Davids: I should like to speak in support of Clause I of the Bill and the amendments to which I have put my name. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the very constructive way in which he and his colleagues have conducted the debate so far.
  At Second Reading, your Lordships may recall the debt of gratitude I conveyed to the Government for having the courage to set up the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence and for their actions to date. As we know, the Government went further than the recommendations made in the report in committing the Government to bring all public services within the law. This Bill shows that the Government have delivered on what they said they would do. I expressed my gratitude to the Government for indicating that they had not closed their mind to widening the scope of the Bill to cover unjustifiable indirect discrimination if they could be persuaded that its inclusion would be workable.
  I am pleased that the Government have kept to their word, have been open to alternative views and have listened to ways in which this Bill can be improved. I am aware that my noble friend the Minister has met a number of individuals from both inside and outside this House to discuss ways in which the Bill can be improved. I should like to commend him on that.
  I too want the Government to get this Bill right. It is in that spirit that I put my name in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has dealt with the legalistic aspects of these amendments with the authority of one

  537
  who has been one of the main architects of the Race Relations Act and who has spent many years working in the field of human rights law.
  I support wholeheartedly the other aspects of Clause 1, including the alternative definition of "public authority". I should also like to focus on the omission of indirect discrimination. That is the main defect of the Bill, as far as I am concerned. I do not have the authority of either a lawyer or a medical person, but I can speak with some authority on this issue, having worked with ethnic minority communities. I should like to draw on that experience in my comments. The Committee may be aware that I have worked in the field of race relations for more than 30 years. My personal knowledge has been crucial in my approach to the Bill. In particular, the connection of the Macpherson inquiry report with unjustifiable indirect discrimination in the police force was central to my decision to support these amendments this afternoon.
  The Committee will be aware that the focus of the Macpherson report was the prevalence of institutional discrimination. By omitting to outlaw unjustifiable indirect discrimination in critical functions of public authorities, the Bill seriously inhibits the ability of families like the Lawrence family to challenge institutional racism in future.
  The defining feature of the Macpherson report was the acceptance that institutional racism is commonly indirect. I should be grateful to know from my noble friend the Minister whether the Government have come to a different conclusion because I am at a loss as to how any other conclusion could be found. I must say that I have not been convinced by the Home Office briefings that suggest that the Lawrence case concerned direct discrimination. The disastrous failure to bring the killers of Stephen Lawrence to justice stemmed from attitudes and practices in the investigation of the crime which could have played a similar part in many other investigations into the deaths of other black people, such as Michael Menson and Ricky Reel. Direct discrimination was not established in any of these cases.
  Extending the law to deal with indirect discrimination in the private sector was the great innovation when the present Race Relations Act was passed in 1976, reflecting the growing recognition that it was the hidden, often unconscious, kinds of discrimination which were the most insidious and widespread. To expose these the Act gave enhanced investigative powers to the Commission for Racial Equality. Unless indirect discrimination in our public authorities can also be targeted, the Commission for Racial Equality will be unable to carry out the very type of investigation that the Macpherson report showed to be needed.
  If the Race Relations Act had from the outset fully covered the direct and indirect discriminatory aspects of public authorities, the Commission for Racial Equality could have conducted a formal investigation into operational policing some years ago. I have no doubt that we could have started to tackle institutional
  538
  racism in the police and been in a position to make less likely the kind of insidious covert forms of discrimination that the Lawrence family and others have experienced.
  The Macpherson report established in the mainstream the concept of institutional racism. I am at a loss as to why the Government are now hesitating on the opportunity presented by that report to put a legal framework in place which will allow the sort of unjustifiable indirect discriminatory practices raised in that report to be challenged.
  The Home Secretary has asked for a workable solution. Clause 1 strikes out the omission extending Section 1(1) (b) of the Act to public authorities. If it were the case that the Government remained less than fully convinced of our arguments to include unjustifiable indirect discrimination, could they not decide to add an extra control by requiring that all such cases of alleged indirect discrimination contrary to the proposed Section 19B were brought only with either the approval or assistance of the Commission for Racial Equality? It could be argued that this would be consistent with the Commission for Racial Equality's strategic role.
  I believe that the focus of the Government's concerns should not be on excluding Section 1(1)(b) of the Act but on addressing what are to be the areas of justification or defence under the Act. To reiterate the point, indirect discrimination is unlawful only if it cannot be justified. I cannot believe that it is the intention of the Government to allow unjustifiable indirect discrimination in our public services to continue, especially when it has been unlawful in the private sector since the 1970s.
  The Commission for Racial Equality has approached Robin Allen QC, an eminent human rights counsel, for an opinion on the Bill. I understand that his opinion will be made available to the Government. In that legal opinion, Mr Allen discusses the possible future implications arising from Europe if indirect discrimination is excluded from the Bill.
  Your Lordships will be aware that the case law of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Justice makes it clear that the concept of discrimination in convention and Community Law is not limited to direct discrimination. Both recognise that there may be situations in which disguised or indirect discrimination may arise and may need to be justified. Accordingly, any limitation in the extensions to be made by the Bill to the Act to "direct" discrimination or victimisation are likely to rub up against either Community or convention law sooner or later. In those circumstances, Mr Allen says:
  "unless the limitation is itself objectively justified, the provisions of the Act (so amended) will have to give way sooner or later to these superior sources of law".
  While I, too, recognise the concerns of the Government about the need to justify policies that have an adverse impact, surely this is no more than the obligation on any modern, democratic government based on human rights.

  539
  The Home Secretary said in another place in February last year that he acknowledged that there was a long way to go to make Britain a "beacon of equality" and he made it clear that the Government must and will do more. The very limited scope of the new Bill could be a missed opportunity for more far-reaching reform and disappoint the reasonable expectation he created last year.
  I should like to assist the Government to make Britain truly a beacon society for the rest of the world to follow. We want to help the Government to deliver comprehensively now and out of conviction. I do not want the Government to be forced to deliver in a piecemeal fashion, some time in the future, out of fear of legal challenge from Europe.
  I will be hard-pressed to find people from ethnic minority communities who are content that unjustifiable indirect discrimination has been excluded from the Bill. That may be because we in the black community have lived and experienced institutional racism in our public authorities on a daily basis. Any half-way or partial measure could be received as a mockery of those experiences.
  I say to my noble friend the Minister that Britain's ethnic minorities do not understand the Government's hesitation in taking this opportunity seriously to challenge institutional racism. I know that the Government will want to be the champion of their hopes and aspirations. The Bill has the potential to be one of the Government's flagship Bills. But I fear that if we miss this opportunity we will not only have taken the shine off the beacon society we all so dearly want; we may have missed that opportunity for perhaps another generation. I support Clause 1.
  3.30 p.m.
  The Earl of Onslow: I support the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I rise to speak from what could be regarded as an old-fashioned Conservative point of view, something which cur present lord and master finds deeply offensive. But I shall let that pass. To me the issue is simple. If you expect people to be loyal subjects of the Crown, they should all be treated equally. We have been a welcoming society for a very long time. You do not have to go all that far back to see the enormous contribution made to our country by some of the Ugandan Asians. You do not have to go very far back to see the great contribution which a large number of Caribbean people have made for the benefit of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it follows, as night follows day, that they have to be treated equally before the law so that they can become loyal subjects of the Crown. If we say, as the amendment says, that no one may discriminate, it is much clearer than saying, "Only X, Y and Z may discriminate, and the Secretary of State may alter it afterwards".
  We want race relations in this country to be good. From a Conservative point of view I want it, because I recognise the contribution made by the Huguenots, by the Jewish immigrants in the 1890s, by the refugees from Hitler's Germany and by the Ugandan Asians. They have all enriched our society. Therefore, they
  540
  have to be treated equally and they have to be treated as loyal subjects of the Crown. The amendment would make it much easier for that to be the case rather than the Secretary of State, by order, altering the list of who may or may not discriminate. I therefore support, from a Conservative point of view, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
  Baroness Whitaker: I wish to add a dimension to this debate. It would be helpful if we took account of the views of senior police officers who are particularly concerned with improving race relations. They are tasked with changing police culture. I confirm the view of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that to exclude indirect discrimination is certainly not the express wish of the police. On the contrary, there is no police pressure to exclude indirect discrimination. There is a view that in any case the Human Rights Act gives the right to challenge indirect discrimination on the part of public authorities. There is also a view among senior police officers that the definition of "public authority" should be the same as that provided in the Human Rights Act. Indeed, these views go further. I have heard it said that it is essential that indirect and institutional racism should come within the scope of the Bill and that their absence would undermine the ability of the police to manage race relations. Inclusion would help them to have a more informed and effective strategy.
  On the different issue of government policy being second guessed by the courts—
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. In the debate we are dealing with two separate issues. In due course I shall move an amendment which deals with indirect discrimination. Amendment No. 1 deals with the definition of "public authority". Although it is helpful to have the other points raised, which will save time later when we come to indirect discrimination, it may be helpful to the Committee if I indicate that that is the distinction between the two amendments. We have not yet reached the amendment on indirect discrimination.
  Baroness Whitaker: I apologise for being out of order. I simply followed my noble friend Lady Howells. I wanted also to refer to the view of the police that the Human Rights Act definition should be the one used. I shall return to my point later.
  Lord Peston: I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for speaking twice. I was full of trepidation at the thought of taking part in the debate at all but at least I now understand the topic we are now on. I take it that we are on the topic of which set of public bodies we are talking about. Perhaps I may say substantively that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, put the point as simply and as clearly as it could be put—that the presumption should be that no one is excluded from the set of rules and modes of behaviour which we shall debate later on. If anyone should be excluded, the case should be specifically for such a body rather than the other way round. Therefore, I have to say to my noble

  541
  friend the Minister that I think that he has got this the wrong way round. The presumption should be everyone "except"; and then he ought, or someone ought, to argue the "except". He would have a very difficult job arguing the "except", but that is the onus placed on the Minister. I strongly support the amendments and everything that has been said. I hope that my noble friend will go away and reflect on the point that, logically, the Bill has been drafted the wrong way round.
  Lord Avebury: The danger my noble friend draws to the attention of the Committee is that under the government formulation some entities which have functions of a public nature will be inadvertently omitted from the schedules before us and from any instruments laid afterwards by the Secretary of State under new Section 19B(5). At the same time those authorities will be covered by the Human Rights Act.
  When the Minister replies will he sketch out this scenario? What happens if, under the Human Rights Act, an organisation is designated as an authority having functions of a public nature but it is not in any of the schedules or instruments published under the Bill? There are bound to be such cases, otherwise the Government would have no objection to the amendment. The clear implication is that there will be authorities which are not covered by the Bill but which the courts deem to have functions of a public nature under the Human Rights Act.
  It is important that this point is clear. If the courts decide that such a body falls under the Human Rights Act, what are the consequences? The Minister brings forward a statutory instrument to designate that public authority. However, there is a gap between the court's decision under the Human Rights Act and the passing of the instrument by Parliament. Actions taken by the authority having functions of a public nature would be perfectly lawful in that gap but would be made unlawful once the instrument is passed. That is an intolerable situation.
  In the light of that argument, does the Minister consider that Parliament would do well to amend definitions in the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Bill? I believe that a common definition of a "public authority" should extend throughout legislation under which human rights problems may arise. The Human Rights Act had not been passed when the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Bill were tabled. If we had been in the present position when we considered the Data Protection Act and now the Freedom of Information Bill, would we not take the same view as my noble friend on the amendment? I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can deal with that matter in his reply.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: This has been a somewhat longer debate than many of us had anticipated. I pay tribute to those who contributed to the debate. Although it has been wider in range than the noble Lord, Lord Lester, or I anticipated, it has been useful.
  542
  I intend to deal with the points properly raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howells and Lady Whitaker, when we consider the second group.
  Lord Peston: I hate to interrupt the Minister, but does he insist on replying to everything said? We shall debate, I hope at greater length, indirect discrimination. Some of us may find if difficult if my noble friend replies twice to the debate. It is entirely up to him. I merely ask whether he wishes to do so twice.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: If my noble friend will bear with me, I was about to say that I intend to deal with those matters relating to indirect discrimination under the second group of amendments.
  I touch also on the understandable grumble of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I apologise to him. There has been an exchange and crossing of correspondence between us. We sought to clarify the issues he raised. He graciously wrote to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and shared generously his view through the Library of the House. We clearly need to address the points he raises, and shall be happy to do so, either directly or through correspondence. No doubt those issues will inform the course of debates on this important piece of legislation. I trust that he will accept my apology as sincere. I hope that we can proceed, as we have done, in the best traditions of this House.
  On the content of the amendment, I wish to make the Government's position clear. These amendments would adopt the Human Rights Act approach to the definition of public authorities. In so doing, they would leave it entirely to the courts to interpret whether or not a function is of a public nature—a point observed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. We believe that this approach is entirely appropriate in respect of the Human Rights Act and is the best way of meeting our aim of giving people access to their convention rights in the United Kingdom against bodies for whom the Government could be held responsible in proceedings before the convention institutions in Strasbourg. However, the Government do not feel that it is appropriate for this Bill.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lester, made reference to other pieces of legislation in which the list approach, if it can be so described, has been adopted: the Data Protection Act; the Freedom of Information Bill currently before another place; and in devolution legislation. The list approach is accepted not only in this field of law but in other areas too.
  Our view is that there is clarity. If a body appears on the list there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that it is a public authority to which new Section 19B applies. There can be no doubt. It is listed. It is clear. It is in the schedules. The Act adopts a list approach at Section 19(6) in relation to the educational bodies that are covered by its current provision. That list brings clarity there. In addition and looking ahead, a list approach may serve a useful purpose in bringing clarity in the context of a duty to promote equality. That point needs to be carefully understood. It will specify precisely who owes the duty to promote

  543
  equality. Indeed, I note that Amendment No. 23, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in proposing an amended duty to promote race equality, which we shall discuss, refers to the list of public authorities. In a sense, we are almost there, even in the noble Lord's thinking.
  I also note that the amendment appears to be narrower than our provision because it states that in relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority if the nature of that act is private. Thus, some functions of public authorities which would be caught by new Section 19B as it stands, would be excluded. As noble Lords will be well aware—there has been reference to it in the debate—any gaps which occur in the list can be filled by use of the order-making power under new Section 19B(5) and (6) and public bodies can be listed by class of body.
  There is no reason to list every public authority or public body individually. That approach gives us the flexibility to which many Members of the Committee have referred. It will give us the cover here. It is not the Government's intention to exclude some public bodies. As we know from political experience over many years, what is defined as a "public authority", a public body, can from time to time change. Therefore, the list approach through the order-making power gives us flexibility and will enable us where appropriate to expand the list of bodies covered by the legislation. I trust that on that basis noble Lords will not wish to press the amendment today.
  The Earl of Onslow: Before the Minister sits down, will he answer the following question? How many public bodies will be left out? If the answer is none, why do we have a list?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not aware that we intend to omit any public bodies. We seek to establish clarity and certainly. The list approach makes crystal clear at the outset what is defined as a public body in each and every instance.
  Lord Avebury: Will the Minister please deal with my question? What happens in the intervening period between classifying a body as having functions of a public nature under the Human Rights Act and the tabling of an instrument to bring this legislation into line with it?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: We would expect that the bodies which have been defined as "public authorities" in terms of the Human Rights Act will be the same bodies as those covered by the Race Relations Act. We are trying to specify and be more precise. If there is a problem with our approach, I shall be more than happy to look again at the point that the noble Lord raised and to clarify more precisely in correspondence how we shall deal with the difficulty which he believes he has identified.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We are grateful to the Minister for his reply, but I remain perplexed. Perhaps I may explain why and hope for further reflection. The starting point is the common law.
  544
  Under the common law, any public authority which discriminates on grounds of race or sex is in breach of a fundamental common law principle. That was established a couple of years ago in the Privy Council. Therefore, the starting point is that every body which the court would regard as a public authority—that is, a body of the kind captured by the Human Rights Act definition—whether in a list or not, must not discriminate on racial grounds, whether directly or indirectly, at common law.
  The Bill merely extends direct discrimination obligations by way of statute to all public authorities rather than to only some of them. On that basis, I cannot understand the hesitation about adopting a broad, inclusive definition rather than a statutory list definition. I understand why in the Data Protection Act and in the Freedom of Information Bill a list approach has been adopted. The reason is that onerous, widespread and complex obligations are being imposed on various public authorities, sometimes in stages and sometimes requiring subordinate legislation and orders. Therefore, it makes a great deal of sense to use a list approach in such complex legislation. However, at the moment, all we are dealing with in the Bill is direct discrimination. There is no suggestion of a statutory duty being imposed upon public authorities which might make it necessary to have a list.
  Therefore, for those reasons and because of the gap which will open up between those which are in the list and those which are in the Human Rights Act definition and the consequences of that, I hope that the Government will reflect further and see whether we can use the Human Rights Act definition. At this stage and after this important debate there is time for furl her reflection on all sides. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 1, leave out lines 13 and 14.
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 deals with indirect discrimination. It has already been spoken to most helpfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, whose name is attached to it. I believe that it is the most important amendment with which we shall deal in Committee today.
  What is at stake transcends any technical legal questions. What is at stake is the need for effective redress for the victims of unfair racial discrimination by the Government and public authorities and the need to protect and win the confidence of vulnerable ethnic minorities in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence scandal and the recommendations of the Macpherson report. What is also at stake is the need for Ministers and their departments to be fully accountable to the rule of law, interpreted and applied by the independent judiciary.
  The central question is whether Ministers, their departments and other statutory bodies acting on behalf of the Crown should be subject to the same duty

  545
  to comply with the same legal principles of non-discrimination in serving the public—for example, through the Immigration and Nationality Service, or the Prison Service, or the Police Service, or Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, or in providing social security services—as are the providers of services which are covered by Section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976. In other words, should the citizen be entitled to the equal protection of the Race Relations Act and to equal access to justice against the state and its agents as against other institutions and services which discriminate unfairly? Or should the citizen continue to be left with less statutory protection against Ministers of the Crown and their departments, when they exercise their statutory and prerogative powers, than against other bodies where government-imposed practices, procedures and rules are indirectly discriminatory and cannot be objectively justified? Those are the central questions that are raised by the amendment.
  The answer given by Macpherson, in the context of policing, was unequivocal. It recommended that the full force of the Race Relations Act should apply to all police officers; the full force and nothing less. The Government went further—and they are to be commended on doing so—promising that all public services would be brought within the scope of the legislation. The full force of the legislation includes forbidding indirect as well as direct discrimination; that is, practices and rules which apply equally to all in a formal sense, but which hit disproportionately at ethnic minorities and cannot be justified.
  I see the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, in her place and I am reminded that my comments will apply in exactly the same way to the Sex Discrimination Act when it comes to be amended in due course. We are dealing now with race discrimination, but we shall then be dealing with indirect sex discrimination by government departments.
  The Bill as it stands falls far short of the promise to apply the legislation in its full rigour. The new Section 19B(2) will permit much of the public service to operate indirectly discriminatory practices without having to justify them to the victims, the courts and the CRE. Instead of having a greater responsibility because of the public nature of their functions, Ministers, departments and other statutory public bodies are to be less legally responsible than providers of services such as banks, building societies or local authorities because they will not be liable for unjustifiable indirect discrimination.
  That leaves victims of indirect racial discrimination by the public service without a remedy. British Muslims, for example, have no legal remedy for unfair religious discrimination. They are protected under the 1976 Act only if they are victims of racial discrimination. It is here that the concept of indirect racial discrimination is so essential. Yet unless the Bill is amended—and I hope that the Minister will confirm this—it will provide no protection for British Muslims where government-imposed practices and procedures have a disproportionate adverse impact upon them.
  If the Government oppose the amendment, I hope that the Minister will explain the principle which justifies the denial of equal protection of the law and equal access to effective remedies for members of the Muslim communities—more than 1 million people in this country—and for other vulnerable ethnic minorities.
  If the amendment is accepted, it will ensure that the public service is subject to the same requirement to justify indirect discrimination as are private and public sector providers of services under Section 20. That section makes it unlawful for any person concerned with the provision of goods, facilities and services to the public or a section of the public to discriminate directly or indirectly against ethnic minorities.
  The great architect of the 1976 Act was my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I had always believed that the Act's provisions were meant to apply fully to the whole of the public service. That is why, for example, we wrote into Section 41 a special escape clause where a Minister directly authorises a requirement or condition which is discriminatory. The gap in the 1976 Act did not arise because Parliament created a deliberate gap but because of the restrictive way in which the Law Lords, by a three to two majority, interpreted Section 20 in the case of Amin in 1983. I deal with that matter in the note which I have placed in the Library, but in Amin, the complaint concerned alleged sex discrimination in immigration control. The Law Lords, by a majority of three to two, decided that Section 29 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which is in identical terms to Section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976, applies to discriminatory acts carried out by the Crown only if they are of a kind similar to acts which may be carried out by a private person.
  Amin created a serious gap which the Bill fails to remedy. Direct and indirect discrimination are unlawful if carried out by those concerned with providing services to the public. But if Amin is correct, that does not include other forms of public service; for example, those involving regulation and control by government departments and other public authorities. There is no coherent distinction at all—I defy the Minister to come up with one—between those different forms of public service. The distinction made in Amin is arbitrary, irrational and confusing. I am confident that my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead would never have drawn such a distinction, or intended to, in the 1976 legislation. How can one explain the distinction between the service provided by the police in giving advice and assistance to the public—which is covered by Section 20—and the service provided by the police in preventing and detecting crime, in keeping the peace, or in helping to prosecute alleged offenders, which is outside the scope of Section 20 if Amin was correctly decided? The Bill as it stands preserves that irrational distinction as regards liability for indirect discrimination.
  It is likely, in my view, that Amin would be reversed if the Law Lords had the opportunity to reconsider the decision. I say so for a number of reasons which I have set out in the note, prepared for the convenience of the

  547
  Committee and available in the Library. Perhaps I may summarise a few of them briefly. One reason is related to the Human Rights Act 1998 which will require the courts to interpret all existing and future legislation, where possible, compatibly with rights guaranteed by the convention, including the right to non-discrimination guaranteed by Article 14 and the right of effective access to the courts in the determination of the civil right to equal treatment without discrimination guaranteed by Article 6.
  The arbitrariness of the Amin distinction violates those convention guarantees, as does the Bill, by immunising public: service from the duty to justify indirectly discriminatory practices to the individuals affected, the courts and the CRE, and to provide effective redress to victims of unjustifiable indirect discrimination. Tie European Court of Human Rights has already ruled in the case of Tinnelly—a case in which I appeared for the applicants, who were Northern Ireland Catholics challenging a bar which prevented them from having the merits of their claims of religious discrimination dealt with by the tribunal in Northern Ireland—that a statutory immunity of that kind, blocking access to courts for religious discrimination claims related to national security breached Article 6 of the convention.
  The concept of indirect discrimination is well recognised in the European convention and in international human rights treaties, such as the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which are all binding on the United Kingdom. Unless the amendment is accepted, our statute book will continue to authorise breaches of the UK's obligations under international and European law because the victims of indirect racial discrimination and sex discrimination will still be unable to obtain effective remedies for indirectly discriminatory acts by Ministers, government departments and statutory bodies acting on behalf of the Crown.
  The Government accept that the application of the concept of indirect discrimination by the courts and the CRE has not resulted in over-intrusive or unworkable decisions. The concept has worked well in practice, except for the artificial limitations imposed by statutory definition and by the Amin case. There is no case at all in which the concept of indirect discrimination has been taken too far, unnecessarily hampering or fettering the exercise of discretion by providers of public services.
  Opposition Conservative parliamentarians played a crucial role in defeating the first Wilson government's attempt, in the Race Relations Bill 1968, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, to create a statutory immunity for Ministers and government departments from liability for unlawful discrimination. I am delighted that I am making these remarks in the presence of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, but I wish that I were doing so also in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. In the debate in Committee in the other place, as Quintin Hogg MP, he was part of an all-party
  548
  revolt joined also by Alex Lyon, later to be Minister of State, which removed the Crown's immunity that Home Secretary Callaghan wanted to maintain. After that defeat, there could be no doubt that Parliament intended the Crown to be fully bound by the duty not to discriminate unlawfully, and to be accountable to the courts for any breach of that statutory duty.
  The remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, made during that debate remain apposite today:
  "The whole experience of the last 45 years has been that the Crown has fought in every ditch against being made a party to litigation to which it is willing to subject the subject. Every time it has been wrong".
  If I may respectfully say so, we hope that today's Conservative Party will follow that tradition of insisting upon the application of the rule of law and the equal protection of the law in relation to the Government's attempt to be bound by only one kind of racial duty not to discriminate, rather than by both kinds.
  On 22nd December the Minister sent me a letter explaining Home Office thinking, copies of which he has placed in the Library. I am grateful that the Minister has met me, as has the Home Secretary, and that he has met others also. The Home Office letter deserves to be quoted extensively. Since I am sure that the Minister would want to do so in his reply, I shall save him the trouble by referring to it now and commenting upon it. The letter begins by observing that the new provision in the Bill,
  "will cover a much broader range of functions such as law enforcement, regulation and social and economic policies".
  That is, of course, correct and is a welcome extension, but as it stands it goes no further than a minimalist view of what the common law anyway requires—that Ministers should not exercise their powers in an unfairly discriminatory manner.
  The letter continues:
  "Indirect discrimination as an approach does not fit well".
  To explain this curious assertion, the letter gives law enforcement as a case in point, taking the example of stop and search. I quote:
  "where there is no particular requirement or condition imposed upon an individual being stopped and searched and at least no requirement that cannot be complied with".
  That may very well be true, in which case the police would not be affected in their operational activities by being obliged to comply with the duty not to discriminate indirectly against ethnic minorities. However, it is not difficult to imagine other situations where there might be indirect discrimination which requires to be justified; for example, if police reasons for refusing bail were based on satisfying requirements or conditions that inadvertently hit at members of a particular ethnic group.
  The fact that such situations will be rare is not a justification for applying Section 1(1)(b), as at present, only when the police are giving assistance to the public, as distinct from when pursuing and arresting or charging suspected criminals, or making representations about bail. A point already made by

  549
  the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, in relation to the police's own attitude is that, in performing their vital role in detecting crime and keeping the public peace, it would not hamper the police to be subject to the full provisions of the Race Relations Act, as the Machperson report recommended. Indeed, police authorities across the country are already taking steps to eliminate any racial discrimination, direct or indirect, from their practices and procedures. They recognise the need to do so for the sake of having the confidence of the whole community. If they are alleged to have discriminated indirectly, the police will have a complete defence if they can show that their practices and rules are justifiable.
  The Home Office letter continues:
  "Nor does this approach fit well in relation to policy implementation (as distinguished from the provision of 'services' which is covered)".
  It goes on:
  "Any policy or practice of a public authority which imposed a requirement or condition on an individual and which had a differential impact on different racial groups could be challenged in the courts and would be unlawful unless it were justified".
  We do not understand the principle upon which one can properly distinguish between what constitutes "policy implementation" and what constitutes the provision of "services" to the public. Surely the touchstone is, or ought to be, whether a Minister, a government department or any other part of the public services applies a requirement or condition which disproportionately hits at members of a particular racial group and cannot be justified. If banks or building societies were to impose such a requirement as a condition of obtaining credit or a mortgage, they would have to justify their rule or practice under Section 20 read with Section 1(1)(b) of the Act. We do not understand why the Government should not be under exactly the same duty to justify an indirectly discriminatory rule or practice; for example, in relation to government funding of regional or community projects, hospital closures, immigration, nationality, or Customs and Excise rules and practices.
  It should make no difference if the indirect discrimination is caused by "policy implementation" or the provision of "services" to the public, especially, if I may say so, because the Government are elected to be the servants rather than the masters of the people. By making the Government and the public service subject to the full force of the Race Relations Act, Parliament would provide the necessary sanction to encourage public authorities to review outmoded and unfair practices and rules. Surely that is in the interests of good government and sound public administration.
  The Home Office letter continues:
  "This could potentially include any age-based policy, because a high proportion of the ethnic minority population is young, and any requirement based on geographic location because of the different regional spread of racial groups for example. Not least challenges could be mounted to those policies, programmes and practices that are helping ethnic minority communities the most. The courts would be in the position of having to decide whether a policy was justified or not".
  But surely if a government policy resulted in the imposition of an age requirement or a geographical requirement, the Government should not impose such a requirement if it cannot be justified. The role of the courts in having to decide whether such a requirement was justifiable, irrespective of colour or race, is the necessary consequence of a decision taken a quarter of a century ago by Parliament to make unlawful indirect as well as direct discrimination. Ministers and government departments surely should not be above the law. The citizen should be entitled to the equal protection of the law, to equal access to justice and to an effective remedy in relation to government-imposed practices and rules which operate unfairly in their impact on ethnic minorities.
  As for the point which the Home Office makes about potential challenges to policies, programmes and practices that are helping ethnic minority communities the most, we shall deal with that in a later amendment so as to permit public authorities to take proportionate and necessary measures to ensure that the special needs of racial groups are met.
  The Home Office letter concludes (and your Lordships will be happy to know that so, almost, do I!):
  "Overall, therefore, the Government's preferred approach is to prohibit direct discrimination in the functions newly caught by the Act, to retain the flexibility to pursue policies and to oblige public authorities to promote equality in order to eliminate any unjustifiable indirect discrimination".
  The Government's acceptance of the need to impose a positive duty on public authorities to promote equality and eliminate indirect, as well as direct, discrimination is welcome and much needed. It will be addressed by a later amendment. However, such a duty will not provide the individual victim with a remedy for the detriment suffered as a result of a government-imposed practice or rule which is indirectly discriminatory. The Government wish to retain flexibility in pursuing their policies, as we all do in our own spheres of activity. But the pursuit of flexibility cannot be at the expense of justice and fairness and the provision of effective redress to the victim.
  We do not understand why a Government who introduced the Human Rights Act and claim credit for extending the Race Relations Act to all public authorities should shrink at the prospect of having to justify their own practices and rules through the legal process before independent courts in order to avoid the unfair effects on ethnic minorities of their policies. We hope that the Government will find the necessary political will to accept that the constitutional principles of equal protection of the law, of equal access to justice and of the equal right to effective remedies should apply to government-imposed practices and rules that discriminate indirectly. We submit that the Government's immunity from liability under Section 1(1)(b) should be removed. I beg to move.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Patel: My name appears in support of the amendments related to Clause 1 and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and the other noble Lords whose names appear on the Marshalled List.
  I, too, am not a legal expert and therefore your Lordships will forgive me if my understanding of legislative aspects of the Bill are poor. In the main I want to address how the clause will affect those who work in the National Health Service, particularly in relation to indirect discrimination. I confine my comments in respect of Clause 1 to the provision concerning the inclusion of unjustifiable indirect discrimination; that is, leaving out lines 13 to 14 of page 1 of the Bill. Those lines omit the extension of Section 1(1)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976 to public authorities.
  When I speak of extending the indirect discrimination provisions of the 1976 Act to public authorities, I speak about unjustifiable indirect discrimination. If the clause is accepted and included in the Bill, our public authorities could still discriminate indirectly if they could justify the action in law. If they could not justify such action, they would be subject to legal challenge. Can it really be the intention of the Bill to allow the public authorities to continue to discriminate indirectly where there is no justification in law for such an action? Is it reasonable to allow the public authorities to continue to discriminate indirectly and unjustifiably, especially when it has been unlawful for the private sector to do so since the 1976 Act was passed? Surely it is the role of the Government and public bodies to lead the private sector by example.
  The Government have said that the inclusion of unjustifiable indirect discrimination in this Bill would prevent them implementing policies designed to meet the needs of particular groups; that the Government would be tangled in endless litigation over such issues that the floodgates would be opened to mendacious litigants. Surely, such arguments must have been used by opponents of the original Race Relations Act in the 1970s. Did the wheels of business and commerce grind to a halt? Has the private sector collapsed under the weight of mendacious litigants?
  There is nothing in the way in which the law works at present which prevents the development of such policies in the areas already covered by the Act so long as those policies are justified.
  Introducing an unjustifiable indirect discrimination provision into the new Bill would simply ensure that policy proposals are properly tested and finalised so that they meet the purposes for which they are designed. Far from entangling decision-making, such provision would help to establish the procedures and approaches needed to clarify the thinking of civil servants, Ministers and others responsible for the activities of public bodies and so provide for more focused and effective practices. That would certainly help those who work in the health service.
  552
  It goes without saying that if policies are properly focused, the justifications for the practices will be obvious and they will not be open to court challenges. However, if they are open to challenge, it will be because the policies are wrongly formulated and focused and will not, in practice, be meeting the aims which the policy-makers have set themselves.
  I understand that these amendments have the support of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Law Society and others and the British Medical Association.
  The intention of Clause 1 is to produce a clearer and more straightforward extension of the existing Race Relations Act which will place the emphasis on changing policy and practice rather than on litigation in relation to single acts of discrimination. Therefore, I believe that in time it will produce fewer rather than more litigious cases. The inclusion of provisions in respect of unjustifiable indirect discrimination has the effect of encouraging public bodies to review their practices in order to ensure that those practices meet most effectively the purposes for which that body was created.
  One example of how that has worked under the provisions of the present Act includes distinction awards for NHS consultants. The criteria used by the health service for giving distinction awards—which involve extra payments—to NHS consultants favoured certain medical specialties where ethnic minority doctors were less likely to be working compared with specialties where such doctors were likely to be found.
  After the Commission for Racial Equality informed the Department of Health that that was likely to be unjustifiable indirect discrimination, it was agreed that the balance favouring work of "national significance" as opposed to "outstanding contributions in a hard pressed post" in the selection criteria should be altered. The result is that medical excellence in vital specialties such as accident and emergency can now be properly rewarded not only for ethnic minorities but for all doctors, so encouraging better overall practice.
  Using that same approach, the inclusion of provisions on unjustifiable indirect discrimination in the standards of best practice backed by legislation and laid upon public bodies will be a useful tool in improving the quality of their work.
  I conclude by saying that yesterday I read a briefing from the Home Office entitled:
  "Race Relations (Amendment) Bill: concerns raised about indirect discrimination".
  The briefing quotes the key recommendation of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry which states that,
  "the full force of the Race Relations legislation should apply to all police officers".
  The briefing then goes on to assert boldly:
  "We are implementing this recommendation in full".
  Is that correct? The "full force" of the race relations legislation, to my mind, means the full force of the Race Relations Act 1976. That means that the

  553
  provisions relating to direct discrimination under Section 1(1)(a) and indirect discrimination under Section 1(1)(b) of the 1976 Act are applied.
  However, Section 198(2) of this Bill states that,
  "section 1 has effect with the omission of subsection (1)(b)".
  In effect that means that the reference to indirect discrimination as mentioned in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry is not included in the Bill.
  Therefore I hope that the Committee will support Clause 1 which will not only honour in full the recommendations of that inquiry but will also be helpful to those working in other public authorities and bodies such as the National Health Service.
  Lord Taylor of Warwick: Today's seed brings tomorrow's harvest and so in principle I welcome this Bill as an extension to the Race Relations Act 1976. I support the intention to make the police and other public authorities liable under the Act. But there is a problem. The Bill gives effect to only part of the recommendations of the Macpherson report on the Stephen Lawrence case. It will cover only direct discrimination and not the more significant indirect form.
  The first step to any victory is fully to recognise the enemy. This Bill does not do that. That is why I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Looking back can help us to see the future. Extending the law to tackle indirect discrimination was the great innovation when the 1976 Act was passed. That was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells. It reflected the growing recognition that it is the hidden, often unconscious kinds of discrimination which are the most insidious and widespread. By understanding the need to fight indirect discrimination, the Act gave enhanced powers of investigation to the Commission for Racial Equality.
  Let us not forget that the focus of the Macpherson report was on the prevalence of institutionalised racism which is more often indirect than direct. The abject failure to bring Stephen Lawrence's killers to justice stemmed from the attitudes and practices in investigating crime. The sadness is that it may well have formed a part in terms of investigating the cases of Michael Menson and Ricky Reel.
  The reason that this issue is so fundamental to this Bill and why I support the amendment is demonstrated by what Richard Stone, a member of the Macpherson inquiry said. He said:
  "We found no evidence of direct racism. What we did find was indirect racial discrimination".
  Unless indirect discrimination can be targeted, in my view the CRE will be unable to carry out the very type of investigation which the Macpherson report showed was needed. Indeed, the chairman of the commission, Sir Herman Ouseley, said that about the Bill. He said:
  "By leaving out indirect discrimination, what the Lawrence enquiry termed unwitting racism, we fear that it will increasingly weaken the ability of the CRE to help in tackling the very issue that the report highlighted".
  554
  Should we simply ignore those views? The commission, in particular, would be unable to launch investigations into disproportionate numbers of black people who are stopped and searched by the police.
  I understand it is claimed that some officers are now reluctant to stop and search people from ethnic minorities for fear of being accused of racism. However, the evidence shows that "stop and search" plays a minimal role in detecting crime. The actual rates of arrests—I stress the word "arrests"—of black people resulting from "stop and search" are significantly lower than those for their white counterparts.
  I want to make it absolutely clear that I support the police. They have the difficult job of protecting our communities. However, the facts suggest that there is a need for more effective scrutiny of such police powers. There can be no better demonstration of how matters can go wrong than when Neville Lawrence, Stephen's father, was recently mistakenly stopped and questioned by the police.
  Some say that it is easier to know how the shoe pinches if you wear it. A little while ago I decided to go for a training run at about 8 p.m. in the evening. After a few minutes a car pulled up behind me. As I looked round, all I could see were two headlights glaring in the dark. Then two uniformed police officers got out of the car and demanded to know where I was going. As far as I know it is not yet a criminal offence to go running, even though I was wearing an Aston Villa tracksuit! When I briefly explained that I was Lord Taylor of Warwick their attitude transformed instantly. The hostility and aggression was replaced by a rather flustered and faint apology. I believe that I and the officers concerned in that episode learned some lessons.
  The Macpherson report gave the police an opportunity for a new start and a new heart. There is a clear perception in the black and Asian communities that they are not treated fairly. The Bill in its present form will reinforce that feeling. Let us make race relations better, not bitter.
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Prashar: I beg to support the amendment on indirect discrimination moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I strongly support the arguments which he has advanced in support of that amendment.
  I was pleased to hear of the Government's decision to extend the scope of the Race Relations Act to public authorities, but was disappointed when I saw a serious flaw: the creation of an exception of indirect racial discrimination by public authorities, including the police.
  Given the nature of the function of public authorities, it is vital that they are brought within the full scope of the race discrimination legislation. As someone who has been involved, over a number of years, in trying to tackle institutional discrimination, I believe that the actual concept of discrimination is the

  555
  most important instrument in tackling institutional discrimination. I do not see why, 25 years on, public authorities should be above that particular law.
  Direct discrimination is relatively easy to identify and deal with, but we all know that practices and procedures which have a disproportionate adverse impact and which cannot be justified are not only difficult to identify but also help to perpetuate institutional discrimination and inequality. If we as a society are resolutely committed to eliminating unjustified discrimination and making equality of opportunity a reality, I believe it is imperative that indirect discrimination by public authorities is brought within the scope of the legislation.
  By making public authorities subject to the full force of the legislation, Parliament would do two things. First, it would encourage public authorities to review their practices, procedures and rules which may be discriminatory. Secondly, it would enable the Commission for Racial Equality to use a strategic law enforcement power to tackle indirect discrimination in key public sector functions and to challenge discriminatory institutional practices. That would be an effective illustration of our true commitment to eradicating discrimination.
  I have thought long and hard but there does not appear to be a justifiable reason for not bringing public authorities within the full scope of the legislation. Indeed, the reasons put forward, which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, quoted from the letter from the Home Office, are not convincing. It is argued that any policy or practice of a public authority which imposed a requirement or condition on an individual and which had a differential impact on different racial groups could be challenged in the courts and would he unlawful unless it were justified. The key issue is whether a rule or practice can be justified. Currently, as we have heard, the private sector is bound by the legislation. I see no reason why the Government and public bodies should not be under the same duty.
  The Earl of Onslow: I also rise in support of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. We have returned to the point of equality for all. As I said in relation to the previous amendment, we cannot expect ethnic minorities to be loyal subjects of the Crown if the Crown is entitled to discriminate against them. To introduce the concept of indirect racial discrimination may be nit-picking, but if we accept that it is necessary to abolish that by statute, it is absolutely pointless to say that. British Airways cannot do it but that the police and social services can. It is totally pointless to expect ethnic minorities to be loyal subjects of the Crown if they are not given equal opportunities in the Grenadiers or the Lifeguards. It is as simple as that. I am arguing from the old-fashioned, high-Tory point of view. I believe that the Crown should be subject to the law in the same way as everybody else.
  I turn to a point made by my noble friend Lord Taylor, although I am not sure where it takes us. A couple of years ago I was stopped at Aldgate East tube station. Although I had a perfectly valid ticket, there was an argument with a bone-headed ticket inspector,
  556
  who was white, and two heavies were standing there who later turned out to be plain-clothes plod. I promise you that they were just as rude to me as the police were to my noble friend Lord Taylor. When I told them who I was their reaction was exactly the same. A lot of what appears at first sight to be police discrimination is just crass police insensitivity and incompetence. Unfortunately, if one is in a slightly privileged social position, as both my noble friend and I are, they start to make different noises. I am not sure whether that statement defends the police or criticises them from another angle, but I am afraid that there is an element of insensitivity among the police at the moment.
  If on that occasion I had been a black person—my great-great-great-grandmother was—I would immediately have accused those policemen of racial harassment, but they were just being extraordinarily insensitive, ill-mannered and incompetent. I concede that it was an isolated incident, but my main point is that we must support the equality of everybody to carry out non-discriminatory practices. I thought that the matter was first settled by Charles I, and, if not by him, that it was settled in the reign of William III. We should continue with those principles. I say that from a high-Tory point of view.
  Baroness Whitaker: I would be grateful if the points that I made earlier, about respect for the police's views in favour of including discrimination in the scope of the Bill, could be associated with the debate on this amendment. Anxiety was expressed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary when he spoke to us yesterday, that if indirect discrimination on the part of a public authority were included in the scope of the Bill, government policy would be subject to decisions of the courts. I sympathise, as a former civil servant. It would indeed be odd for the policies of an elected government to be treated in that way by appointed judges. But when we look practically at what might happen, my noble friend the Minister can be reassured that it would not be the policy of the departmental Minister which would be in the dock; it would be the nature of its implementation, in particular whether or not that implementation involved unjustifiable discrimination. That is not the same as second-guessing the policy of the elected government and therefore we can rest on that part of the amendment.
  Earl Russell: The concept of indirect discrimination was summarised clearly by Oscar Wilde: one such accident might happen to anyone; but two savours of carelessness.
  Here we come to the pertinent question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. Is it simply crass and incompetent policing or is it indirect discrimination? That is a question that must be put to a statistical test. If one part of the population is far more at risk of meeting incompetent and crass policemen than another part of the population, that, in practice, amounts to indirect discrimination.

  557
  Anyone who dies in police custody may be suspected to have met, at the best, crass and incompetent policemen. But the fact that people who are black are five times as likely to die in police custody as people who are white, must create at least a suspicion that there may be indirect discrimination involved. A person who is stopped and searched may simply be stopped and searched by misfortune or at random. But a couple of years ago—though I believe the figures are now a little better—one was seven times as likely to be stopped and searched in London if one was black than if one was white. That again must at least suggest the possibility of indirect discrimination.
  The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, referred to the stopping last week of Mr Neville Lawrence. Mr Lawrence made what I thought was an extremely sensible and level-headed comment on that. He said, "If the police had a description of a suspect at least vaguely matching my appearance, fair enough. If not, I would be rather worried". That seems to me to go to the heart of the whole issue.
  We in this House are in a peculiarly good position to comment on this matter. The central evil here is police stereotyping. I rise as the third noble Lord in succession who has a story about having been stopped by the police. I was driving David Starkey home after agreeing marks on exam papers, driving through the back end of Islington rather slowly because I did not know the way. I was stopped by the police who clearly suspected we were on a drugs run. They asked me my name and address. I said, "My name is Russell and I live in Kilburn". It did not appear to reassure them. Then David Starkey, with his very highest moral tone, said, "This is Professor Russell; Professor the Earl Russell, and he is driving me home"; and the police reacted precisely as they did with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick. But I mean no more disrespect to the other two noble Lords than I do to myself when I say that Earls are no more incapable of crime than other men; even on past history Earls Russell are no more incapable of crime than other men.
  That sort of stereotyping leads police away from making judgments on the particular facts of the case. We see one side of the coin; they see the other. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, had the extremely interesting experience of seeing both sides of the coin at once. My point is that this is a bad coin; that this sort of stereotyping leads people away from evidence. If legislation can induce police to consider people as individuals and not simply as members of a category, whether favoured or disfavoured, that will be to our advantage.
  I wish to make just one more point before I sit down. It is extremely dangerous in any body politic to have the idea getting around that the police, or indeed any other public authority, represent one part of the community at the expense of the other. That tends to bring enforcement of law into disrepute and makes keeping the peace difficult. I shall not go on about that point; it will be before us a good deal when we come to consider the Patten report on Northern Ireland. I do
  558
  not want to have those problems either on the mainland or in London. By accepting this amendment, we will do something very much needed to avoid them.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Desai: I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Let me reflect, first, on what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, both in the first debate and just now.
  It is important that an absolutely unambiguous commitment be made of no discrimination—no "ifs", no "buts", no exceptions. In 1858 when the East India Company was replaced by the Crown for the rule of India, there was a declaration by Queen Victoria. That was the first declaration which said, "I shall treat all my subjects alike, regardless of race"—she did not mention gender or ethnicity, but more or less said that.
  The power of that simple statement was such that Gandhi was able to defend the rights of indentured Indian labourers in South Africa—on the strength of that statement alone; that statement had the force of law. He was able to say, "As subjects of Her Majesty"—or His Majesty depending on the period in question—"the rights of indentured Indians are protected. They are the same as the rights of South Africans". That was because the declaration was unambiguous and did not include exceptions.
  I am sorry, but I do not understand why, when we have this great opportunity to amend race relations and when the public climate is willing to accept a radical step forward in race relations—as I said at Second Reading—the Government do not take a bold step forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, and define "public authorities" generally and not exclusively and by this amendment make indirect unjustifiable discrimination unlawful. What is important is the matter of climate. The case of Neville Lawrence received a lot of attention today. Now we know that his being stopped was unjustified—and everyone acknowledges that stopping black people in posh cars on the suspicion that no black man can have a posh car unless he is a drug dealer is no longer on—we all agree that that is not the way to treat citizens.
  In response to all noble Lords who were nabbed by the police, I feel it is sad that one has to say, "Do you know who I am? I am Lord Taylor", or "Earl Russell" or "Earl Onslow". One should not have to say that. One should be able to say, "What business is it of yours if I am running at night in my trainers?" One must change attitudes and say, "I am a civilian. I am free to walk round the streets at night and do not have to say, `Do you know who I am?". If we have to say who we are it means we are living in an undemocratic society. We should not have to say we have rights enshrined in law. It is important therefore that the whole point of unjustified discrimination be made absolutely clear.
  The Government make excuses, "We really wish it but they are radical changes and if we make them our policy might be challenged in a court of law". I hope that any policy can be challenged in a court of law. If it is not legal, it should be challenged in a court of law. The Government should have the confidence to design

  559
  their policy to pass the judgment of a court of law. That is the least ore should expect. I hope that they do not have any other policies which are in defiance of the law but which we are not aware of because they have not been challenged.
  The idea that policies are sacrosanct and should be protected from the judgment of courts of law is rubbish. That is all I can say. I am not convinced by the Home Office briefing on this matter. It appears to comprise many excuses. The Government do not need to have these excuses; they need to make a simple, bold commitment to outlaw unjustified indirect discrimination. Therefore I support the amendment.
  Lord Avebury: It is remarkable how many Members of the Committee are able to recount personal experiences of detention by the police. I hope that I may be allowed to recount a personal experience when I did not tell the police who I was. Some years ago I happened to be passing the Aeroflot offices in Piccadilly when a demonstration was being held by refuseniks. Jews from the Soviet Union were demonstrating against the policy of the then Soviet government to deny them permission to leave the country.
  I did not take part in the demonstration. I had left a meeting in the neighbourhood and was a casual passer-by. A person stopped me to hand me a leaflet explaining the objectives of the demonstrators. I was reading the document when a policeman came along and said, "Move". I replied, "Excuse me but I am speaking to this lady and I am reading the paper that she has given me''. The policeman said, "No you are not, you are causing an obstruction and I shall arrest you if you do not move instantly". I said, "Carry on if that is how you feel". He then gripped me by the arm, twisted it round my back, bundled me into a police car and took me to Vine Street Police Station. As the officer dug his nails into my wrist and caused me a considerable amount of pain, I asked him for his number and told him that I intended to make a complaint against him at the police station under the terms of the Police Act 1964.
  I did not at any stage tell him who I was. I was in the process of writing down the number on a copy of the Evening Standard which lay beside me in the back of the van when the officer seized the biro from me so that I could not continue writing. When we entered the police station and I turned out my pockets the sergeant asked, "Is this all your property?" I replied, "No, because this officer has taken my biro". He said, "Yes, that is because I would not have you stab me with it like you were trying to". I quote those words which were given in the subsequent court case when I was charged with obstruction.
  I tell this story to indicate how the police behave when they do not know who one is. I turned to a young black person in Vine Street Police Station and said, "You can see how they treat someone who is dressed in a suit with an umbrella and a briefcase. I can well imagine that people in your position get much worse treatment than I have experienced". I am afraid that there are bad elements in the police who need to be
  560
  curbed and who will not be satisfactorily contained if the Bill proceeds without the provision of adequate measures to deal with indirect discrimination.
  I wish to make a further point about this matter which was not dealt with by the Minister when I raised it at Second Reading; namely, the experience of gypsies. My noble friend Earl Russell said that if one section of the population is far more likely to be the victim of incompetent or crass policing than another, they need protection. Whatever has been said about black people applies equally to gypsies in this country. In the Second Reading debate I gave certain examples of action taken by the police of an excessive nature against the gypsy community; namely, large numbers of police officers who attended a wedding and another case whereby 200 officers descended on a site in north Oxfordshire imprisoning all the residents for the whole of a day while a search was carried out, thereby preventing the children from going to school and residents from visiting the doctor. As I understand it, no charges were subsequently brought against anyone on that site.
  It is a matter of common experience that the police use excessive manpower and resources in attempting to combat supposed crime among the gypsy community because of the prejudices which exist against those people. I think that that is undeniable. If the Bill proceeds in its present form, there will be no remedy for people in this situation because in an individual case they cannot prove that the police have exercised discrimination. That can emerge only from a general survey of police behaviour in relation to gypsies. I believe that would clearly indicate that gypsies are receiving the wrong end of the stick. I hope that in considering what happens to black communities we shall give adequate thought to the position of gypsies who comprise the most deprived section of any ethnic minority in our community.
  Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: I did not intend to speak in this debate but I have listened to attacks on the police.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: They are attacks. They make it sound as if we live in a police state. We have heard incidents recounted by Members on all sides of the Committee. They are quite right to recount those incidents if they have occurred. However, I am worried that police officers who read this debate may think that a sweeping generalisation has been made. We are talking about stereotyping, but it sounds as if there has been some stereotyping of the police. The Committee should appreciate that the vast majority of police officers carry out their functions in the proper

  561
  manner. The incidents that have been recounted are exceptions rather than the rule. Having listened to the various incidents that have been recounted—
  The Earl of Onslow: Will the noble Lord give way?
  Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: I should like to finish—
  The Earl of Onslow: I agree with the noble Lord.
  Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: I am grateful for that. It is important to state that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides some guidance to police officers in relation to stop and search. This issue has been raised time and time again. The guidance states that the police have a right, and in fact a duty, to question anyone about a crime that has been committed and the citizen has a duty to help the police in the course of their inquiries. If we give police officers the impression that the Committee does not agree with that statutory provision, whether or not one wishes to do so one will deter police officers from carrying out their duty.
  I have been stopped by the police on several occasions and I did not say who I was. Obviously if I had been mistreated or dealt with in an incorrect manner they would soon have found out who I was. That occurred when I was a serving police officer. Therefore Members of the Committee should not run away with the idea that they are being picked on and discriminated against. The police are doing their job. One must remember that the "Yorkshire Ripper", Peter Sutcliffe, was arrested as a direct result of being checked in the back of a car with probably his next victim. That was simply a routine check. It was not a search; a stop and search is a different matter. We are simply talking about stopping someone in the street and questioning him or her about an offence, or a suspected offence. If ever the police stop doing that, I am afraid that Members of this Chamber would suffer and the community would also suffer because there would be a massive increase in crime.
  When Members of the Committee attack the police in the way they have done, they should try to remember that they are talking about a minority of police officers. The police are drawn from all sectors of society. Police recruits may include racists and people who act in a crass way. I believe that part of the problem is that police officers often deal with angry members of the public and are often in conflict with the community for various reasons. I suppose that that wears down police officers and perhaps they are not always as civil as they might be. I believe that much of the problem is due to insensitivity rather than to positive discrimination in the way that the Committee has described. I mention that simply because I feel that we have heard a totally unbalanced account of incidents. People outside who read the debate may well think that your Lordships feel that the police service is not doing its job. There is a danger in putting that message across. I rest my case.
  5 p.m.
  The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may remind him that I specifically said that I quite accept this was an isolated case. I think the noble Lord will find that remark was read into Hansard. Like him, I have also been stopped by the police—perfectly legitimately—and treated with complete and utter respect.
  Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: I am grateful for that intervention. I simply say that it might have helped if the noble Earl had mentioned that in his main address.
  Baroness Lockwood: I, too, had not—
  Earl Russell: Also before the noble Lord sits down—if the noble Baroness will forgive me—I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, said what he did. For the purposes of the record, I said that some Peers may be criminals; I did not intend that as an attack on the Peers. Some police may be; I do not intend that as an attack on the police. I think most of them do an excellent job. But all of us have to do some adjusting to the fact that we now live in a multi-racial society, the police just like all the rest of us.
  Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: I am grateful for that. I shall finish by saying that I do not want to give noble Lords the impression that I am simply being defensive. I am not. I agree with everything that has been said. I am the first to criticise crass police actions in any respect. I spent my life, from a PC right up to chief superintendent, doing just that and trying to correct officers who had perhaps gone off the rails. I was worried that it sounded like a very one-sided argument. I was trying to correct that and to bring some balance to the debate. I am grateful for your Lordships' comments.
  Baroness Lockwood: Like my noble friend Lord Mackenzie, I had not intended to speak. I start by saying that the debate is not about the police but about the inclusion of the concept of indirect discrimination in the Bill, in particular in relation to public services and public authorities.
  I must say to my noble friend the Minister that I was very disappointed to read the Home Office brief on this matter. Although accepting the many good things that the Home Office intends to do to try to combat racism—as distinct from including the concept of indirect discrimination within the Bill—I do not think that that will be sufficient.
  My experience is based on the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the establishment of the Equal Opportunities Commission, of which I was the founder chair. A section of that Act puts responsibility on local education authorities to provide equality in the provision of education services. That has not prevented cases of discrimination against local authorities. So the declaration itself is not enough.

  563
  We need the concept of indirect discrimination within the Bill, for two reasons. The first is that, in my experience, indirect discrimination is really the key to discrimination. When the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was passed, we thought that we had a great deal of knowledge and experience of discrimination. It was not until we tried to interpret that Act that we began to find out what it was about.
  In the course of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, gave an example of what he thought could be possible indirect discrimination, and the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Taylor, have given their interpretations of situations where they feel that indirect discrimination has applied. In my experience, it is impossible to foretell the circumstances that will produce indirect discrimination. It is for that reason that we need the concept within the Bill.
  The very first ca se under the Sex Discrimination Act talked about an age limit. I must confess that as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission—as I was at that time—I was not at all sure that an age bar was indirectly discriminatory against women. It was not until we became involved in the case and began to argue all the implications that the principle of indirect discrimination was fully appreciated.
  Once this Bill becomes an Act and is on the statute book, we will begin to see new aspects of indirect discrimination. The Government cannot possibly foretell every circumstance and make provision in advance for them. So that is one reason why I feel that the Government should have second thoughts about the Bill and should accept the amendment.
  The second reason is that we should have some cohesion in the law. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated, there will be conflicting circumstances under different Acts. When the Race Relations Act 1976 was passed, it was in many ways almost a replica of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975; in other words, there was an attempt to establish a common code that could be applied to discrimination.
  Since 1976 we have moved on. We understand our obligations under European law and we have incorporated the convention on human rights into our domestic legislation. It is important that the various Acts of Parliament should all speak with the same voice so that there is no conflict between them. Therefore, from the point of view of cohesion of the law and a better understanding of one's situation under different laws, again it is important to incorporate this concept into the Bill. I appeal to my noble friend the Minister to make very strong representations to his colleagues to accept the amendment.
  Viscount Colville of Culross: I am happy to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, back to the more general principles with which the amendment is concerned. I wish to pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the international dimension. In March of this year the United Kingdom Government will appear in front of the Human Rights Committee in New York to deliver their report on the
  564
  situation of human rights, under the international covenant on civil and political rights, in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. This Bill, of course, has nothing to do with that. But the proposed presentation— which has already been presented on paper—goes through the legislation that has been passed since the last occasion when the United Kingdom's position was examined. Very soon the United Kingdom delegation will be dealing with the position of the United Kingdom as a whole. I am sure that on that occasion it will wish to bring up to date the situation in relation to human rights under the covenant so far as they are enjoyed by all the people who are under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government. No doubt there will be a wish to discuss the Bill, which I think by then will be an Act.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is quite right to say that there is a right not to suffer discrimination. That is stated in Article 2 of the convention and is repeated in Article 26. From what I have heard of the arguments being put forward by the Home Office in defence of the Bill as it stands, I must tell the House that I do not believe that the Human Rights Committee will understand for one moment the distinctions and minutiae being put forward to justify the position currently taken by the Government.
  Of course, I would never take part in the consideration of a presentation being made by the United Kingdom Government, but by this time I do know how my colleagues will think. I believe that one result of this legislation will be that on this occasion the United Kingdom Government find that they are severely criticised for breaches of the convention as a result of the way in which this legislation has been drafted. I cannot believe that that position is one in which the Government wish to find themselves. Furthermore, it is certainly not one I would rejoice to see. I hope that the time for turning back is still with us and that this may be the opportunity to do so.
  Lord Peston: The intervention of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was cogent. We can all agree with his comments. I do not normally address noble Lords on topics of this kind. However, I do so today not because I have any legal expertise, but as a matter of moral obligation. The moral dimension has not been mentioned, but I feel a strong sense of what may be called the immorality of what permeates our society in this area. The main element that has prompted me to speak is my reading of the Macpherson report. I do not have the literary skills to express the horror I felt as I read what was being described in page after page of that report.
  While I accept entirely that this issue does not concern only the Metropolitan Police—I shall return to exactly what it does concern—a central feature of the report was the behaviour of some Metropolitan policemen and no one has sought to deny the general proposition that more of that kind of behaviour occurred than that attributed to a tiny minority in the report. I do not accuse the police in general. But no one reading the report could assume that what occurred was an oddity. Rather, the report describes a

  565
  characteristic mode of behaviour, one that appalled all those who read the report. Were I a parent of Stephen Lawrence I would still be screaming out for justice. Furthermore, I still suffer terribly, as do they and others, from the injustice of the thought that the killers are still at large and have not yet been brought to justice. For those reasons, I approach this matter with a certain degree of bias, but I believe that bias to be justifiable.
  However, I do not wish to single out the Metropolitan Police. I believe that the phenomenon we are discussing permeates the whole of our society. I believe that institutional racism exists in all kinds of places. One is ashamed to have to admit that that is the case. As an academic, I have to say that I believe strongly that institutional racism exists in our universities. Equally, discrimination of a religious and sexual nature exists widely; is not limited to the police. Listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who mentioned the NHS, I remembered that when I was a young man the Jewish boys at my school had to change their names in order even to secure an interview at a medical school. You simply could not even get to the starting point of applying to medical school with a Jewish name. Boys who were called Cohen changed their names to Conn while those named Levi became Lefford. That was religious rather than race discrimination. But that is merely to argue a technicality. For that reason, any idea that, first, discrimination is new, or, secondly, that it is limited, is wrong. Equally, today we are not discussing sex discrimination. But the scale of sex discrimination in our society still appals me.
  The essence of this issue is indirect discrimination. That is why my noble friend and his colleagues at the Home Office have got it completely wrong. No one says, "We are not going to hire any blacks", or "Jews need not apply", although I might add that at one time that was exactly what was said. However, indirect discrimination is central to the matter and institutional racism informs the culture of many places. Years ago I carried out some work on the economics of immigration in a book that became quite important in its day. In my research I found many firms who did not employ black people. However, when asked, they did not respond that they had a policy of not employing black people. Rather, they said, "But these are our criteria and it just happens that no blacks have ever met them." That illustrates exactly the problem we face; namely, indirect discrimination.
  The lack of promotion of women in universities does not mean that anyone says, "We are not going to promote women here". Instead, it is said that, "These are our criteria and it is rotten luck that rather few women meet them." So my point reflects precisely that made by my noble friend Lady Lockwood and many other speakers today; namely, that, with respect to the Minister, not unusually the Home Office has got it exactly wrong. It claims to be outlawing the practice of direct discrimination. That does not need to be specifically outlawed because the case is obvious. The precise problem is indirect discrimination and how to
  566
  ensure that public authorities should not have any chance to wriggle out of responsibility for such behaviour.
  I am led to the same conclusion as that of many speakers today. The Minister must think again and return with something better than what we are being asked to accept today. It is always with a heavy heart that I utter any word of criticism of my noble friends on the Front Bench. However, in this case I believe that we all have a moral obligation to say that this will not do.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: It has become clear over the past hour and a half that this amendment epitomizes the important and widespread criticism of the Bill both within this Chamber and by those bodies outside who have studied the Bill. The case for the amendment was clearly made not only by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but also by all those who have spoken in the course of the debate. The Government have argued that to extend the Bill to cover indirect discrimination might interfere both with policy making and policy execution. As regards policy making, as others have already pointed out, any policy that has a proper validity for helping those who are disadvantaged in some way—the unemployed; the young; ethnic minorities and so forth—would not fall foul of this legislation because, for example, there were more ethnic minority people in a particular geographic area, or whatever criteria were chosen on which to base the policy. I do not believe that to be a strong argument.
  Those of us who have represented constituencies or who have been elected to local authorities know that, when fielding complaints from the public at Saturday morning surgeries, some people jump to conclusions as to why, from their point of view, a wrong decision has been taken or a wrong conclusion reached by an authority. For example, in planning matters it was an absolutely normal experience for people to say that the council had ignored what they said. Those people did not mean that, because the council may have studied their representations extremely thoroughly. What they meant was that the council did not agree with them. If the council happened to change its mind, there was always someone on the other side. All kinds of conspiracies are attached to a wrong decision on someone's part. However, that is not sufficient justification for saying that the Bill should not cover policy-making. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, the greater difficulty lies in the implementation of the policy.
  There has been particular reflection on the police. The whole Bill stems in part from the Lawrence case and the Macpherson inquiry. I welcomed the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie. The debate might otherwise have tended to give the wrong impression of the Committee's view of police behaviour. I do not know whether we shall hear any reminiscences from the Minister regarding any brushes that he may have had with the police force at an earlier stage in his life. I do not propose to go down that road myself.

  567
  The Metropolitan Police, and particularly its leadership, are doing a great deal to tackle the issue of stop-and-search. No one wants to make it more difficult for them. For those who want to look into the matter in more detail I recommend the report published yesterday by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary on, among other matters, race and stop-and-search in the Metropolitan Police. The report points out the difficulties with the figures—flowing in part from the fact that the population of the streets of London is not the same as the residents of London. There are a large number of visitors. That distorts the figures and makes them difficult to read. The report makes clear the efforts of the Metropolitan Police and the ways in which they are attempting to tackle the problem and, indeed, succeeding to a considerable degree, with the assistance of the Commission for Racial Equality, which has been involved in a Metropolitan Police working party on the subject for five years or more, and other bodies. No one wants the police to become less effective against crime.
  One of the worrying points emerging from the report is that some police are now not using the power to stop and search at all for fear of disciplinary action and the possible consequences. That is partly to do with changes in the disciplinary code, which have made it slightly easier for those involved to lose their jobs. That point must be borne in mind.
  To return to the main point of the amendment, indirect discrimination is covered by the European Convention on Human Rights, the common law, and the United Nations conventions referred to by the noble Viscount. So in a way the only questions being decided by the amendment are: which judicial forum will be the relevant one to decide these matters; and on what basis? Is it to be decided within the United Kingdom by Ministers answerable to Parliament in the traditional way; or is it to be decided by United Kingdom judges applying the legal process?
  Whichever of those two routes is chosen in the United Kingdom in regard to indirect discrimination, the ECHR and the United Nations conventions will still apply. So judicial processes overseas will follow in any case. That is the nub of the choice that the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, are asking us to make. This has been a most interesting debate. My conclusion is that if the Government want to persevere with the clause in its present form, they must make a much better case than they have so far.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The debate has indeed been interesting and stimulating. I have followed the comments with great interest. I was rather tempted to bring up my own stop-and-search anecdote but am reluctant to enter into that field, except to say that it is such a long time since I was stopped that, if the police ever did stop me and I were to venture that I was the Lord Bassam, I should probably be arrested on the spot for impersonation rather than any other reason.
  The issues touched on by many noble Lords are extremely important. I enjoyed all the contributions in different ways. Some were entertaining, others
  568
  illuminating. They were undoubtedly thought-provoking, particularly in the context of remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the concluding comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
  The amendment presents some difficulties for the Government. We are willing in spirit. We are fully committed to our historic role of introducing fairness and justice in the whole field of race relations. That is a long, important and noble part of the Labour tradition. It was a Labour government that broke the ground in this area more than a quarter of a century ago, guided and aided by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the proposals were ably advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
  The amendment as drafted would have the effect of making indirect discrimination by a public authority unlawful under new Section 19B of the Bill. Perversely, it would not catch most law enforcement functions, but would catch government regulatory social and economic policies, leaving them open to challenge and uncertain consequences. The Government believe that in those functions a more positive approach would be to require public authorities to promote equality. I believe that there is consensus on that issue.
  The Government fully support the principle of indirect discrimination where appropriate. Indirect discrimination occurs when a requirement or condition which, although applied equally to people of different racial groups, has the effect that the proportion of a racial group that can comply is considerably smaller than that of another racial group that can comply. Such a requirement or condition is unlawful only if it cannot be justified irrespective of colour, race, nationality or national origin and if it is detrimental to the claimant who cannot comply.
  Indirect discrimination applies in the fields already covered by the Race Relations Act: employment, education, and the provision of goods, facilities and services. Some contributors to the debate have rather ignored the fact that the provisions already exist, in part, in law relating to those practical areas of policy. The Act already applies to the public sector and private sector alike in those areas, including the police. We should not forget that important point.
  The protection is essentially in respect of things that ethnic minorities may want but might be denied by an unjustifiable requirement or condition. For example, an unnecessary height requirement on individuals seeking a job could easily exclude certain groups of ethnic minorities from employment. A requirement such as an address in a particular locality could easily exclude ethnic minorities from access to services and so on. Such requirements or conditions would be unlawful unless they could be justified.
  The acts of public authorities to which the new provisions will apply fall within a much broader range of functions, such as law enforcement, regulation and social and economic policies. Those are not of the same nature as those between an employer and an employee or a provider of services and a recipient of services. Case law has shown that to be the position. Moreover, indirect discrimination as an approach does not fit well with those functions.

  569
  Many Members of the Committee will by now be familiar with the reasons the Government believe that to be the case. The arguments were well aired on Second Reading and, as many have acknowledged, I have since written to all Members of the House setting out the Government's position for clarity and for the purpose of improving the quality of debate. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs and I have met many of your Lordships to discuss the issue at first hand. We have indicated that our minds are not closed, and I wish to reiterate that important point today.
  This Bill has its origins in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report. It implements recommendation 11 of that report. The inquiry found much evidence of racism within the police and there are many examples throughout the report of what the inquiry had in mind by this and what it wanted to see addressed. Interestingly, the inquiry found little evidence of overt racism.
  Conversely, the inquiry found a great deal of evidence of unwitting racism. Many noble Lords have given voice to this and quoted examples of police officers in their dealings with others—for example, showing lack of respect and sensitivity to an individual due to their race or colour; using unwitting racist language; displaying lack of understanding; showing ignorance or mistaken belief about others; using well intentioned but patronising words or actions; displaying unfamiliarity with behaviour or cultural traditions of people or families from ethnic minorities; under reporting of racist incidents; and, as many Members of the Committee mentioned, racial stereotyping black people as criminals or trouble makers, for which, I should emphasise, the inquiry partly blames the countrywide disparity in stop and search figures.
  All the examples of unwitting racism highlighted in the report are, we believe—and this is the important point to recall—direct discrimination, not indirect discrimination. Direct discrimination occurs under the Race Relations Act when, on racial grounds, a person treats another person less favourably than he or she treats or would treat other people. So a police officer who treats a member of the public unfavourably, whether wittingly or unwittingly, because of the colour of his or her skin is directly discriminating against that individual. A police officer who treats a member of the public unfavourably, whether wittingly or unwittingly, because he or she holds negative racial stereotypical views is directly discriminating against that individual. A police officer who treats a member of the public unfavourably, whether wittingly or unwittingly, in a patronising or disrespectful manner because he or she is from an ethnic minority group, is, we argue, directly discriminating against that individual.
  I will not persist with this listing as I am sure that I have by now underscored my point that the unwitting racism identified by the inquiry was unwitting direct discrimination. That is an important point to take into account in the debate.
  570
  I should say a little, however, about what the Government are doing to tackle the problem of unwitting racism in the police service. The inquiry made many helpful recommendations for doing that and the Government have set out how they are taking them forward in their action plan, published last March. My letter of 5th January to all Peers gave the main examples.
  In short, the police service's performance in tackling racism will be rigorously assessed by means of the new ministerial priority to increase trust and confidence in policing among minority ethnic communities. In 2000–2001, the number of ministerial priorities set for the police will be reduced from four to two, one of which will be the police service's performance in tackling racism. These priorities will be underpinned by performance indicators, the development of which is under way.
  New discipline procedures will now apply. In particular the civil standard of proof has been introduced for discipline cases and there are now formal procedures in legislation for dealing with unsatisfactory performance. Targets have been set and agreed for the recruitment, retention and progression of ethnic minority officers and the dismantling barriers action plan was prepared to help the service achieve those targets. The action plan includes a commitment to review the whole of the recruitment process and to remove any discriminatory practices.
  I pause here to draw attention to the important report produced by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary yesterday, Winning Consent. That report, in large measure already accepted by the Metropolitan Police, is another part of our commitment at the time of the publication of the Macpherson report. It takes forward and tackles many of the issues in its recommendations. We see it as an important part of the package for tackling the issue within the police service.
  The Government have already made funding available under a "crime fighting fund" to recruit 5,000 frontline officers over and above the number forces would otherwise have recruited over the next three years. One of the five criteria for that fund is that forces should have agreed ethnic minority recruitment targets in place and to have work in hand to meet the targets set out in the dismantling barriers action plan.
  There is also a programme of community and race relations training under way in forces up and down the country using a specialist external contractor under a Home Office contract. This typically involves obtaining the perceptions of the local community on how the police are providing their services and facilitated sessions with members of minority ethnic communities. ACPO are also in the final stages of producing guidance to forces on dealing with hate crimes.
  A programme of research is being conducted on stop and search, including on recommendation 61 of the inquiry report that all stops and searches should be recorded and a copy of the record given to the person

  571
  stopped, to ensure that officers use the power fairly and effectively. That approach is beginning to affect performance.
  Members of the Committee will know that we believe that much of that is about culture and ethos. The problem of unwitting racism in the police is, therefore, being tackled on a number of fronts embracing those issues on the lines recommended by the inquiry report. Where the case can be helped by prohibiting indirect discrimination, we believe it is already provided for in the Act. As I explained earlier, indirect discrimination by the police is already covered in respect of their employment and where they provide a direct service, within the meaning of the Act, to the public. These are essentially things that individuals might want but may be denied by an unjustifiable requirement or condition. In terms of law enforcement, which case law has shown to be different from a "service", indirect discrimination does not fit.
  As in the case of stop and search, there is no particular requirement or condition imposed upon an individual being stopped and at least no requirement that cannot be complied with. In this instance, the law places the onus on the police officer to have reasonable suspicion or in order to stop and search an individual. A prohibition of indirect discrimination would not, therefore, catch such law enforcement activities, only direct discrimination would. Any disproportionality in the use of stop and search that is attributable to discrimination is due to the cumulative effects of direct discrimination.
  A prohibition of indirect discrimination would, however, catch the Government's regulatory and social and economic policy-making functions. Many of the Committee have focused their thinking and attention on that point.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I wish to ask a question because I do not understand the Government's position and would be grateful if he could answer it. Let us suppose that the police in one area were to refuse bail on the grounds that people had to be of fixed address or in continuous employment. The police were objecting to bail on that basis. Suppose that that hit disproportionately, let us say, at gypsies who do not have a fixed abode or steady employment, so that there was a requirement or condition as regards obtaining police bail that one should be able to satisfy and that could not be satisfied by gypsies. Would that not be an example of a kind of indirect discrimination? It would not be direct discrimination, because it would be applied equally to everyone in the formal sense. You have to be of fixed abode or in continuous employment to get bail. But it would hit disproportionately at gypsies and would require to be justified.
  What on earth is the distinction that the Government make between the police in an operational capacity and the police giving advice to the
  572
  public? In the latter sense they are covered by indirect discrimination but not in the operational sense. I do not understand the distinction.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord raises a valid consideration—there is no question about it. However, each case must be looked at on its merits. That, too, is an important point and it is hard to generalise from those instances to the particular. It may well be tantamount to a form of direct discrimination, but it will be determined around the circumstances of the case. It is an important point for the future.
  Some members of the Committee may ask: what is the problem with what the Government seek to do here? The problem, which I believe was touched on by my noble friend Lady Lockwood, is the unforeseen consequence that the incorporation of indirect discrimination may have for government in the pursuance of certain policies. We cannot predict every circumstance. It would be for the courts to decide whether any government policy with a requirement or condition that had a differential impact on different racial groups was justified. For example, age-based policies such as the New Deal for Young People, winter fuel payments to pensioners or regional or zone-based policies, such as employment and education action zones, could be open to potential challenge through the application of indirect discrimination. Inevitably, different proportions of people would fall within such policies according to racial or ethnic groups—even between ethnic minority groups themselves. Challenges could therefore be made on all sides.
  Earl Russell: The Minister suggested the possibility of a challenge under these provisions to winter fuel payments to pensioners. Would the noble Lord care to make an estimate of the statistical probability of such a challenge?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not a statistician and do not possess the infinite wisdom of the noble Earl. I am open to persuasion on that point, and no doubt the noble Earl can provide a fantastic statistical argument.
  It is here that we face a particular difficulty. We may face challenges from all sides. While the Government should be able robustly to defend their policies, they would be leaving those matters to be decided by the courts. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. Any government would question whether that was right and proper. Moreover, we would have to devote significant resources to the defence of our policies in a way with which the Bill was never intended to deal. Not least, challenges could be brought against policies that helped, aided and assisted ethnic minority communities the most. I do not believe that that is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and those who support him.
  Nevertheless, the Government accept that public authorities must ensure that their policies, programmes and practices take fully into account the needs of ethnic minorities. As to the functions to be

  573
  covered by Clause 19B, our preference is to achieve this in a positive way by obliging public authorities to promote equality. Our mind however is not closed to the matter of indirect discrimination. The Secretary of State for Home Affairs indicated as much when he and I met Peers as recently as yesterday in the Moses Room. We shall keep this matter very carefully under review.
  On the basis of the arguments this afternoon, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester—
  Lord Peston: Before my noble friend sits down, does he intend to deal with the international point which to me, as a layman, completely destroyed the position of the Government? I thought that my noble friend would provide some counter to that terribly important intervention, or would at least write to members of the Committee to explain it.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It was a very important intervention but it is not one that I wish to cover this afternoon. It is a matter to which I am happy to return, and no doubt we shall correspond on the issue.
  I intended to deal with one or two particular points raised by members of the Committee during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the treatment of gypsies by the police. If a person who falls within that category (if one uses that term) is treated by the police less favourably than another in the same circumstances on the grounds of his racial group, in the Government's view that is direct discrimination which is covered by the current legislation. That would be so if one was talking about the provision of services and in these new circumstances it would be covered by the legislation.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to religious discrimination in the context of Muslims. The Government are very aware of the concerns that have been expressed on this issue. A recent debate took place in this Chamber on the whole issue of religious discrimination. It is not our intention to cover that issue in this piece of legislation. That matter raises many difficult, sensitive and complex questions. As we made clear at the time of that debate, there is no quick fix solution. However, as most members of the Committee will be aware, we have commissioned research into this issue from the University of Derby which we intend to publish later in the year.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: As I recall, the debate to which the Minister refers was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. Is it not the case that the Government's defence to the charge that they should have introduced legislation to combat religious discrimination was that it was covered by the concept of indirect racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act? Therefore, since the Government have not introduced legislation to deal with religious discrimination, is it not correct that the only way in which British Muslims can be protected is by the
  574
  Government making themselves liable for indirect racial discrimination against members of that community?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord is in part right. But these matters are very complex and it is important to look separately at the issue of religious discrimination. I understood that that was the point to which the noble Lord alluded in his earlier comments.
  The debate has been wide ranging, and I have found it very stimulating. A number of important and telling points have been made during the course of the debate this afternoon in Committee. There is much for the Government to reflect upon. Our minds are not closed in this matter; it is something on which we wish to reflect. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Lester—my noble friend Lady Howells also made a very telling speech in this debate—to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We are grateful to the many members of the Committee who have taken part in a remarkable debate full of confessions, revelations as well as moral and legal principles. I have a confession to make. I have not been stopped by the police. No doubt that is a pleasure ahead of me. I recall that when I worked with the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination in the 1960s I was most indignant when Afro-Caribbean members said that they were not really concerned about employment or housing discrimination but their dealings with the police. In those days as a young barrister I thought it quite outrageous, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, that such a view should be so prevalent. I was wrong in those days.
  The amendment is not concerned mainly with the police. Many of the examples given by noble Lords have related to direct, not indirect, discrimination as far as concern the police because they have been about prejudice and stereo-typing. In that sense the Government are quite right. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, pointed out, it is very hard to tell the difference between direct and indirect discrimination, as any practitioner in the field knows. That is why complainants normally begin by making complaints of both direct and indirect discrimination. It is only when the facts are uncovered that one is able to tell which is which.
  I defy the Minister to explain to the Committee the difference between unwitting direct discrimination and unintentional indirect discrimination. I believe that I could pass the exam, but I bet that he and 99 per cent of the Members of this House could not. I can do so only because I have been arguing with Law Lords on the subject in several cases. It is about purpose, causation, impact and effect and all of those matters are mixed up together.
  I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is not still in his place as he was earlier in the debate. Some years ago I heard him ask the luckless Attorney-General of Mrs Thatcher's government whether in his view the maxim "think before you speak" was incompatible with good government. I

  575
  adapt the question then put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I ask the Minister and his colleagues: is the maxim "think before you act" incompatible with good government? The concept of indirect discrimination seeks to say to the Government that they should not just think about policy formulation but think before they implement that policy, about its effect on vulnerable groups and make sure that they have some justification.
  The Minister's main point is that it is inconvenient for the administration to have to answer for the effect of their policies in courts of law. No doubt that is true. No doubt power is delightful; no doubt absolute power would be absolutely delightful; no doubt, also, if there were no judicial review of public administration that would be most convenient for Ministers and civil servants. But, happily, we live under the rule of law and that includes the rule of international law.
  One of the most significant contributions was that of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. He, after all, is a member of the Human Rights Committee which polices the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I wrote to the noble Lord the Minister on 22nd December and said:
  "I look forward to receiving your letter answering the various points that I raised in the course of the Second Reading debate, including the Government's reasons for considering that the exclusion of the concept of indirect discrimination is compatible with the UK's obligations under international and EC law".
  Part of international law is the law of the covenant, of the Convention for the Elimination of Race Discrimination and of the European Human Rights Convention and, of course, part of European Community law. We have received no answer to that. I have dealt with it in the note I have placed in the Library. I do hope that we receive an answer because the Government have been given a solemn warning by a distinguished member of the Human Rights Committee. There are only 18 members. The Human Rights Committee is a most prestigious and important committee of eminent jurists. The British member has told the House today—we are the ones who have the international obligation to comply with the covenant, as do the Government—that in his view the argument put forward by the Minister for the Crown being above the law relating to indirect race discrimination is not compatible with Article 2 and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. How then can Ministers of the Crown come forward to this House with legislation unless they are satisfied to a proper standard that what they are doing, and advising the House to do, is compatible with our international human rights obligations?
  The paradox of the entire debate is that really we thought we had covered all this in 1976 in Section 20 of the Race Relations Act. This Government are apparently going backwards to before the decisions that were taken by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and his colleagues in the Wilson government. We are planning to go back behind that on the basis of what I think is a misconceived majority decision.
  576
  If I were to seek to test the opinion of the Committee now, I am confident on the basis of the speeches that have been made, if they were reflected in the Division Lobby, that there would be an overwhelming majority against the Government. But I am comforted by the Minister saying that the Government have an open mind. It is much better if we can resolve these questions amicably without the need to use that kind of voting force. I have heard nothing to suggest that the public administration would do other than benefit from the sunshine that comes when it has to justify its policies to an independent third party, the judiciary.
  I hope very much that everyone will reflect on the debate and on all the points that have been raised. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, can he give an undertaking that he will come back to this issue at the Report stage if the Government do not come up with something satisfactory?
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I certainly intend to do that, as I think is obvious from the tone of my withdrawal. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 not moved.]
  5.55 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 2, line 19, after ("Act") insert ("or is unlawful)) discriminatory under common law").
  The noble Lord said: I can be brief on this amendment. It is designed, for the avoidance of doubt, to make sure that nothing in the Act is intended to cut down the common law, the common law already having a clear principle that public authorities must not exercise their powers or perform their duties in a manner which is discriminatory.
  I have put down this amendment to seek reassurance from the Government on what is now known as a Pepper v. Hart statement. I would rather see this on the face of the Bill, and therefore of the Act, for the avoidance of any doubt. I have therefore put down the amendment to make quite clear that the Act does not intend in any way to cut down the common law of England with regard to equal treatment without discrimination. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: As there is now to be statute law on this subject, one instinctively starts from the assumption that the common law will be superseded. As I understand it, that is not likely to happen because, after all, even if the statute law takes over from the common law in some respects, it will not do so entirely and it does not eliminate the common law. If any parts do remain covered by the common law but not by this new statute they will still be able to form the basis of a court case. Obviously, the direct/indirect discrimination point is the big one as far as that is concerned. But there may be other elements where the same applies.

  577
  Given that it is justiciable in any case, it might be thought that it did not matter much whether it was justiciable under the common law or under this new statute. The important additional element of being covered by the statute is that the Commission for Racial Equality has a role which comes into play in the case of the possibility of unlawful discrimination under the statute. Therefore, it is not left to the rather more haphazard business of which cases come forward.
  I think it is clear that as the Bill is drafted, including the indirect and direct discrimination difference, some common law rights will remain and will not be overridden by this statute. It may be that it is the Government's intention that most of the common law in this respect should be overridden, but it is clear that it is not to be at the moment.
  Apart from the direct and indirect discrimination, I should like to know from the Minister whether there are any other common law rights which the Government think will remain of importance because in some particular they go further than the Bill does. But it is all subject—this point came out during the previous debate and at Second Reading—to the fact that we have international obligations which override all of these provisions. The common law will remain. It is only a question of the mechanism which remains and, particularly, whether the commission will be involved in all the parts of the discrimination which may come to court.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Government believe that nothing in Section 19B will interfere with discrimination in common law. To state on the face of the Bill, as the amendment would, that new Section 19B does not make lawful any unlawful discrimination under common law could have the reverse effect of what is intended by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. It could suggest that an act, if it is discriminatory under common law, is not unlawful under Section 19B and therefore no proceedings could be brought under Section 19B; a perverse effect, indeed.
  Section 53 of the Act preserves the right to bring judicial review proceedings for unlawful discrimination. In view of that and my earlier point, the Government do not agree with Amendment No. 8 and ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will in those terms withdraw it, principally because we believe that it does not have the effect that he intends it to have.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked a question which I am not in a position to answer. I shall read Hansard carefully on his point, and if it is not covered I shall write to him on that.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Lord sits down, is it common ground that nothing in the Bill is intended to cut down the common law principle of equal treatment without discrimination? If that is what he said—I think it is what he said—I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is our understanding and that is how we intend things to be.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am very grateful. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
  ("(9) Nothing in this section shall make unlawful any measures appropriate and necessary to meet the special needs of persons of a particular racial group or any measures designed to prevent or compensate for disadvantages suffered by persons of that racial group.").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment would permit public authorities to take proportionate measures—I emphasise "proportionate measures"—to ensure that the special needs of racial groups are met. It supplements the ability of public authorities to justify policies and schemes that are intended to benefit particular communities. Alongside Section 35 of the 1976 Act, which already has provision to meet the special needs of ethnic minorities, it makes the taking of additional or different action lawful where that is appropriate to meet the needs of a particular racial group. Its object is to achieve a non-colour blind approach by public authorities, as was strongly urged by the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Where special measures are targeted on grounds such as language, employment history, employment prospects or length of residence, that could constitute indirect discrimination, assuming that we succeed in amending the Bill to cover indirect discrimination. The amendment ensures that such measures will not be unlawful. It also reflects the European Commission's proposal for a greater equality directive. There are similar provisions in the New Zealand anti-discrimination legislation, in the Irish anti-discrimination legislation and in the South African constitutional guarantee of equality. We hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the amendment because one of the arguments they have used against including the concept of indirect discrimination is that it might fetter their ability to take positive action in favour of ethnic minorities. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that properly controlled and proportionate positive action can be taken. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am not clear why the amendment is required. The underlying legislation—the 1976 Act—allows for discrimination to remain lawful if there is a good reason for it—if one is trying to achieve something for which there is a perfectly valid reason other than being discriminatory purely on a racial basis.
  We all accept the need for policies designed to benefit particular sections of the community which are suffering hardship or disadvantage. There are many examples of such policies under successive governments. I did not think that it would be necessary to have in the Bill a specific provision of this character.

  579
  There is no such provision in the 1976 legislation and I do not think that that has caused any problems as far as concerns institutions covered by that legislation. I am cautious about the need for the amendment although I am sympathetic to the idea that positive discrimination or compensation for disadvantage for persons of a racial group, or for that matter other groups, is essential.
  In referring to racial groups, perhaps I may mention one other point. I discovered that the Home Secretary thinks that I am prone to violence on account of being English. That seems to be a directly discriminatory remark which I do not think is historically accurate. But we all have our crosses to bear, and disapproval of the Home Secretary seems to be one of them.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: This amendment would allow positive action to be taken in relation to the functions of public authorities to which Section 19B applies. It broadly follows the approach taken in Section 35 of the Act, which allows positive action as regards the access of racial groups to facilities or services to meet their special needs in the context of education, training, welfare or ancillary benefits. The aim of positive action is to create a level playing field, something which. I think we al] support. The Government see merit in the amendment and would like to take it away and consider it further in discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, if necessary and if that is convenient to them. In the light of that, it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Lester, were prepared to withdraw the amendment for the time being.
  Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord sits down, let us suppose that he agrees to this amendment, or something very similar to it, giving effect to the principle set out in it, would the words used in his letter of 22nd December to my noble friend no longer apply? He commented that,
  "challenges could be mounted to those policies, programmes … that are helping ethnic minority communities the most".
  To come back to indirect discrimination, the noble Lord was arguing that these challenges could be mounted if my noble friend's amendment were passed. If he is now saying that he will accept something like the amendment now before the Committee, would that not remove the objection that he made to my noble friend's earlier amendment?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is a point to be thought through when we consider, as we said we would, the amendment. I am not sure that I can entirely agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. These are complex issues. There is a complex interrelation between all of these various points—whether it is about positive action, indirect or direct discrimination, and the way in which we make use of those in law to change the atmosphere of race relations in this country. We are entirely happy and comfortable with taking the amendment away. We want to give it
  580
  careful consideration. We are open to further discussion on it, publicly and privately. We invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment on that basis.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We are delighted and grateful. On that positive note, I speedily beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): Before calling Amendment No. 10, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 11.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 2, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert—
  ("(1) Nothing in section 19B shall render unlawful any act done by a relevant person in carrying out immigration and nationality functions in affording persons of a particular nationality, religion or ethnic or national origin special treatment on humanitarian grounds.").
  The noble Lord said: New Section 19C creates a blanket exemption for any directly discriminatory act in relation to any of the wide range of immigration or nationality functions carried out against another person on grounds of nationality, or ethnic or national origin, by a Minister or by officials acting in accordance with the relevant authorisation. That section, which was much debated during the Second Reading of the Bill, delegates considerable power to the Government, by-passing the need for parliamentary approval of racially discriminatory practices and procedures. For the reasons that were debated fairly fully at Second Reading, it has caused great concern, especially among ethnic minorities in this country.
  The amendment narrows the ability of the immigration and nationality service to discriminate by limiting it to an act done,
  "by a relevant person in carrying out immigration and nationality functions in affording persons of a particular nationality, religion or ethnic or national origin"—
  those words come from the international treaties to which we are signatories—
  "special treatment on humanitarian grounds".
  If the Home Office wishes to make special arrangements aimed at providing protection for particular groups seeking shelter in the United Kingdom, such as the Bosnians and Kosovar Albanians who were granted exceptional leave to remain during the recent crisis in the Balkans, it is difficult to understand how that would require any exceptions. We understand from previous contributions by the Minister that that is the main problem with which the Home Office seeks to deal. The reason for affording favourable treatment to some of those groups is surely not based on their ethical or national origins but on their well-founded fear of persecution, the urgency of their humanitarian needs and the need to comply with the United Kingdom's obligations under the refugee convention. The policy

  581
  is not based on, and is not caused by, their ethnicity. It is not because of Muslim, Kosovar, ethnic or religious origins but for the reasons I have just given.
  In the United Kingdom's 14th report to the committee dealing with the convention on the elimination of racial discrimination, the Government said that there is nothing racist about designating countries which produce large numbers of unfounded asylum applications. I respectfully agree. There is nothing racist about it. It is not based on colour, race or ethnic or national origins. The same is true of refugee situations if humanitarian provision is made not on the basis of ethnic or national origin but on an objective assessment of the conditions in the country concerned.
  Again, we are in the area of international human rights law where we are unaided at present by any statement from the Government on their views about our international treaty obligation. However, in my respectful submission—it is derived in part from Professor Goodwin-Gill who is the leading international refugee legal expert in this country and author of a major book on the subject—new Section 19C as it stands is not consistent with the United Kingdom's international obligations. It is not consistent with Articles 2, 5 or 6 of the convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, indicated in a different context, it is not consistent with Articles 2 and 26 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. Article 3 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 obliges contracting states to apply the convention's provisions to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin. That covers discrimination on the grounds of a refugee's ethnic or national origins.
  The UNHCR's executive committee, of which the United Kingdom is an original member, has, as Professor Goodwin-Gill points out, emphasised that decisions on asylum must be made without discrimination as to race, religion, political opinion, nationality or country of origin.
  We all agree with the Home Office that in exercising immigration control one has to draw distinctions which are based, for example, on the nationality of particular people seeking to enter this country. That is not the issue here. We are concerned with the taking of a power which is not in the 1976 Act, even though the 1976 Act already has the powers provided in Section 41. We are concerned with the power to allow the Home Office to discriminate not only in any immigration decisions but also in nationality decisions on the basis of a person's ethnicity. Nothing could do more harm to the reputation of the immigration and nationality service in this country than to give the impression to the ethnic minorities in this country that we are discriminating at the gate, or conferring British nationality and citizenship because of people's ethnicity. I am sure that that is not what we do. Were
  582
  we to do so, we should be condemned by all the international bodies for breaching international human rights law.
  Section 41(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976 states:
  "Nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act whereby a person discriminates against another on the basis of that other's nationality or place of … residence or the length of time for which he has been present or resident in or outside the United Kingdom … if that act is done (a) in pursuance of any arrangements made (whether before or after the passing of this Act) by or with the approval of, or for the time being approved by, a Minister of the Crown; or (b) in order to comply with any condition imposed … by a Minister of the Crown".
  Those words were carefully inserted because the immigration and nationality department wished to have them there to give it the freedom that it needed in exercising its public functions. That is why they are in Section 41. I do not understand that there has been any change of circumstances since 1976 to require any wider authorisation to be given than that in Section 41. It is carefully controlled in Section 41 so that it cannot be abused.
  My amendment is designed to give extra cover without going so far as to authorise discrimination based on ethnicity in immigration or nationality decisions. We very much hope that the Government will be as open minded about this amendment as they were on the previous one. I beg to move.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendment No. 11 standing in my name is not grouped with Amendment No. 10. However, it goes to a closely related point which, to a certain extent, the noble Lord has already argued. Unless any Member of the Committee objects, I think that it would be convenient for me to discuss it with Amendment No. 10.
  I believe that this is one of the areas—we referred to them at the beginning of our debate today—where we need a clear statement of the Government's view of the international obligations and how they impinge on the immigration and nationality aspect of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to assist us with that.
  In immigration and nationality functions we discriminate between people on the grounds of their nationality. I believed that this clause was necessary in order to preserve the ability to do so without the danger of it being challenged. To expand the point slightly, we allow European Union citizens access to this country on a freer basis than those from further afield. One has only to go to Heathrow or any other port to see the different arrangements for EU citizens compared with those from other countries. That is discrimination on the basis of nationality and sometimes national origin.
  However, as far as I am aware, we do not distinguish on ethnic origin grounds. It would be offensive if we said to someone from a particular country, "It is not your nationality that makes the difference between whether we do or do not admit you, while we treat differently this other person who is similar to you. It is because of your ethnic origin: because you come from this specific part of the population of your country".

  583
  That is why I tabled Amendment No. 11, but there is a misprint in the Marshalled List. It charmingly translated "ethnic" as "ethic". I do not believe that anyone will be misled because the amendment seeks to leave out a word in the Bill. The right reverend Prelate will be relieved to know that I do not intend to go into the questions of ethics or religious grounds. Sometimes religion and ethnic minority are taken as a proxy for one another, not least in Northern Ireland. However, the dispute there is not religious, although it is sometimes expressed in those terms. As regards immigration and nationality functions, religion does not and should not come into the matter, nor should ethnic origin.
  Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I am not an expert, so I may be told that examples of discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin already exist in our treatment of immigration and nationality issues. If so, I shall not press the amendment. However, that is not a sound basis on which to discriminate and in this clause we should not preserve it as a lawful function.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The effect of the amendment would be to remove the existing proposed exemption. The effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would be to narrow the scope of the exemption to Clause 1. I shall deal with both amendments and comment on our international obligations.
  We believe that it would remove the existing proposed exemption for immigration and nationality functions and replace them with a much narrower provision covering special treatment on humanitarian grounds. When we met in December to discuss these issues, the noble Lord made clear to me his view that the existing legal safeguards in the Race Relations Act 1976 should be sufficient to allow the immigration system to continue to operate effectively. He repeated that argument today. I understand that this amendment has been tabled for the avoidance of doubt in respect of the Bill's application to humanitarian exercises.
  As I have made clear, the Government believe that the Race Relations Act has made a tremendous contribution to our society, and I repeat the tributes paid to its architect, the noble Lord, Lord Lester. We sympathise with the objective of ensuring that the Bill does not outlaw special treatment for those in need of protection on humanitarian grounds, such as the recent special exercise in relation to Kosovan Albanians. But we do not believe that the proposed amendment would provide adequate legal protection for the immigration system as a whole. That is the important point.
  The operation of immigration policies necessarily and legitimately involves differential treatment between individuals based on their nationality and, more rarely, their ethnic or national origins. In our view, the existing exemption for immigration and nationality functions strikes the right balance between providing victims of unlawful direct discrimination with an effective right of action and protecting
  584
  necessary discriminatory activity in the exercise of immigration functions which is required or authorised by Ministers or by legislation.
  The pressures on the immigration system, of which noble Lords will be well aware, are such that we cannot allow any ambiguity to arise in relation to the application of this legislation to immigration staff. We know from experience that the immigration and asylum system, including the appeal system, is frequently used by those with an unfounded claim who are seeking to delay and frustrate the process. That is why we took firm action in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to streamline the process to produce a fairer, firmer, faster system.
  This Bill must make it crystal clear what is unlawful and what is permissible in the public interest. We believe that the existing formulation in Clause 1 (new Section 19C) does so. Activity which is authorised or required by law or by Ministers will be lawful, as will be personal decisions taken by Ministers in the public interest. Unauthorised acts of direct race discrimination will be unlawful, and the Government will have no hesitation in dealing very firmly with them.
  Failure to provide clarity in this legislation would be unwise, both as an act of policy and to ensure that staff are fully protected when they carry out the duties Parliament and Ministers have laid upon them. The Government do not share the noble Lord's confidence in the adequacy of the existing legal safeguards provided by the Race Relations Act. Section 41 of the 1976 Act protects discriminatory acts which are carried out "in pursuance to" statutory provisions or ministerial arrangements. But the courts have adopted a very narrow interpretation of "in pursuance to". For acts to benefit from Section 41 they must be actually "required" by law.
  However, the operation of the immigration system necessarily requires the exercise of discretion by Ministers and by appropriately authorised officials in accordance with published, transparent instructions. For example, the Immigration Service at ports requires the ability to target and prioritise certain nationalities for particular scrutiny where it has intelligence that particular national travel documents are being abused or where there is intelligence that individuals or groups of one nationality are presenting themselves as the nationals of another country in order to benefit from compassionate policies or asylum procedures. There is chapter and verse on that. There are many such examples of such activity.
  The Immigration Service and Integrated Casework Directorate need the ability to carry out special "nationality specific" exercises involving the fast tracking of cases and even the use of detention in response to sudden or sustained influxes of certain nationals, most recently from eastern Europe, seeking to circumvent the control. Entry clearance officers need the ability to treat individuals differently on various grounds. Examples include if their country is associated with state-sponsored terrorism or has a track record of hostile intelligence activities or if their

  585
  country is known to have lax or inappropriate passport issuing arrangements. Such activity is a necessary part of operating the immigration system but may not be considered by the courts as strictly required by law.
  There are also many examples of where the immigration system discriminates positively in favour of individuals on the basis of their nationality or ethnic or national origins. One example is the special treatment for Kosovan Albanians during the recent conflict in the Balkans. Kosovan Serbs were not treated the same way, for entirely understandable reasons. There are other examples where guidance to asylum caseworkers directs that the one ethnic or national group from a particular country should be treated differently from another. For example, our policy in relation to persons originating from Bosnia-Herzegovina is to grant exceptional leave where the applicant's ethnic group is no longer in the majority. A Bosnian Croat originating from a Serb area would not be expected to return there, nor would a Bosnian Serb originating from a Muslim area.
  Current asylum policy makes a distinction between Kosovan Serbs and Kosovan Albanians where the basis of claim is ethnic origin. The former are a minority and may qualify for asylum, while the latter may be refused and returned. The ethnic or national origin of the applicant in cases involving various other nationalities is also a key consideration in the determination of applications for asylum. It would be impossible to operate a rational asylum determination process if caseworkers were unable to make such distinctions. That is why the Bill makes it clear that discriminatory activity which is required or authorised by law, or by Ministers, cannot be considered to be unlawful.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the Minister does so—I am grateful to him for giving way—he has not yet given a single example of discrimination based on a person's ethnicity as distinct from all the other considerations. We are dealing here with only direct discrimination, not indirect discrimination. I should like to know from the Minister whether there is any example where a person's race—that is what ethnicity is about; it is a part of race—is the basis for treating him worse than someone else. Perhaps I may give an example: the infamous one of the British Asians from East Africa who were refused entry to this country by Mr Callaghan's government by statute. That was held by the European Human Rights Commission to be inherently degrading treatment because it was based on their ethnicity.
  Under the Bill as it stands there is nothing to stop the Home Office refusing to allow British Asians from East Africa in a similar situation coming here, not on the basis of their colour but of their ethnicity. Surely that is not what the Minister has in mind and surely the Home Office would not dream of discriminating against someone on the grounds of their ethnicity? If
  586
  that is indeed the case, will the Minister please give some examples of where they have done so? I personally should be deeply shocked if that was so.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Before the Minister responds, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has just said. It did not seem to me that the examples given by the Minister of Kosovar Albanians or Serbs were based on their ethnicity but on their genuine fear of prosecution. That is, after all, what asylum is supposed to be based on. Therefore, those examples do not answer the questions which I asked.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I should probably beg to differ, but I am open to looking at the matter further. Perhaps it would be wise for me to reflect more on the point which has been made and reiterated. We take the view that the cases of the Kosovar Serbs and the Kosovar Albanians are exact examples of why positive discrimination may be necessary. That is why, in those instances, we believe that the way in which we have begun to phrase the legislation is right. However, I shall reflect more on the comments made by the noble Lord in his intervention.
  I turn to our international obligations. The noble Lord suggested that the exemption for immigration and nationality functions would breach this country's international obligations under the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The entitlement to immigration, asylum and nationality applicants is detailed in the immigration and nationality enactments listed in Clause 1 of the Bill and in subordinate legislation such as the immigration rules.
  The exemption does nothing in our view to rescind or restrict rights or entitlements provided in existing legislation; it simply allows that legislation to continue as Parliament, in our view, intended. It also provides the immigration authorities with the necessary latitude to conduct their business rationally, including targeting resources where there is a concerted attempt to abuse the control or where there is a compelling need for special treatment for a particular group on humanitarian grounds. The exemption does not require Ministers to do anything contrary to their international obligations. The discretion which it gives to Ministers still has to be exercised bearing in mind their international obligations. We believe that to be an important point.
  It is clear that these are difficult issues. The Home Secretary and I are grateful to the noble Lord for meeting us. He has enormous experience in the field and we are happy and pleased, as ever, to acknowledge that. Having said that, we feel on reflection that we need to maintain the safeguards set out in Clause 1 in relation to immigration and nationality functions. The noble Lord may not agree, but on the basis of what has been said, he should feel able to withdraw Amendment

  587
  No. 10. The same perhaps applies to Amendment No. 11 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, which has a similar effect.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The Minister has repeatedly used the word "safeguards" in reference to new Section 19C, b y which he means safeguards for the Home Office. We are concerned about safeguards for the individual. There are no safeguards in Section 19C as it stands. It say; that it will not be unlawful for a relevant person to discriminate against another person on grounds of ethnic origin in carrying out any immigration or nationality functions provided that the relevant authorisation has been given. There are extremely broad powers of authorisation. As it stands, it applies to the entire immigration functions of the Immigration Service and even to the entire nationality functions of the nationality service of the Home Office.
  I have attempted in my amendment to meet the need for the avoidance of doubt where humanitarian concerns are at stake. I do not understand what was wrong with the situation in 1976 when Section 41 was written into the Act. That would be quite properly narrowly construed, of course, because the concern was with the liberty of the subject. The Home Office does not want race discrimination to be practised by the immigration arid nationality department without good reason. That will be viewed with great concern by immigrants and their descendants in this country as giving a blank cheque to some future government to discriminate on blatant grounds of ethnic origin.
  I am glad that the Minister has indicated that he would like to reflect upon the matter. I do not intend to press for a vote this evening, but I give notice that I should like to return to the matter. I hope that he will come back to us with a fresh, better, more narrow exemption clause. That is what we are looking for. It is common ground that some kind of cover is needed for differences of treatment on the basis of nationality. I hope that in the gap between now and Report stage it will be possible to find a narrower amendment which gives the Government what they legitimately need but contains effective safeguards against abuse in conforming to our international treaty obligations. On that basis and with that indication, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 3, line 12, leave out ("or to any acts leading to such a decision").
  The noble Lord said: In the ordinary course of events, my noble friend Lord Dholakia would have been moving this amendment and other related amendments because he is particularly expert in those areas. Unfortunately—it is something which should not happen to any noble Lord—he has lost his voice. Therefore, he is sitting mute, but listening and giving his moral and spiritual, although not vocal, support. I shall have to be the next best thing and I will do it briefly.
  The purpose of the amendment is to remove the exemption from the race relations legislation of acts leading to a decision not to prosecute. The amendment provides that such racially discriminatory acts are not to be exempt from being found to be unlawful under Section 19B. The valid justification for exempting from Section 19B decisions not to institute criminal proceedings—namely, to avoid a criminal trial in civil proceedings under the Race Relations Act—does not apply to the series of acts leading up to a decision not to prosecute, which could, for example, include significant but remote acts by the police in gathering or rejecting evidence. In particular, the vagueness of the words,
  "acts leading to such a decision",
  is remarkable. Almost any police or prosecution practice that involved the gathering or assessment of the evidence could possibly come into a category of that breadth. Again, that stems from the Lawrence affair and the Macpherson report. We greatly hope that the amendment will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, the Lawrence case and the Macpherson Report are extremely relevant to this amendment. In that case, decisions not to prosecute were crucial, even to the extent that a decision to bring a private prosecution was made. Therefore, it seems to me that if matters leading up to a decision not to prosecute are kept out of the Bill, the Bill cannot be said to have answered the concerns which arose from the Lawrence case, which is, after all, fundamental to what the Government have said.
  There is a real dilemma here; that is, if a decision is taken not to prosecute and it is believed by some that the decision was racially motivated, we could reach the position where in effect the criminal trial was being held but under the guise of a race relations case. That would be most unsatisfactory. Therefore, the issue presents a real dilemma. I do not believe that it is answered easily either by the clause as it stands or, for that matter, by the amendment. Having read the Macpherson Report, I do not believe that it is easy to proceed on the assumption that a decision not to prosecute can ever be thought to have arisen for racial reasons; that is, with investigations not having been influenced by racial decisions. That is a difficult way to start and is, of course, the position which the Bill takes. However, it is not an assumption which I find a satisfactory basis for legislation.
  At the same time, I cannot escape from the dilemma of not wanting a criminal trial to take place on totally the wrong basis. Therefore, I shall listen extremely carefully to what the Minister says on this as, of course, on all the other amendments, and I shall study his words carefully. Whatever the decision, it will be unsatisfactory in one direction or the other, and a balance must be held.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has pointed us rather well in the direction of the dilemma. We may well want to look

  589
  closely at what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said in moving his amendment. The Government's policy objective with Section 19D of Clause 1 of the Bill is in effect to preserve the role of the criminal court as the sole forum for determining guilt. I believe that that must be plainly right. We understand the purpose of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howells. The wording,
  "or to any acts leading to such a decision",
  is broader than ideally it should be, and I believe that that point is accepted. However, we would not want to delete those words without providing better ones because we believe that the reasons for a decision not to prosecute, or, even worse, part of those acts which are an essential part of the decision-making process, should be protected as easily from an action under Section 19B as the decision itself.
  Therefore, the Government will wish to bring forward an amendment which achieves our objective in relation to the decision-making process but without, as now, excluding all acts leading to a decision not to prosecute. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and other movers of the amendment will be happy and prepared to withdraw Amendment No. 12 as it currently stands.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We are certainly happy to do so, subject to seeing the fine print. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Public Authorities]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 10, leave out lines 18 to 32.
  The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to leave out the two subsections which bring the Scottish Administration and the National Assembly for Wales within the scope of the Bill. I should say at once that I do not intend to press the amendment. It is a probing amendment designed to give the Minister an opportunity to explain to the House what is happening with regard to those two devolved Administrations in respect of the Bill. Quite obviously, the functions which are devolved to Scotland are in part covered by the Bill, particularly those relating to the law, and so on. Therefore, I should like to know whether the Scottish Parliament or, for that matter, the Scottish Administration has been consulted on the matter and, if so, what view was taken.
  To some extent, in the case of Scotland the question is addressed also to Peers on the Liberal Democrat Benches because they are in government in Scotland in coalition, and they, too, may be able to answer the question. However, the same question applies also with respect to the Welsh Assembly. Has the Assembly or the Administration in that part of our Kingdom been consulted and, if so, with what effect?
  I have another question which risks showing my ignorance of the devolution legislation in which I took very little part when it passed through your Lordships' House. However, it struck me as odd that the paragraph relating to Scotland is entirely in terms of an office holder of the Scottish Administration—a Minister, in fact—and the staff of the Administration.
  As far as concerns the National Assembly for Wales, that paragraph is expressed in terms of the Assembly. Does that mean that the Assembly Members in Wales are covered by the legislation and are subject to it, whereas in Scotland the Members of the Scottish Parliament are not covered but only the actions of the Ministers in Scotland? That would be most odd.
  It is interesting to consider whether, in its discussions on matters in Wales, the Assembly should be prevented from doing things which our national Parliament at Westminster and the Scottish Parliament are allowed to do. That would be to discriminate against the Welsh in that respect, which I am sure none of your Lordships would want to do. However, there may be a perfectly valid reason for the way in which the devolution legislation is set up which leads to the difference in wording. But it is a peculiar difference in wording to try to confine it to the Scottish Administration in Scotland but to extend it to the whole of the National Assembly for Wales. In both cases, there is a let-out in respect of any function relating to the making, confirming or approving of Orders in Council and other instruments. In relation to that particular function of the two bodies, there is a let-out.
  I am not quite sure whether that means that an Order in Council can be made which is discriminatory and which would otherwise be unlawful under the Act. I doubt whether it does, but it occurred to me to wonder whether that covered the Order in Council itself. It covers the making of an Order in Council in both the devolved jurisdictions, but at the same time it would obviously not be desirable for this Parliament and your Lordships' House to permit the devolved legislators in those two parts of our Kingdom to make legislation which would otherwise be unlawful. Apart from anything else, that would discriminate against the English. It is a specialised example, as it were, of the West Lothian question.
  There are two main points which concern me. The first is whether those administrations and legislatures have been consulted about this legislation and their position with regard to it. Secondly, why is there a difference between the two devolved administrations?
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: One of the curious features of our constitutional arrangements is that unlike every other democracy that is written down in an intelligible form in a document of not more than 100 pages, we have to read Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland legislation and a whole lot of local government legislation. The Greater London Authority Act is three times longer than the constitutions of most other countries. Out of that opaque mess, one must somehow try to extract principles.

  591
  I understand that the motive behind this amendment is to probe rather than to remove Scottish and Welsh matters from the purview of the Race Relations Act. The only points that I wish to emphasise are that, first, whatever the niceties of devolution, it is obviously essential that every public authority in the United Kingdom—and we are looking at Great Britain because it applies equally to Northern Ireland—must comply with the duty not to discriminate on racial grounds.
  As I understand it, the reason that the Scottish Administration and the National Assembly for Wales have been included in the schedule in that way is in order to include as much as possible without violating the agreement that was reached about the powers of the Scottish Parliament as such. But as I understand it too, under the devolution legislation for Wales and Scotland, the national minimum standard—the Race Relations Act 1976—is not in any way to be derogated from either in Scotland or in Wales. They are not matters which have been devolved to be amended by the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. It is vital that our rights as citizens not to be discriminated against should not vary according to the particular part of the territory of a particular nation or region of the United Kingdom in which we happen to be at any one time. That seems to me to be the principle and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that is the purpose of what is in the schedule and in the devolution schemes.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: When I read the amendment, the reasons for it were not entirely clear to me. I am now much clearer and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for that clarification.
  If the Committee were to accept the amendment, it would have the effect of removing from the scope of the Bill all non-legislative functions of the Scottish Administration and the National Assembly for Wales. This amendment would leave Scottish Ministers in the Scottish Executive and their civil servants, as well as the National Assembly for Wales, outwith the extended scope of the Race Relations Act. I am not sure that that is what the noble Lord intended but that would be its effect. That is certainly contrary to what we are trying to achieve.
  The amendment would create an anomalous situation contrary to the fundamental principle which we hold dear and which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, clearly supports; namely, to have a consistent approach to race relations throughout Great Britain. We believe that principle to be extremely important. Therefore, race relations is a reserved matter.
  The inclusion of the Scottish Administration and the National Assembly for Wales is intended to ensure that the Administrations in Scotland and Wales are covered by the Bill while treating their legislative powers in the same way as those of Westminster. In our view, that approach is clearly correct and is the right way to proceed. As Members of the Committee will recall, the Scotland Act and the Government of
  592
  Wales Act reserve equal opportunities to their Parliaments. Therefore, it is for this Parliament to legislate on such matters.
  Perhaps I may clarify the two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I can confirm that there was the necessary consultation in relation to the coverage of the Bill, and satisfactorily so. The coverage in Westminster, in Scotland and Wales will be analogous. It is simply, as the noble Lord said, because of the different constructs of the Administrations that the wording is different. It is the basis on which those Administrations are constructed which leads to the different wording. However, I confirm that the effect is the same. Therefore, on that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I listened carefully to the Minister in relation to the difference in the wording. I shall take a leaf out of his book and reserve the right to write to him on that matter.
  He said that there had been consultation but he did not say whether it was the Ministers or the Parliament and Assembly which had been consulted. I am concerned as to whether the Parliament and Assembly have been consulted, particularly in the case of the Scottish Parliament because although, as he rightly says, those matters are reserved, matters of the administration of law are not reserved. Have the Parliament and Assembly been consulted or only the Ministers?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall make clear to him in correspondence exactly what has been undertaken by way of consultation so that there is clarity. I am happy to provide copies to other Members of the Committee interested in the issue and I shall place a copy of the letter in the Library.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister. As I said, this is a probing amendment and therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 15:
  Page 10, line 36, after ("being") insert ("on active service or").
  The noble Lord said: This paragraph in the schedule adds the Armed Forces to the Bill and brings into effect the Bill in respect of the Armed Forces. This particular sub-paragraph takes out any unit or part of a unit which is assisting the Government Communications Headquarters in carrying out its functions so that it is not covered for these purposes. I entirely support that. My amendment suggests that the Armed Forces should not be covered when they are on active service.
  The reasons are that we all know how incidents in war can lead to considerable controversy, sometimes over a very long period. For example, there is still a great deal of controversy over some actions which were taken, for example, in the Falklands war—the sinking of the "Belgrano"—in World War 2 and in World War 1. I happened to see recently a very

  593
  interesting programme on the television about West Indians being discriminated against within the Army during World War 1.
  It does not seem to me that we want long recriminations in relation to what happened in the very difficult and special circumstances of active service to be dragged through the courts on a racial basis. I have no objection to people discussing incidents which happen in war. That is obviously entirely valid. But it is not an appropriate basis from which to mount court cases and so on under legislation of this character.
  I should make it clear that the phrase "active service" is relatively narrow. Of course, quite often our Armed Forces act in aid of a civil power; for example, in Northern Ireland they are not on active service but they are acting in aid of a civil power. In that situation they are subject to the law in all respects. Indeed, there has been some controversy about that, as noble Lords will recollect, and criminal cases have arisen out of actions taken by soldiers pursuing their duties in Northern Ireland that have been quite controversial.
  My amendment does not attempt to exclude the Armed Forces when they act in the aid of a civil power but only when they are in a war situation on "active service". That is the situation of greatest danger, when decisions have to be taken quickly. At that time I do not want our Armed Forces to have to look over their shoulders wondering whether they will finish up in court arguing the situation on a racial basis or, for that matter, on any other basis. I beg to move.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I do not agree with this amendment. Whether on active service or not, members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces ought not to practise direct racial discrimination. They should not practise that as employers and they should not practise it in carrying out their duties on behalf of the Crown. They are obliged not to do so under international law and they are also obliged not to do so in the employment field under the Race Relations Act 1976. In that Act there is a provision that deals with complaints of racial discrimination against the Armed Forces in a particular way so that they do not go to an employment tribunal under Section 54, unless the complainant has made a complaint to an officer under the service redress procedures applicable to him and has submitted that complaint to the defence counsel under those procedures and the defence counsel has made a determination, and so on.
  Perhaps it would be right for there to be no colour-bar, no race discrimination in the Armed Forces for the reasons given by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in an earlier debate today. It is absolutely vital that the Armed Forces cannot discriminate on racial grounds, whether on active service or otherwise. In my respectful view, it would be deplorable if we were to
  594
  authorise that kind of discrimination whether in war or in peace. We do not need to do so. I hope that we win our wars fairly and not on a discriminatory basis.
  Lord Burnham: It appears to me that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is not aware that this Government, and previous governments, have been guilty of serious racism. At no stage have they sent Irish regiments into Northern Ireland. If that is not racism I do not know what is.
  My noble friend's amendment would cover the problem of "on active service". It is a remarkably familiar song to me because at present I am involved in singing, with other Ministers on the Government Benches, the Armed Forces Discipline Bill, where almost exactly the same conditions apply. We consider that it is not possible to use standards of normal behaviour when the Armed Forces are "on active service". We believe that the words "on active service" cover the requirements of the Geneva Convention with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. However, it is not sensible to expect that Armed Forces on active service should be bound by the same conditions as pertain in more peaceful and more normal times. Therefore, I have much pleasure in supporting my noble friend's amendment.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I doubt that noble Lords opposite will be surprised that I cannot agree with the general approach adopted in the amendment. We are keen to ensure that all public authorities are covered by provisions of the Bill unless there are specific reasons for them to be exempted. The effect of the amendment as tabled would be that units of the Armed Forces would not be covered while on active duty. We see no reason for such an exemption. Since all personnel currently serving in the forces can be deemed to be "on active service", that could place the Armed Forces outside the scope of the Bill.
  Lord Burnham: The phrase "on active service" has a specific meaning. The meaning can be used under the Geneva Convention. We do not have time at the moment to go into it, and nor should we, but it means someone at the sharp end.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: No doubt the noble Lord is well advised in such matters. We believe that it could place the Armed Forces outside the scope of the Bill, which for us would be unacceptable. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces themselves see no reason why they should be placed outside the scope of the Bill.
  That would undermine the Armed Forces' commitment to play a leading role in the Government's drive to achieve greater racial equality by demonstrating a real lead in the public sector generally and nationally. We believe that it could also damage the working relationship that the Armed Forces has with the Commission for Racial Equality through the MOD/Commission for Racial Equality

  595
  Partnership Agreement. That is something that has been of tremendous value and great progress has been made through that Partnership Agreement.
  The purpose of new paragraph 5(2) is simply to ensure that Section 19B does not extend to those units of the Armed Forces which specifically assist the Government Communications Headquarters, but only when they are assisting GCHQ. At such times they are effectively part of GCHQ, which is explicitly excluded from the Bill. That needs to be understood.
  The intelligence and security agencies, including GCHQ, had hoped to be included within the Bill. However, to have included them would have required changes to the Bill, with special clauses introduced to safeguard against claimants misusing certain provisions to undermine the agencies' operational effectiveness. For example, a claimant could have used a Section 65 questionnaire to fish for sensitive information from the agencies. The necessary safeguards would have had, in practice, the same effect as excluding the agencies from the Bill. It is better to make the exemption clear rather than to obscure it behind special clauses. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will be prepared to withdraw Amendment No. 15 on the basis of what has been said and our clear commitment to inclusion.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: In order to consider the matter and the points made by the Minister further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 12, line 29, at end insert—
  (" . Any person or body corporate in the performance of any contract with any authority or body included in paragraphs 11 to 42 of this Schedule to carry out any public function which the authority or body would otherwise carry out and which would otherwise he included in this Schedule.").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 16 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. The amendment deals with contractors, but primarily local authority contractors. We are concerned that the same law should apply to local authority contractors as applies to local authorities when they carry out work directly. I do not suggest that this is not the intention of the Government—I believe that it is—but perhaps the Government can explain whether they are subject to the Bill in some other way or whether an amendment of this character is needed.
  I believe it is obvious that if a refuse collecting lorry fails, for example, to collect the rubbish in a street because that street has a high proportion of ethnic minority residents, a case could follow. That would certainly be the case if the local authority's staff were responsible for the rubbish collection. However, I am less clear about what would happen if the authority delegates that duty under a contract to another firm, as happens a great deal these days. Sometimes that leads to better efficiency. In that case would the same law apply? I believe that it should, but if it does not, this amendment may be required.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: This amendment illustrates the value of the Section 6 of the Human Rights Act definition of "public authority" under which it would certainly be caught. It must be right that subcontracting of this kind in the exercise of public functions be covered by the Act. I hope that if the Section 6 approach is rejected, this area will be clearly covered by the orders made either on the face of the Bill or by Ministers.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: We, like other noble Lords, are keen to ensure that private sector companies carrying out public functions are covered by the new Section 19B. But we do not believe that the amendment as tabled would achieve the same in the most effective way. Our proposal is that we cover such functions using the order-making power at new Section 19B(5) and that we define such functions by reference to the legislation that authorises the private sector body to carry them out.
  That will achieve three ends. First, it will ensure that there is complete clarity on the part of such private sector bodies that they are covered by the legislation. Secondly, it will allow the Government the flexibility to add and remove classes of body as new functions enter the private sector or return to the public sector. Thirdly, it will allow for consultation with the private sector bodies involved which can only reinforce their understanding of the legislation. We believe it is important to take the spirit and cultural feeling of the legislation into their activities.
  We continue to believe that this flexibility and clarity can best be achieved by using the order-making power to ensure comprehensive coverage rather than using a general descriptor on the face of the schedule. I should add that the suggested amendment would require the courts to decide what would otherwise be included in the schedule. That would be a difficult task for the courts. I trust, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: The proposal will achieve a fourth object; that is, much greater complexity of the law. I expressed a view at an earlier stage in our debate this afternoon that law which involves enormous numbers of statutory instruments in order for it to be understood is undesirable. The more that can be put into primary legislation the better. But this brief discussion highlighted in a specific context the important problems of the definition of "public authority", which we were discussing on Amendment No. 1. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  7.15 p.m.
  Clause 2 [Certain appointment functions outside the employment field]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 3, line 35, after ("group") insert ("or nationality").
  The noble Lord said: Clause 2 deals with appointment functions outside the employment field. Generally speaking, it ensures that those are dealt with properly under the Bill.
  Subsection (5) takes out some appointments in relation to,
  "an appointment to an office or post for the purposes of a private household or where, if the holding of the office or post were employment, being of a particular racial group would be a genuine occupational qualification for the job".
  It is right that in some appointments to be of a specific racial group is a genuine occupational qualification. But it also seems to me that in some appointments nationality will also be important. I think particularly of appointments made by Ministers of the Crown to an international body. For example, it would be odd not to require a British judge going to an international court to be British. To oblige the Minister to ignore nationality in choosing somebody to serve in the international court would be extremely odd.
  Nowadays we are taught that we must consider nationality in terms of Scotland, Wales and Ireland also. There may be times when committees are created when it would be appropriate to have a Scottish, Welsh, Irish or even English representative in a specific post and the Minister should be able to make that appointment without being accused of breaching the legislation. That is why we seek to insert the word "nationality" into this exception. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am puzzled as to the purpose behind this amendment, despite having listened carefully to the noble Lord. We examined this matter carefully and could not see that the tabled amendment would have any effect at all.
  Section 3(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 provides that,
  "'racial group' means a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins".
  Therefore the reference in Clause 2(5) to "racial group" means that decisions made on the basis of an individual's nationality are automatically subject to the provisions of this clause. For that reason we cannot see any merit in the amendment. I therefore invite the noble Lord to consider it again and to withdraw it at this stage.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: That is the most satisfactory answer we have had this afternoon, apart from when the Minister said he would consider an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 18:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  ("Disclosure of information
  DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
  After section 71 of the 1976 Act there is inserted—
  "Disclosure of information.
  71A. Nothing in this Act shall require a public authority to disclose any information which would be protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000."").
  The noble Lord said: Another place is presently discussing the Freedom of Information Bill. It will provide for more information to become available and for some information to be protected. If it is decided, in the course of the debates on that Bill—I do not want to argue about the individual categories of information—that certain types of information belonging to the state should properly be protected because they affect the security of the state, advice to the Crown or diplomatic relations, then that information should not come into the public domain as a result of questionnaires and so forth from the Commission for Racial Equality or the process of this Bill grinding through.
  It does not seem to me that, even for so important a purpose as this, we should overrule the general provisions on freedom of information and particularly on information which Parliament decides in due course should be protected. I am not sure that the wording in the measure is the best way to achieve joined-up government in this respect. Advice may prove a better way to achieve that. Nevertheless the new clause that I propose in the amendment raises a valid point. I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We oppose this amendment. The 1976 Act already carefully restricts the disclosure of information obtained by the Commission for Racial Equality in using its coercive investigation powers. That is what Section 52 of the Race Relations Act does. It makes it clear that no information given to the commission by anyone may be disclosed in connection with a formal investigation except on the order of a court or with the informant's consent and so on. Safeguards are carefully set out there to ensure that where this statutory agency obtains information by compulsion, it cannot be disclosed except in narrowly defined circumstances. Indeed the circumstances are excessively narrow in some senses as the poor old CRE cannot even inform the Northern Ireland CRE or the British Equal Opportunities Commission about information obtained in a race investigation, for example for the purposes of a sex discrimination investigation. There you have Parliament imposing clear safeguards in this comprehensive code.
  As regards the questionnaire procedure under Section 65, again the courts have to preserve the rights of individuals to make sure that there is no oppression in the way that that is used. As regards what used to be called "discovery", the disclosure of information in court proceedings or in proceedings in employment tribunals, there is a comprehensive code to ensure that

  599
  there is no misuse of information. For example, it cannot be used for a collateral purpose. You cannot use information obtained in discovery in courts or in employment tribunals under this Act for a collateral purpose. It cannot be used for some other purpose. Therefore there are effective safeguards built into the common law and into the statute. To use the open-ended reference to the Freedom of Information Bill which is not even law yet and which seeks to serve a whole variety of quite different purposes would, in our view, be misconceived and indeed would be quite dangerous because it might stultify the effective enforcement of this measure and make it more difficult for individuals to bring and win their cases. For those reasons we oppose the amendment.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Again, I am not entirely clear as to what point the amendment seeks to address. Therefore I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not meet the point that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
  As we see it, the Freedom of Information Bill is about the right of the public to have access to information held by public authorities. That much is clear and that much is agreed. The regime it puts in place does not apply to information that public authorities are required to disclose to the courts. It is about extending, not restricting, the right of access to information.
  The Government would of course resist any amendment that had the effect, or intended effect, of applying the freedom of information regime to the courts when dealing with Race Relations Act cases. This would significantly restrict the information available to the courts and seriously hamper their ability to decide Race Relations Act cases. For example, the courts could be denied access to information which might be crucial to a discrimination case because a respondent claimed immunity under the freedom of information legislation. We do not think that that would be right.
  The Government would also resist an amendment that restricted—as we believe this amendment would—the information that must be provided to the Commission for Racial Equality as it goes about its proper statutory duties, including the conduct of formal investigations. If, on the other hand, the amendment seeks to ensure that the normal freedom of information regime should apply in relation, for example, to information that should be provided in Section 65 questionnaires, then it is unnecessary as this will automatically be the case. For those reasons the Government would not therefore wish to accept this amendment. Having clearly set out our position, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: It sounds as if the point I raised has been at least partly covered already by other parts of the legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Burlison: This may be a convenient time to move that the House do now resume. In moving this
  600
  Motion it may be for the convenience of the Committee to know that by agreement with the usual channels it is not intended to resume the Committee today following the Second Reading of the statutory nuisances Bill. As indicated on the Whip, further proceedings on the Bill will be resumed on Thursday next. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

  Statutory Nuisances (Hedgerows in Residential Areas) Bill [H.L.]
  7.25 p.m.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This small Bill is intended to provide a way of dealing with what is for many people a very big problem. The proposal is to amend Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and add, to the existing list of possible nuisances, boundary hedges between two private dwellings,
  "prejudicial to health or a nuisance",
  which is very much in keeping with that section of the Act.
  The 1990 Act has already been amended many times, so there is nothing startling in what I suggest. The Library was able to provide me with a print-out of all the amendments to Section 79. There have been many. Indeed, I myself introduced a Private Member's Bill in 1996 on noise.
  In the previous parliamentary Session, on 20th October 1999, Mr Jim Cunningham presented this Bill in another place. It was entitled the Control of Hedgerows in Residential Areas Bill. Lack of parliamentary time prevented it making progress.
  I tabled my Private Member's Bill immediately after the opening of this parliamentary Session. I was surprised and pleased to see that almost immediately thereafter the DETR published its consultation paper, High hedges/possible solutions, as it makes clear that the Government are aware that this is a real problem and that something has to be done to make life tolerable again for those worst affected.
  I have had meetings with Hedgeline, an organisation which advises and helps members who told me of the distress, anger, frustration and even harassment they were suffering. The photographs that Hedgeline members brought with them were a revelation. Until I saw them I wondered whether people were exaggerating the detriment caused by oversized or neglected hedges. Seeing the evidence convinced me that many people have a genuine right to feel aggrieved. They have a real and pressing problem, and they must be given a way to improve their situation. That is why this Bill is before your Lordships' House today.
  The hedge issue has been so widely publicised that I do not intend to take the House's time going into detail. Most people are aware of the loss of light,

  601
  reduction in property value, damage to buildings through subsidence, and loss of the proper use of gardens for plant growing and recreation due to dense, evergreen conifers planted on or close to garden boundaries. Everyone refers to the "leylandii problem", but other species are also culprits.
  If a person wishes to erect a garden wall between houses, planning permission is required for anything with a height of more than two metres. Yet a dense row of trees can be planted and left to grow without control or responsibility on the part of the planter. This can destroy a neighbour's amenity and sometimes cause great loss of light.
  Your Lordships will be aware of the famous Birmingham case of Michael Jones, founder of Hedgeline. Neighbours fell out over hedge heights about 20 years ago. The court decision eventually confirmed that Mr Jones could trim the intervening hedge and he did so. The neighbour then planted a further parallel hedge inside the first hedge. Only in April last year was the inner hedge trimmed to a height matching the boundary one, and only then due to the intervention of the freeholder under the estate covenants. Can anyone believe that it is fair that it should take 20 years for this result?
  This Bill will give the local authority powers that it already possesses in other areas. As the planning authority, it is the appropriate body to deal with the matter in the first instance. The involvement of the local authority—almost as an independent third party—has proved very successful under the Noise Act 1996, to which I referred earlier, in taking the heat out of arguments between neighbours over noise-based anti-social behaviour. This Bill would have a similar effect, in what can also be a situation of anti-social behaviour, by giving local authorities the power to resolve most cases.
  Ultimately, the matter would still be in the hands of the courts. At present a civil action to prove nuisance is the only recourse a person has, and that is a long, slow and very expensive process, as shown by the Jones case that I have mentioned. This Bill would result in a much more rapid and satisfactory way of dealing with matters.
  In some reported cases, hedges have been planted with the deliberate intention of destroying the value of another's home and even of driving the occupants out. That is certainly anti-social behaviour and a terrible thing for one human being to do to another. But it is not the main reason for the nuisance. In my view, it is thoughtlessness that causes the person on the light side of the hedge to fail to appreciate the effect that an excessive barrier has on the life of another person, the person who lives on the shaded side.
  Once a hedge has grown beyond a certain size it can get out of control. It is a major job to prune it to an acceptable size. It is a job that will have to be done again and again if the variety of hedge produces rampant growth.
  602
  One letter I received on the subject, accompanied by a very disturbing photograph, was from a man appropriately self-described as a "hedge victim". It said:
  "It is 11 a.m. on a bright November morning. This letter is being written in our living room which is shaded from the prevailing light by the Leylandii hedge shown in the Polaroid I took a few minutes ago. When such a hedge separates a pair of semi-detached houses, its effect, particularly in winter, is depressing and it may damage our foundations. Thus it is not just a question of the height of a hedge but its location and orientation which determine the extent to which it impinges on a neighbour's house and garden".
  It is an interesting point that he makes. A hedge that might be no problem for anyone in an area of large lawns and gardens could be disastrous in a closely-built area.
  In the High hedges consultation paper, Option 4, described as the "tailor-made approach" is very much in line with my Bill. The paper says that an appeal process would be needed. I put it to the Minister that this already exists in Section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. All the necessary procedures already appear in that Act.
  The Green Paper, in paragraphs 5.26 and 5.27, covers many possibilities as to the type and number of plants and future species. That degree of detail in legislation on this subject is unnecessary. Guidance, as proposed in paragraph 5.37, is always helpful, but it under-estimates the experience, intelligence and ability of local authorities to have every decision made for them in primary legislation. They are quite capable of dealing with the matter if they have the right to do so.
  It would be for the local authority to decide whether or not there was a nuisance. The local authority would know its area well. It would be able to judge the local circumstances and whether or not a particular hedge constituted a nuisance. If the local authority decided that it did, it is already familiar with all the procedures in the 1990 Act.
  This simple Bill is based on common sense. It has all the ingredients to become effective in dealing with the hedge problem and if passed into law could proceed without delay.
  The consultation process, I believe, will show that support for Option 4 is strong enough to cause the Government to decide to legislate. However, I am much less confident about when the Government would find the parliamentary time to bring forward a Bill. For me, it is important that this Bill proceeds. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
  7.37 p.m.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure and satisfaction to endorse every word that has been said. I am almost tempted to say that I rest my case, but I have my own words to underline what has been said.
  Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, I believe that this is a situation which has been going on for some time but which, until someone such as a

  603
  neighbour—in my case, my neighbour—brings the matter to one's attention, one does not quite appreciate it.
  The name of Michael Jones has been mentioned. He is the hero involved in getting the matter to this level. The noble Baroness is nodding her head vigorously. We have been to meetings with Michael and we have met the people he has brought to them.
  It is a difficult situation. I do not underestimate the problem from the Government's legislative point of view. I believe that the solution lies in Option 4 of the document. At the same time I recognise that whether there is the will to lift this issue up the political and legislative agenda is another matter, as the noble Baroness frankly said. But I want to congratulate the Minister and her colleagues on having got us this far. Although we may appear to have not got very far, we have reached a situation where the Government are asking an enormous range of people for their opinion. The people consulted form a long and catholic list in the document. Everyone who has a right to an opinion in these matters has been consulted.
  We have reached the stage at which the Government have laid out the options and are saying to the people affected, "Which option do you feel is the right one?" As I am sure the Minister knows, when the consultation period closes—which I believe is at the end of this month—the deliberations in the department will be exciting.
  Mr Cunningham was mentioned. Before him, Mr Andrew Rowe, as a parliamentarian, also played a major part in bringing this issue to the attention of a wider public. I also wish to thank Alan Meale, a Member of Parliament who was the junior Minister last year. He showed great sympathy and brought the matter forward. I am sure that the Minister will not be accused of failing to see the wood for the trees. She never hedges her bets and does not believe in beating about the bush. What we get from her tonight will form another branch. I knew noble Lords would twig that. Someone dared me to say those things and I said that I would say them.
  We want to hear from the Minister not only that the Government have sympathy, not only that they understand the case, not only that they have explained the problems, but that they can give a lot of hope to people outside.
  I come to this debate with my experience of mobile homes. What has that got to do with it? There are thousands of people living in mobile homes on sites where the owners are not very nice and not very helpful. Many of those people are elderly or infirm and they are petrified that if they say "boo" to a goose something will happen to them. The same applies to thousands of neighbours. They have a good case for presuming that people are reasonable and will listen to an argument. However, they are petrified of being bullied and pushed around and they do not have the money to pursue the matter.
  The Government must recognise that not only is there a question of legislative time here, but that costs will he involved. Many of us have had experience of
  604
  local government—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is in his place—and we know about the big step between the willingness to take action and having the resources to do so. Enforcement or endorsement is the bane of our lives. I can well imagine that local authorities who may well accept the genesis of our argument will respond by saying, "Just a minute, this is going to mean asking members of the planning department to give their attention to the matter and we do not know the size of the problem". In a reply made some time ago in another place to Andrew Rowe, Alan Meale explained that 2,500 representations had been made on this matter, based upon very little publicity. Each year the local authorities are faced with 5,200 cases. For those reasons, no one can deny that there is a problem and we need to discuss the solution.
  I was most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for mentioning Michael Jones. I found the research paper concerned in the Commons Library and I should like to read into the record a little more detail to point out the ludicrous situation. The consultation paper states:
  "The dispute began after Mr Stanton, now aged about 90, planted a hedge of leylandii along the boundary between the two neighbours' houses. When the hedge reached 15 ft, Mr Jones complained his garden was being robbed of sunlight. In 1979, with the row of conifers at 25 ft, the first of dozens of solicitors' letters passed between them. Mr Stanton eventually agreed to trim the hedge back to 22 ft, but M r Jones wasn't satisfied. I n 1989, MrJones lopped 5 ft off the top and, the following year, another 4 ft. Writs followed and Mr Jones won a court ruling that the hedge could be 'maintained and repaired'. Then Mr Stanton, a former engineer, sued his neighbour for £32,000, but Birmingham County Court rejected his case. Mr Jones finally won the right to cut the hedge substantially and in 1996 the conifers were reduced to 12 ft.
  "Mr Jones was also awarded his costs, said to be £50,000. However, this judgement is not of general application. In this case, the hedge marked the boundary between the two properties and was a party hedge to be maintained by the occupants on either side. The dispute reached the Court of Appeal in 1994 and was then referred back to the County Court in November 1995. There was scope for legal argument as to whether cutting off the tops of the trees in the hedge did or did not constitute maintenance. Mr Jones won the right to trim the hedge and has apparently trimmed the hedge for four years running and spent £650 in so doing. He hopes to regain that money via the small claims court. However, Mr Stanton has apparently now planted another leylandii inside his garden. Since that leylandii is on his side of the boundary, it is questionable whether anything can be done about it".
  That is the enormous extent to which a situation that ought to be capable of being resolved between two neighbours can reach.
  I shall tell noble Lords of my experience when I bought my house. A massive leylandii fence stood between my back garden and the garden of my neighbour's house. When the house in question was built, my house and the others like it were not there. At some time in the past a previous owner decided to build a leylandii hedge to mask the sight of our houses from his. I do not object to that. However, the trouble was that, having been planted as dwarf trees, the leylandii were now around 30 feet high.
  I spoke to the friend from whom I had bought my house. He responded that, "You can try with that neighbour, but you'll get nowhere. We've been sent away with a flea in our ear". I realised that I was duty

  605
  bound to say something and set off to see my neighbour to ask him whether he would be neighbourly. I discovered that the man had only been in the house for a short period. He told me that he had a neighbour along the street who had just had his hedge trimmed and that he ought to have had his done at the same time. Within a fortnight of me calling round, my neighbour had trimmed his hedge. He did not trim it as low as I would have liked, but he had done it willingly.
  I believe that most of the disputes of which we hear could be resolved if suitable arbitration or conciliation arrangements were in place. I look upon Option 4, set out in the consultation paper, as giving the community, through the council, an opportunity to say, "Look, let us be reasonable". If the offending neighbour refuses to be reasonable then the local authority will have powers to lay a duty on that person to do what is necessary to reduce the fence. If that person does not comply, there will be penalties.
  Michael Jones has asked me to say how delighted he and his friends are at the production of the consultation paper. They believe that the Bill before us may help a great deal. In a recent letter to me Michael Jones states that:
  "Victims are old and weak and not able to stand up to an aggressive neighbour … Victims need something now—many old ones are dying—and not in peace. It is a gentle Bill which will convey the opinion of the Government that an injustice exists and [they are] willing to adjust the level of the playing field a little—at the moment the law is completely on the side of the perpetrator".
  Once more I congratulate the noble Baroness on taking the time and trouble to bring the Bill before the House. I believe that the Government will welcome this short debate because it provides my noble friend with an opportunity to give us the up to date position on the information that has been provided. My noble friend may rest assured that if, in the future, difficulties arise from whatever quarter, then on both sides of the House support is available in the shape, personality and charm of the noble Baroness and, of course, myself. We shall be more than happy to go in to bat in order to defend the Minister.
  7.47 p.m.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in the gap to express my support for the Bill and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Parkes, on her initiative and the convincing arguments she has presented to the House in support of the measure.
  I have also intervened because I have spent many years seeking protection for the countryside, and in particular for hedgerows. However, I accept that in cases where good neighbourliness has not applied, a measure of this kind is necessary. I express the hope that the Bill will soon become law and that those offending hedges will be reduced to heights which are not a nuisance, preferably when the bird breeding season is over.
  I also express the hope that, just as Parliament would like to see this desirable legislation put in place, we shall also soon see the necessary steps taken by Her
  606
  Majesty's Government to secure the wider protection of rural hedgerows. They need a far greater degree and scale of protection than they have received so far.
  7.48 p.m.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for introducing the Bill and for explaining it in her customarily clear manner.
  Some years ago I heard a talk on the radio that envisaged the whole of suburban England disappearing into a forest of leyland cypress at some point around the year 2000. Tempting though this might be in certain circumstances, certain knowledgeable people have realised for some time the fact that the leyland cypress is not a shrub or a hedging tree. In the words of Hillier's catalogue, it is,
  "A large, noble tree of dense columnar habit and extremely vigorous growth".
  The RHS dictionary gives the ultimate size as 25 to 30 metres—that is 80 to 100 feet in old measurement—with a spread of four to five metres. In other words, it is totally unsuitable for any other than very large gardens or parks, where it makes a magnificent display.
  This tree has been planted for hedging in enormous quantities since the 1960s—hence the forest analogy. One reason is that, because of its rate of growth, it is easy to bring it to that "nice little size" where the customer thinks, "That's a nice little tree to plant for my hedge", and goes out and does so. The trees that were planted 13 years ago are probably 80 feet high now, so we must take the matter seriously.
  Sales of this tree have begun to slow down following all the discussions about it last year. However, a catalogue for this spring that I have at home still blithely reassures potential buyers that Leyland cypress is perfectly suitable for hedging if kept under control by trimming. There is the rub. The thing grows three to four feet a year and goes on growing at that rate, however old it is. That is the extraordinary thing. It does not seem to slow down very much. However, one must not let oneself be distracted by Leyland cypress; this debate is about hedges.
  Boundaries in general and noise are the two major causes of inter-neighbour dispute in which everyone in a local authority becomes absorbed at one point or another. A number of hedges apart from leylandii can be a definite nuisance. I do not know how many noble Lords try to clear up around a holly hedge. The thickest of thick gloves are needed to protect oneself from the prickles on dead holly leaves. Yew has poisonous berries. Laurel quickly becomes extremely thick and needs hand pruning rather than trimming. Leaf litter can be messy in the autumn. When the leaves have fallen, the bare branches of some hedges do not preserve privacy. Unless there is a fence as well as a hedge, the hedge can let animals through. The neighbour, as well as the owner of a hedge, is obliged to prune, clip, cut or trim it. So there is a problem.

  607
  In that respect, the Bill is timely. Last year, a great deal of amusement was to be had from a campaign run by the Daily Mail, and more serious campaigners such as Hedgeline, which was formed by people who have been battered by the disputes that arise from hedges and are campaigning for a solution, have also played a part in attracting people's interest to this problem.
  Our colleagues in another place welcomed the activities of the two MPs, Mr Rowe and Mr Jim Cunningham (to distinguish him from the other Cunninghams currently in the House of Commons), and supported the Bills that were put forward. They were similar, or ithntical, to the one that is before the House today. I join in that support.
  As the noble Baroness pointed out, if one proposes to build, or builds, a fence or wall on a boundary—that includes boundaries in the countryside; the Bill does not merely refer to residential areas—that fence or wall must be limited. One cannot build a wall 30 feet high between oneself and one's neighbour, however much one dislikes the neighbour.
  I undertook a small amount of consultation today. I can confirm that, locally, the consultation paper issued by the Government last year is being taken seriously. My mini-consultation turned up a 100 per cent decision to respond to the paper and the local authorities involved are currently about to discuss it. Officers are still working on the paper.
  In one local authority, the tree officer is already carrying out part of the conciliation role envisaged by the Bill and has available for issue the Government's recent leaflet, The right hedge for you. That is a very proactive local government officer. An equivalent officer in another local authority is rather less proactive. Both have mentioned a point that no one else has mentioned; namely, that the visual effect of a hedge can be important from a wider perspective than simply the boundary line between two properties. Hedges play a part in the local suburban and even urban landscape. To take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, if in suburban and urban areas fences were substituted for all the hedges, there would be real loss of amenity in general in those parts of England. A balance has to be struck, in this as in so many other matters.
  The only query that I have in regard to the Bill is whether its introduction comes at the right time. I know that the doctrine of the "unright time" is one which is too often prayed in aid. Nevertheless, with the consultation paper currently out and the response expected some time this spring, I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point. Do the Government feel that it is the right time to bring forward a piece of legislation, even if it is broadly in sympathy with one of the proposals in the White Paper.
  With that reservation, we can give a warm welcome at least to the intentions behind the Bill.
  7.57 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes on bringing forward this small and relatively simple Bill. It is not easy, as we have heard, to deal with the question of trees, particularly overgrown evergreens, in urban areas. But an urban environment without any trees would be even worse. Not least among the problems that lie behind the Bill is the fact that we are discussing unreasonable behaviour by some individuals. I always think how tragic it is when, now and again, the necessity arises to legislate in order to control the unreasonable behaviour of certain individuals.
  I speak as one who has a leylandii hedge. Sometimes I wish I had not planted it, but I have had it many years. I am all too aware of the immense hard work that such hedges create. However, there is no doubt that they are absolutely controllable, and, when properly controlled, they make a satisfactory green hedge or sidescreen. So whatever is the result of the Government's consultation, I hope that it will not come up with a ban on the dreaded Cupressus leylandii. It is not the Cupressus leylandii that is at fault; it is those who plant them.
  The Bill suggests an ingenious solution to controlling the problem, using the Environmental Protection Act, in effect giving local authorities the right to judge whether nuisance is being created between neighbours. That is not unreasonable. Local authorities may not like the additional burden, but they are used to undertaking that task. There is a minor resource implication which I have no doubt the local authority association will throw into the debate with the Government at some point, but we need not concern ourselves with it tonight.
  If the person who owns the hedge does not like the local authority's judgment under the Environmental Protection Act, he has the right of appeal to the magistrates' court. It can take a decision and if the court decides that the complainant is in the right and the person complained against does nothing, there is a heavy level of fines, up to scale five, £5,000. There are even additional penalties above that in the event that corrective action is not taken. So we are talking about a serious matter.
  In principle, what lies behind this little Bill is absolutely correct. I hope that the Government will consider, whatever happens as a result of their consultation, that this route or method of control might be the appropriate way to deal with the matter, even if, in the end, they do not accept the wording of the Bill.
  We must face another rather awkward reality. It is that the problem is not confined to unneighbourliness and cupressus leylandii hedges. In a different way, I bumped into a colleague in my office, my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. Last winter he installed a satellite dish for his television set. It worked well and he was happy and rejoiced in the programmes he could get. Come about May, the picture began to go fuzzy until it finally disappeared. But it was his own trees

  609
  causing the problem, it was not a question of neighbourliness. In that instance his problem was that he lives in an urban conservation area and he had to obtain permission from the local trees officer to prune his trees—which he does every three years anyway. He has to pay £25 and apply for planning permission every time he does it.
  That is a nuisance and a potential source of a great deal of unneighbourliness. People may plant trees which are all right and satisfactory from the point of view of the environment. But if they get between someone's satellite dish and the satellite, they may well be the cause of bad feeling. We need to consider it.
  There is another aspect. Trees can also come between people and mobile phones. That does not matter if you are out on the street, using the mobile phone away from the home. Many people do not bother now to get landlines and have a permanent phone, they just work from mobile phones. Again, a tree could cause problems, if the tree happens to be between the house and the nearest aerial mast.
  There are a number of other aspects to the problem that may cause unneighbourly feelings which merit consideration, before we finally say "yes" to something of this nature. So although I welcome the Bill, I hope my noble friend will forgive me if I say that I see it as a part of the consultation process that must go on. There are wider aspects to the whole subject. If we are to have legislation it needs to be something which will provide a satisfactory solution, not just to the big issues of boundary hedges, but the wider issue of potential interference with other modern amenities which people take for granted but which could be interfered with in an unfortunate way.
  The definition of hedges in this little Bill is not adequate to deal with the problems that may arise from trees in urban areas. Therefore, we need to think carefully about the Bill. Nevertheless, the way in which it sets out to tackle the problem seems to me wholly commendable. I hope that after the Government have finished their consultation on the issue they will look with great care at using this route as a possible means of resolving matters. By and large, the cases we have heard about should never have come to be public issues in the first place. Au fond, they are matters of human behaviour and humans behaving unreasonably against the interests of the wider community. It is never a pleasure when one finds that happening and I know that we all wish that it did not. Unfortunately, one could argue that all legislation is only necessary because of human weakness.
  I support my noble friend, but we need to consider the matter a little more carefully and take it further before we devise a final form for the legislation.
  8.6 p.m.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for introducing her Bill on residential hedgerows and for stimulating this debate.
  610
  It is said that there is an old English proverb for every occasion and today's debate is no exception. Apparently there is a proverb that runs as follows:
  "He that plants trees loves others besides himself".
  If only that were a universal truth.
  Unfortunately, some of the stories recounted today have shown that not everyone who plants trees has such good intentions at heart. We have been told about terrible conditions inflicted on people by ill-advised planting or lack of maintenance of boundary hedges. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said, cupressus leylandii has been mentioned but it is not the only culprit.
  The most frequently mentioned problems, including those referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, are the reduction in light to homes and gardens and the blocking of views which may be views of the countryside or coast. It can cause difficulty with growing plants near the hedges and worries that roots might lead to property subsidence.
  All those factors can lead to a general sense of aggression, being blocked in, a feeling that people's enjoyment of their homes and gardens has been spoilt. I join with noble Lords who referred to the scale of the problem faced by some people, including the elderly. A quiet word with the owner to point out the harmful effects of the hedge may be all that is needed, as my noble friend Lord Graham said. But when such an approach is rebuffed, the trouble seems to escalate. That has happened in all too many cases, leading to serious, lengthy and costly disputes, graphically illustrated by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner and my noble friend Lord Graham.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, it is a shame that the bad experiences of some may end up discouraging other people from growing hedges in their gardens. We all benefit from the pleasure of a well tended hedge. A good hedge can make an effective weather and dust filter, it is inexpensive and long lived and can encourage wild life and create a feature of beauty and interest in its own right.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, if treated properly even leylandii—I confess to having a small number in my garden—can become an effective hedge. I join with the noble Lord in pointing out that they require a good deal of work and have a habit of growing at their most prolific rate during the time when noble Lords with party-political inclinations are involved in local elections. It would be wrong to condemn all hedges because of the problems caused by some.
  The Government recognise that many people suffer under the shadow of very high boundary hedges and that the matter is of wider public concern. As noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, recognised, that is why we have taken the subject seriously and published a consultation paper. We are looking at responses to proposals that include both voluntary and legislative action as a means of dealing with it. The consultation period closes on 31st January. I assure all noble Lords, in particular the noble

  611
  Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that the Government have an open mind at this stage about the best way forward. All options have merit but obviously some have limitations.
  I hope that the noble Baroness does not consider that I am being negative if I refer to some of the issues. It is useful to place them on record while people are still able to respond. Cur investigations have raised doubts about the effectiveness of the proposal in the Bill to add boundary hedges to the list of statutory nuisances in Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That Act was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. During the passage of that legislation Parliament considered whether the definition of statutory nuisance should be widened, for example to include nuisance from food and security lights. It was concluded that statutory nuisance legislation was not the most appropriate way to deal with these problems. Among the issues considered were the additional burdens that such a move might place on local authority resources. For all of us with experience of local government, there is the additional difficulty of making what must be in many cases subjective judgments in dealing with the issue.
  My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton referred to the cost to local authorities of implementing the legislation. That matter is discussed in the draft regulatory impact assessment which forms part of the consultation paper. We are therefore alive to the issue and shall take account of the resource implications. The effect of such a change to the law will be to give environmental health officers powers to investigate hedge problems and, where they are considered to constitute a statutory nuisance, to order remedial action. However, as the consultation paper indicates (for those who wish to check it, the reference is paragraph 3.13), Section 79 already defines statutory nuisance as including,
  "any premises in sue.' a state to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance".
  For these purposes, "premises" includes land as well as buildings and so may cover hedges if they are prejudicial to health or are a common law nuisance.
  In theory, the remedy exists and no change to the law is necessary. In practice, however, no one has successfully used these provisions to solve hedge problems because existing case law (not involving hedges) suggests flat, in deciding whether something is a statutory nuisance, account should be taken of the background and intentions of the legislation. These are concerned with issues of public health and mean that there must be a direct risk of disease or illness for the matter to be a statutory nuisance. For example, if someone could show that dust particles in the hedge foliage caused or aggravated respiratory problems or an allergy he might be able to use these provisions to remedy the situation. Where the person suffers stress-related illnesses, which we believe account for the vast majority of nuisance hedge cases, it is likely to be difficult to prove that the hedge rather than the dispute with the neighbour is the cause. To add hedges to the
  612
  list of statutory nuisances will not remove these difficulties. It appears to the Government that the approach in this Bill may be of no more use than the existing provisions in controlling boundary hedges.
  Noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas of Walliswood and Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised the issue of the possible extension to hedges of the current planning control system which places limits on the height of walls and fences. Our study of the matter suggests that to bring the height of hedges within planning law may be disproportionate. Such controls would apply to all hedges, existing ones as well as any planted in the future, regardless of whether they caused problems. It would mean a spate of activity because to keep within the law owners would have to seek permission if their hedge exceeded a specified height limit. This would involve a major effort on the part of both hedge owners, including the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and myself, and local authorities. Such a solution would also have other practical difficulties. For example, people might be uncertain as to at what point a growing hedge exceeded the height limit and thus required planning permission.
  Whatever else the Government decide should be done to help people who are caught in these disputes it will never be enough simply to react after the problems have arisen. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood said, it is important that people are aware of the potential problem. The leaflet to which the noble Baroness referred gives useful advice to people about how to select the most suitable types of hedging plant for their gardens. Perhaps I should check whether those who are involved in party-political activity have a particular warning about the growing season coinciding with local elections. That leaflet shows alternative kinds of hedging plants that might be more suitable. It is important that we have been able to work with those involved in the horticultural industry to seek to ensure that problems do not arise in future.
  Two other questions were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, raised the problem of interference with mobile telephones. Very early in my career in government I got into some difficulty at this Dispatch Box because I was unaware that mobile telephone masts disguised as plastic trees were acceptable in some parts of the country. I hesitate to comment on the problem experienced by his noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara.
  My noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath referred to the general issue of the protection of hedgerows. We share his concern. We must take care that any legislation in respect of residential garden hedges does not conflict with those aims. We are currently considering how the existing hedgerow protection legislation enshrined in the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 may be improved.
  This debate shows that there is widespread and continuing concern about the problems caused by high boundary hedges. Although I have expressed reservations about the efficacy of the statutory

  613
  nuisance approach in this Bill, the Government have an open mind on all the options during the period of consultation.
  I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton that in considering all these responses we will endeavour always to make sure that we can see the wood despite the trees. We can all make puns, as my noble friend knows. In response to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, we will, in the light of responses to the consultation, be looking forward to what the Government can do to relieve this source of long running and distressing neighbour disputes.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friend talks in terms of the closing date for receipt of consultation being at the end of this month. Has she anything to say about when the Government will pronounce their views on the consultation?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is far more experienced than I am in your Lordships' House and knows that I am not in a position to give a definitive response. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, also raised this question with me in advance of the debate and raised the point that we will give very fair consideration that the Bill may be amended with her agreement were we to respond following the closing of the consultation. But I am not in a position to give a time-scale for the end of the consultation period and the Government's response to the points raised. We will take account of all the points that have been raised during the consultation. We will, in particular, have very great regard to the knowledge and importance of the issues that were raised during this debate as we strive to develop what this debate has made quite clear—what we all view as the need to identify practical common-sense solutions.
  8.21 p.m.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. We have had some very valuable contributions.
  I should begin by saying that amendments can be made to the Bill either in this House or in another place if the Government feel they are necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to the definition of a hedge. The consultation document sets out that a civil legal judgment—I imagine that it was the Jones case—defined a hedge as,
  "a number of wooded plants, whether capable of growing into trees or not, which are so planted as to be intended to be in line and which, when mature, to be so integrated together as to form both a screen and a barrier".
  Although the consultation document points out that the nature of that case—the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton made the point—means that it does not constitute a legal precedent, I remember Mr Jones telling me that the judge asked how one should define a hedge and then drew up that definition. It seems to me a very good one. Therefore, it would be very easy
  614
  to incorporate such a definition in the Bill by amendment. Certainly, the Government suggest in the consultation document using it as a basis of defining a hedge. That is very important.
  Various points have been raised and I shall run through them. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, mentioned Mr Andrew Rowe's Bill. That was a much more complex Bill. It aimed at the same end, but the complexity of it made it a less satisfactory Bill than Mr Jim Cunningham's Bill. The very simplicity of this Bill makes it more effective. Mr Andrew Rowe started this whole process; we owe him thanks for that. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, also said that people are looking for hope. That is absolutely right. People are reaching a point where they feel that at long last there may be a chance of something happening.
  A number of speakers, including my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and the Minister, mentioned cost and the issue of whether local authorities would face a financial burden. There are many areas in which local authorities are entitled to charge fees. Certainly, all planning applications are in that category. It may be that there is a case for local authorities being entitled to charge for such a service. I think it would be unfair to impose an additional financial burden on local authorities. But, again, that could be decided by regulation and not necessarily in primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said that 5,200 cases were reported to local authorities last year. He also said that Mr Jones had trimmed the hedge between the properties. And, yes, he confirmed to me the other day that he still trims that hedge annually. It is the right to trim the second hedge that has taken all these years. It is only because of it being a covenanted and managed estate, the Bournville Estate, and it is the estate owners who have been able to enforce covenants. That option is not open to most people, particularly if they are in a freehold property.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, for his contribution. I remember very well his debate early last year. That debate, which was of great interest to all of us, concerned country hedgerows. I remember discussing the difference between the residential situation and the rural one. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said that some places are half rural—my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith made the same point—there is in the Bill great discretion for the local authority. The local authority will know whether the hedge is a great asset, a great beauty, in the area, whether everyone wants to retain it, and whether the person complaining is being unreasonable; or whether, on the other hand, those involved have lost all their light, all their amenity. I think that we really should appreciate the experience and understanding of local authorities in these matters.
  Opposite my home in Oxfordshire, which is in a conservation area, neighbours applied to convert a barn into a house. I thought that was a good idea because it was a disused property. I wrote to the local authority supporting the proposal. The property has a stone wall. But then I looked out one day and the stone

  615
  wall was so high that it cut out my entire view. The point was made that hedges can do the same thing. I went over to the will and measured it. It was 3.5 metres high. Additional stones had been put on top. I contacted the local authority but it told the owners of the property to apply for retrospective permission—and they obtained it. That is appalling. Had they said on the original application that they wanted to build the barn and add another 1.5 metres to the wall, I would have supported the conversion of the barn but would have asked the council to impose a condition to keep the wall at the historic height. The visual impact, whether of a hedgerow or of a wall, matters to people. It certainly matters to me, as I look out at that blank wall. I have been trying to encourage the owners to grow some ivy on it in order to improve the appearance. It is a nice stone wall but it is a great barrier. The visual impact of these hedges is an important aspect but it is not the only one.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that the Bill deals with matters of human behaviour. That is absolutely right. We are talking about anti-social behaviour. My Bill on noise was a parallel measure. For years and years, if people had to complain about noise they had to become personally and directly involved themselves. That was a great deterrent because the neighbour, knowing that you were the person who had complained, came in and said what he or she would do to you if you did not withdraw your complaint very quickly. But my Bill on noise brought in an independent decibel measurement and a means whereby someone who was not directly and personally involved in the issue was able to intervene. I believe that it has worked very well.
  There may have been a time when there was not enough anti-social behaviour for us to need to legislate, but over the past few years there has been considerable support for all the measures dealing with anti-social behaviour. I think in particular of such behaviour on estates—people had stopped wanting to live on such estates because of the anti-social behaviour of others. Everyone realises that anti-social behaviour is an important issue.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that we do not want a ban on hedges. Of course we do not. I am not suggesting that for a minute. During my speech, I made the point that perhaps in a large area a delightful hedge which does not take too much light from anyone is the very thing one wants. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to his own leylandii—I confirm what the Minister said that leylandii are not the only culprits—and said that he controls them. That is what the Bill is about. It does not propose a ban or abolition. It is a measure to control hedges to a reasonable height. I think that the noble Lord brought in red herrings with regard to satellite dishes and mobile phones.
  616
  The conservation area point is an important one. In my Oxfordshire village there is a hedge of leylandii which is close to 100 feet high. It goes along someone's boundary on the road, so it does not affect anyone in terms of light. But the property has changed hands. The elderly people who live there did not do anything about them and the people who bought the house have had to go to all kinds of trouble to obtain planning permission to reduce their height. The suggestion that was put forward by someone—I think it was put forward as a negative rather than a positive suggestion—that we should control all hedges and demand that all hedges should be kept to a certain height is nonsense. Not for a moment does the Bill suggest such a thing.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, pointed out how well the quiet word of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, had worked on his neighbour. I think that the quiet word of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, would be a little more effective than the quiet word of an elderly and possibly timid old soul. I do not know that I would not react favourably if the noble Lord, Lord Graham, came round and had a quiet word with me. It depends on the person approaching you as well as what he is saying and also the attitude of the person you are approaching. Some people are unhelpful whatever your approach.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said that the statutory nuisance route may not be the best way of dealing with this problem. I must ask her: what is the best way? The Bill is a way, and a good way, and no one else has come up with a better alternative. The noble Baroness said that local authority judgments must be subjective. Of course they must. Every local authority judgment is subjective. It is suggested in paragraph 3.27 of the document that guidelines would be put forward. That is very desirable. But at the end of the day it comes down to a subjective judgment. Unless something can be scientifically measured—perhaps a sample of bad food where the contamination level can be assessed scientifically—there are always subjective judgments. In any planning matter certain things are clear cut, such as whether a building is taking away the light or whether it infringes someone else's property. But the aesthetics of planning are very much a subjective judgment for every planning authority.
  On the Minister's recommendation, I looked up paragraph 3.13 of the consultation paper, which says that there is no need to do anything because all the powers already exist. If that were really a practical matter, people would be using those powers now, but it is almost impossible for people in terms of cost and time. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, said that this has cost 20 years in terms of time. What is 20 years in most people's lives? It is a fairly large slice wasted in arguing over a distressing matter of a hedge that could he dealt with so simply under my Bill.

  617
  The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, referred to stress. Hedgeline has quoted to me cases in which people have died because of stress leading to a heart attack. It believes that such cases have been directly linked to the aggravation caused by these problems. The noble Baroness also referred to the existing provisions for controlling hedges. What did she mean by that? I am not aware of any existing provisions.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall check what I said by reading Hansard carefully. I am clear that I intended to refer to the existing provision for dealing with a statutory nuisance.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. That makes sense.
  I emphasise that not every hedge becomes a nuisance. The procedure would start with a complaint by someone that he or she was adversely affected. The procedure would then start to roll. Although it is suggested in the Environment Protection Act that local authorities themselves might go round looking for problems, my experience is that local authorities have enough problems to deal with without going to look for them. They would wait until someone made a complaint. But when that
  618
  complaint was made, they would investigate the situation and the particular case. That would be good.
  The Minister said that after the results of the consultation the Bill might be a vehicle. If there were anything to be gained by holding back later stages of the Bill until after the consultation exercise, I would certainly arrange that.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, for the record, it is important that I stress that I acknowledged that this question had been raised and undertook to consider it as an option.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I understood exactly what the Minister said in that respect. I was the person who said to the noble Baroness that the result of the consultation might be such that this vehicle would be appropriate. If it is the appropriate vehicle, the possibility of amending the Bill should perhaps be held over a little longer. Otherwise I would press to move on with the other stages of the Bill after what I hope will be its successful Second Reading today. However, we can discuss at a later stage whether there is any advantage in holding back action on the next stage of the Bill. Meanwhile, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before nine o'clock.

  Football Licensing Authority
  Football Licensing Authority
  Historic Cinemas
  Historic Cinemas
  Tourism Forum
  Tourism Forum
  Cenotaph: Laying and Removal of Wreaths
  Cenotaph: Laying and Removal of Wreaths
  Football: Women's World Cup
  Football: Women's World Cup
  Playing of Football by Women
  Playing of Football by Women
  BBC Online: Funding
  BBC Online: Funding
  Sports Tourism: Contribution to UK Economy
  Sports Tourism: Contribution to UK Economy
  Local Radio Development: North London Licence Option
  Local Radio Development: North London Licence Option
  Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon
  Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon
  EU Membership: Withdrawal
  EU Membership: Withdrawal
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Trepca Mines, Kosovo
  Trepca Mines, Kosovo
  Ibero-American Summit,: Declaration
  Ibero-American Summit,: Declaration
  Diplomatic Posts: Open Competition
  Diplomatic Posts: Open Competition
  UN Security Council
  UN Security Council
  European Commission Administration
  European Commission Administration
  European Court of Human Rights: Assistance to UK Applicants
  European Court of Human Rights: Assistance to UK Applicants
  Angola
  Angola
  Withholding Tax Proposal
  Withholding Tax Proposal
  Ufl Ltd
  Ufl Ltd
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Secondary Schools
  Secondary Schools
  Holiday-taking and Disability
  Holiday-taking and Disability
  Primary School Pupils: Spelling Tests
  Primary School Pupils: Spelling Tests
  Gurkha Pensions
  Gurkha Pensions
  Meningitis C Vaccine
  Meningitis C Vaccine
  Public Health Observatories
  Public Health Observatories
  Haemophiliacs: Factor 8 and Deaths from Hepatitis C
  Haemophiliacs: Factor 8 and Deaths from Hepatitis C
  Breast Pumps
  Breast Pumps
  Primary Care Groups: Complementary Medicine
  Primary Care Groups: Complementary Medicine
  British Fluoridation Society: Government Support
  British Fluoridation Society: Government Support
  Removal and Retention of Tissues at Post Mortem
  Removal and Retention of Tissues at Post Mortem
  Disabled 16 and 17 year-olds: Direct Payments
  Disabled 16 and 17 year-olds: Direct Payments
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  London Taxis
  London Taxis
  DVLA Response Time
  DVLA Response Time
  Sheep Dip Disposal: DETR Licences
  Sheep Dip Disposal: DETR Licences
  Long-distance Footpaths: Unauthorised Use of Motor Vehicles
  Long-distance Footpaths: Unauthorised Use of Motor Vehicles
  Fly-tipping
  Fly-tipping
  Roadside Speed Cameras
  Roadside Speed Cameras
  Single Burn Item Test
  Single Burn Item Test
  Toxic Smoke from Ignited Construction Products
  Toxic Smoke from Ignited Construction Products
  Common Land: Management
  Common Land: Management
  Single Room Rent Restriction
  Single Room Rent Restriction
  Child Support Agency: Administrative Costs
  Child Support Agency: Administrative Costs
  Social Security Benefit: 16 to 17 year-olds
  Social Security Benefit: 16 to 17 year-olds
  Social Security Benefit: Cost of Any Increase
  Social Security Benefit: Cost of Any Increase
  Organophosphate Sheep Dips
  Organophosphate Sheep Dips
  Welsh Local Authorities: Financial Support
  Welsh Local Authorities: Financial Support